Nole's defeat in slam finals

[DarthFed]

I'd separate it between matches he lost where he was understandably overwhelmed and then the rest. In the 1st category you have 2007 and 2010 USO and 2012 RG.

The others are all matches coming in that you figure Nole had at least a pretty solid chance in. For my money the worst were the 2 Murray matches. In one he was the big favorite but kind of stunk it up in the wind and then wilted in the 5th. At Wimbledon I expected Nole to lose a tough one but he went down easy in straights, blowing leads badly in all 3 sets. Yesterday may have been the most understandable of the losses given how Stan played even though Nole was the huge favorite going in. Last year was pretty poorly played for the most part as both he and Nadal had physical issues by the end. And in 2013 USO Nole took until the 2nd set to show up and then he got up 3-1 in the 3rd, disappeared for a few games and then Rafa took the 3rd set after a couple tough games at the end and then Nole gave up.

Nole has to be one of the unluckiest players in some of these situations! You have the opponent who's on a roll playing well, Nole pulls back just a little on his groundstrokes and the next thing you see, "he blinks" on long rallies! When that starts happening, he panics like any other player; S & V into a cannon, excessive drop-shotting, and not receiving any free points on serve, spinning them in! He's doomed psychologically and is guaranteed to lose! :cover

I don't know about "has to be one of the unluckiest players". The AO 2012 win over Rafa was very fortunate for him and it stings for the Rafa fans just like the 09 US0 loss to JMDP for the FedFans.

Nah, the 2012 AO was the mirror image of the 2013 semi between the same two players. The man who was better throughout somehow lost a 4th set they had no business losing and then fell behind an early break in the 5th before righting the ship. That wasn't a fortunate win for Nole, that was fortunate for Rafa that he made it to a 5th. Similar with Roger at SW19 last year, mostly outplayed but almost in position to win in the end after stealing the 4th out of nowhere.

 

[BIG3]

If by score only, he had two straight sets only. Very decent chance in 2007 USO, but couldn't take it. We can give him a pass for his virgin show. Very poor on 2012 Wimbledon. It is the ONLY final that he didn't have any momentum/upper-hand through the whole match.

On all the other finals, he had clear upper hand, either at the start or mid-match, but couldn't sustain. In a way, I think he is mentally/physically exhausted to get FINAL. Where do we see Nole came through a 5 sets in SF then took trophy? AO both SF and final in the evening. Absolutely help. 2011 USO at his peak and luck on his side, plus H2H vs Rafa momentum. 2013 Wimbledon vs Delpo, 2013 USO vs Stan, 2015 RG vs Murray, all classic 5 sets SF. It was thrilling to see him win in these tight matches, but unfortunately he didn't much reserve to give another run.

In Fed's prime, he only needed to show his best in final of HC and grass. Rafa didn't even need to bring his best to win the whole tournament on clay. Nole can book final ticket in AO with consecutive evening play, but he has to fight hard on the other three.

So, under-perform in final or over-perform in semi?

 

[Fiero425]

I'd separate it between matches he lost where he was understandably overwhelmed and then the rest. In the 1st category you have 2007 and 2010 USO and 2012 RG.

The others are all matches coming in that you figure Nole had at least a pretty solid chance in. For my money the worst were the 2 Murray matches. In one he was the big favorite but kind of stunk it up in the wind and then wilted in the 5th. At Wimbledon I expected Nole to lose a tough one but he went down easy in straights, blowing leads badly in all 3 sets. Yesterday may have been the most understandable of the losses given how Stan played even though Nole was the huge favorite going in. Last year was pretty poorly played for the most part as both he and Nadal had physical issues by the end. And in 2013 USO Nole took until the 2nd set to show up and then he got up 3-1 in the 3rd, disappeared for a few games and then Rafa took the 3rd set after a couple tough games at the end and then Nole gave up.

Nole has to be one of the unluckiest players in some of these situations! You have the opponent who's on a roll playing well, Nole pulls back just a little on his groundstrokes and the next thing you see, "he blinks" on long rallies! When that starts happening, he panics like any other player; S & V into a cannon, excessive drop-shotting, and not receiving any free points on serve, spinning them in! He's doomed psychologically and is guaranteed to lose! :cover

I don't know about "has to be one of the unluckiest players". The AO 2012 win over Rafa was very fortunate for him and it stings for the Rafa fans just like the 09 US0 loss to JMDP for the Fed-Fans.

After serving for '12 AO final in the 4th set, Nole certainly was lucky to take it after giving away his lead going down a break in the 5th! That's why I'm not going to be that upset about this past FO loss! He'll make it right eventually! :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think 2013 Wimbledon, 2013 USO and 2014 RG are the three matches in which Novak could have performed better. I am fine with his other losses.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, he did okay in the US Open final of 2013, just came up against a Rafa who was rolling through the summer hards as if they were European clay, circa 2010. The matches I would be most critical of him are the two Murray finals, the Wimbledon semi-final in 2012, the US Open semi last year, and then we have the Melzer match at Paris in 2010, Berdy at Wimbledon in 2010. The "Roddick US Open" where Novak basically tanked a match because the crowd didn't like him.

I guess I hear a screech somewhere, a somebody screaming, "Doh! They were before 2011, they don't count, they weren't No1e 2.0" etc, but they were still indicative of a trait. Wimbledon 2008. They've been dotted around his career. But he's worked his socks off to eradicate the trait, though not fully. I admire the bloke more for overcoming this side of him, than I would blame him for his lapses. He's a nice bloke but more often than not nowadays, he's a ruthless killer with a smile....

 

[brokenshoelace]

That said, it's true that being 8-8 in slam finals is a poor record for a player of his caliber, no matter how we look at it.

I think he should be given a complete pass for his first two losses in slam finals. The 2007 US Open final mentioned above and the 2010 US Open final. In case of the latter, that was the first time Novak rediscovered his slam form in a while and Nadal was just a better player back then, playing the best tennis of his career. Novak just wasn't ready. His game wasn't quite where it needed to be and his shaky serve was a big indicator.

After that it gets interesting. I think the conditions were the main determining factor in his loss to Rafa at the FO in 2012. It started out hot, which pretty much means no chance against Nadal, and Novak was really having a hard time timing the ball and finding his range. Then when conditions became cool, he started seeing the ball like a Basketball in set 3 and completely blew Nadal off the court. Rain forced the match to be stopped, they came out the following day in hot conditions, and Nadal did his thing. Keep in mind that mentally, it was easier for Nadal as the momentum was all Novak when the match was stopped and when they came out the next day, Nadal knew all he had to do is win a set and he's the champ. Mentally, that's a huge challenge for Novak because you're coming out for what is essentially another match knowing that if you lose a set you're out.

Conditions again played a part in his loss to Murray as the wind really affected him. When it calmed down, he raised his game. He did kinda fall apart in the final set though.

The 2013 loss to Murray at Wimbledon is probably his most inexcusable performance. Murray was playing better tennis then and looked more comfortable on grass (always did actually), but Novak was extremely poor.

I thought he played OK against Nadal at the US Open in 2013, but again it came to who's the more in form, confident player at that moment, which it often comes down to. He probably would have been disappointed in not winning the third set (which again comes back to form and confidence. It's not a coincidence Nadal played the big points better) and especially, being unable to put up any resistance after that.

I thought he was poor in last year's FO final all around. Disappointing performance, honestly. Nadal was vulnerable coming into that tournament and I'd argue of all the finals he played at RG, that was when he was there for the taking the most. Nevertheless, it turned out to be a hot day and you know what that means, especially that Nadal played some inspired tennis in sets 2 and 3.

Didn't think there was much he could have done against Stan. Sometimes, $hit happens.

This is too generous to excuse Nole''s loss. Yes, I see that he lost to wind more than Murray in 2012 USO. But all four majors are played in summer time and supposed to be hot and dry. Is it too much to ask something like 2012 RG cool and wet? AO is the only final played in the evening. Is it the most critical factor helping him, compared his poor performance on the other three?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm also not excusing Novak's losses considering my very first statement was "8-8 is a poor record for a player of his caliber no matter how we look at it."

 

[BIG3]

It is really not easy to be a Nole's fan. He gives you high hope everywhere, yes, including RG, but he ended up poorly in slam finals, due to all reasons. Too many heartbreaking final loss. Maybe I should see him heavy favorite only in AO and indoor tournament, co-favorite or even underdog elsewhere. It might make me calm and accept his defeat at peace.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

 

[DarthFed]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

^ That is a great debate. Sure a final is more money and more ranking points but is someone who loses a ton of finals better than a different player who makes far fewer but wins the same amount? For my money if all things are equal I will take the player who was best when the stakes were highest. That's why I slightly favor Pete over Roger at Wimbledon as an example.

Same argument is present in other sports. Brady and Montana are tied at 4 rings and the former has 2 more SB appearances but when you look at the fact Montana never lost one and was way better statistically in the big game it makes a lot of people side with Joe. Part of the Jordan greatness is that he never lost on the biggest stage, never even let it get to a game 7.

I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it. Is there a greater laughing stock than the 90's Bills? I guarantee you it will be a long long time before another team reaches 4 SB's in a row but nobody is going to give them an ounce of credit for losing 4 times when it matters most.

 

[Kieran]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

It could be true, but for example, with Murray I'd say that, give him props for getting there, because then he's only losing to Roger or Novak in finals. But the problem with Novak is, maybe that 8-8 could be 10-6? It's not the 8-8 that bugs, it's the manner of a couple of defeats. Throw in some semi-finals that he could have done better in, and we see that although he's a great, he's probably got less than he could have...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

It's kind of a false dilemma. Considering he DID make 16 finals (which is better than only making 8, I agree), then he should have done better.

But, if we're presenting two hypothetical propositions regarding which one is better, 8-8 or 8-0, it's a really interesting debate. I can see both sides of the equation. The answer depends on the benefit of hindsight. I mean, if you ask a player "would you rather be 8-8 or 8-0 in slam finals?" they'll probably take 8-0 as it means they didn't have to deal with the heartbreak of losing a final. BUT, the fact is, in real life, you don't know that you're going to be 8-8, so you'd rather make all those finals to give yourself a chance to win them.

 

[BIG3]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

It's kind of a false dilemma. Considering he DID make 16 finals (which is better than only making 8, I agree), then he should have done better.

But, if we're presenting two hypothetical propositions regarding which one is better, 8-8 or 8-0, it's a really interesting debate. I can see both sides of the equation. The answer depends on the benefit of hindsight. I mean, if you ask a player "would you rather be 8-8 or 8-0 in slam finals?" they'll probably take 8-0 as it means they didn't have to deal with the heartbreak of losing a final. BUT, the fact is, in real life, you don't know that you're going to be 8-8, so you'd rather make all those finals to give yourself a chance to win them.

Players throw every sweat to win each game, QF or SF is not small game at all. I guess most, if not every, player would prefer 8-8 to 8-0.
Fans are not happy with 8-8 . 16 final gave them enough fantasy, but only 50% materialized.

 

[Moxie]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

^ That is a great debate. Sure a final is more money and more ranking points but is someone who loses a ton of finals better than a different player who makes far fewer but wins the same amount? For my money if all things are equal I will take the player who was best when the stakes were highest. That's why I slightly favor Pete over Roger at Wimbledon as an example.

Same argument is present in other sports. Brady and Montana are tied at 4 rings and the former has 2 more SB appearances but when you look at the fact Montana never lost one and was way better statistically in the big game it makes a lot of people side with Joe. Part of the Jordan greatness is that he never lost on the biggest stage, never even let it get to a game 7.

I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it. Is there a greater laughing stock than the 90's Bills? I guarantee you it will be a long long time before another team reaches 4 SB's in a row but nobody is going to give them an ounce of credit for losing 4 times when it matters most.

I really hope you were never one of those Federer fans who was wishing that he hadn't made so many clay finals v. Nadal so that he wouldn't have such a bad H2H. Or one of those who was hoping he'd lose to Djokovic so that he wouldn't then lose to Nadal in the final in 2011. Because, agreed, it's a ridiculous argument. If you're not in it, you can't win it. 8 of 8 is far better than 8-0. (And however many Major finals Murray has been in at this point, it's still better than Stan's *perfect* 2 for 2.)

 

[DarthFed]

It has been said many times in various threads. But, perhaps it should be said here as well.
While 8-8 is bad, it surely is better than 8-0. After all 8-8 means he gave himself an opportunity
to win another 8 slams (in addition to the 8 he won) although he could not deliver.

Would you rather be happy if Novak had lost to Nadal or Murray this year. Then his finals record would not be that bad as it will be 8-7?

^ That is a great debate. Sure a final is more money and more ranking points but is someone who loses a ton of finals better than a different player who makes far fewer but wins the same amount? For my money if all things are equal I will take the player who was best when the stakes were highest. That's why I slightly favor Pete over Roger at Wimbledon as an example.

Same argument is present in other sports. Brady and Montana are tied at 4 rings and the former has 2 more SB appearances but when you look at the fact Montana never lost one and was way better statistically in the big game it makes a lot of people side with Joe. Part of the Jordan greatness is that he never lost on the biggest stage, never even let it get to a game 7.

I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it. Is there a greater laughing stock than the 90's Bills? I guarantee you it will be a long long time before another team reaches 4 SB's in a row but nobody is going to give them an ounce of credit for losing 4 times when it matters most.

I really hope you were never one of those Federer fans who was wishing that he hadn't made so many clay finals v. Nadal so that he wouldn't have such a bad H2H. Or one of those who was hoping he'd lose to Djokovic so that he wouldn't then lose to Nadal in the final in 2011. Because, agreed, it's a ridiculous argument. If you're not in it, you can't win it. 8 of 8 is far better than 8-0. (And however many Major finals Murray has been in at this point, it's still better than Stan's *perfect* 2 for 2.)

Of course not. They have to make the final to have a shot at doing something great. But we are talking about things in hindsight. In hindsight I'd rather Roger lost in the semis of a lot of those clay tournaments instead of losing every time to Nadal and hurting his confidence on other surfaces. In hindsight I'd rather Roger got beaten by Safin in 2008 Wimbledon instead of a disastrous loss in the final, etc. RG '11 is an exception since he did something extraordinary by beating Nole and ending a 40+ match win streak. Despite going down pretty easily to Nadal in the final I'd say that tourney added something despite the fact he didn't win it. But people here put too much stock in 2nd place at slams. Aside from nice ranking points, an ugly dinner plate, and money they don't need what does it get you aside from the sadness and humiliation of failing on the biggest stage? In this context we would say Nole is a great player not because he's made 16 GS finals but because he has WON 8. If he had lost all of them he'd be the ultimate joke of the sport. Those 8 dinner plates don't add to his greatness.

But when we are talking the present...you got to get to the big show to have a chance. Hindsight is 20/20

 

[Puppet Master]

I will be the one to drop the bomb here. Get ready. Novak has no problems reaching slam finals, but falls short, or doesn't bring his A game to the final, or has a mental walkabout, a bit suspicious, no? No offense to Djoko fans, but your guy creates an illusion. He is dominant for the whole tournament, in his half of the draw. This implies that half of the times he even reached a slam final, there was at least one player who was playing better tennis than he was and could take him out.
This is the "Fed at RG" scenario. But as GSM put it, at least he contested for them, and I see nothing wrong in 8-8, he is still achieving crazy results and rocking the #1 ranking, so feeling sorry for him now would be a bit too much. Also, consider who he lost those finals to.

 

[Moxie]

^ That is a great debate. Sure a final is more money and more ranking points but is someone who loses a ton of finals better than a different player who makes far fewer but wins the same amount? For my money if all things are equal I will take the player who was best when the stakes were highest. That's why I slightly favor Pete over Roger at Wimbledon as an example.

Same argument is present in other sports. Brady and Montana are tied at 4 rings and the former has 2 more SB appearances but when you look at the fact Montana never lost one and was way better statistically in the big game it makes a lot of people side with Joe. Part of the Jordan greatness is that he never lost on the biggest stage, never even let it get to a game 7.

I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it. Is there a greater laughing stock than the 90's Bills? I guarantee you it will be a long long time before another team reaches 4 SB's in a row but nobody is going to give them an ounce of credit for losing 4 times when it matters most.

I really hope you were never one of those Federer fans who was wishing that he hadn't made so many clay finals v. Nadal so that he wouldn't have such a bad H2H. Or one of those who was hoping he'd lose to Djokovic so that he wouldn't then lose to Nadal in the final in 2011. Because, agreed, it's a ridiculous argument. If you're not in it, you can't win it. 8 of 8 is far better than 8-0. (And however many Major finals Murray has been in at this point, it's still better than Stan's *perfect* 2 for 2.)

Of course not. They have to make the final to have a shot at doing something great. But we are talking about things in hindsight. In hindsight I'd rather Roger lost in the semis of a lot of those clay tournaments instead of losing every time to Nadal and hurting his confidence on other surfaces. In hindsight I'd rather Roger got beaten by Safin in 2008 Wimbledon instead of a disastrous loss in the final, etc. RG '11 is an exception since he did something extraordinary by beating Nole and ending a 40+ match win streak. Despite going down pretty easily to Nadal in the final I'd say that tourney added something despite the fact he didn't win it.

But when we are talking the present...you got to get to the big show to have a chance. Hindsight is 20/20

Actually, only you are talking about hindsight, and your hindsight has rather bad eyesight. By which I mean that Roger didn't go down that easily to Rafa in the 2011 final. He could well have pressed a 5th. And you're the one that just said: "I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it." Would you really have preferred Roger to have lost those matches, rather than have lost the subsequent finals? OK, maybe I get preferring that Safin had reached the 08 Wimbledon final. But if Roger had lost there, and in all of the clay tournaments that you are thinking about, he might not have had the confidence to do all else that he did. He was losing to Rafa, but he was beating much of the rest of the field, which is a point of pride for you Feddies. You really can't have it both ways.

As with Djokovic yesterday, it's not great to lose, but he beat Murray to get to the next Slam, which may serve him at Wimbledon. You can't throw off the notion of a loss without seeing that it could have other affects. You only assume that Federer would have tossed off the difficulty of those losses, and done everything else exactly the same.

 

[DarthFed]

I really hope you were never one of those Federer fans who was wishing that he hadn't made so many clay finals v. Nadal so that he wouldn't have such a bad H2H. Or one of those who was hoping he'd lose to Djokovic so that he wouldn't then lose to Nadal in the final in 2011. Because, agreed, it's a ridiculous argument. If you're not in it, you can't win it. 8 of 8 is far better than 8-0. (And however many Major finals Murray has been in at this point, it's still better than Stan's *perfect* 2 for 2.)

Of course not. They have to make the final to have a shot at doing something great. But we are talking about things in hindsight. In hindsight I'd rather Roger lost in the semis of a lot of those clay tournaments instead of losing every time to Nadal and hurting his confidence on other surfaces. In hindsight I'd rather Roger got beaten by Safin in 2008 Wimbledon instead of a disastrous loss in the final, etc. RG '11 is an exception since he did something extraordinary by beating Nole and ending a 40+ match win streak. Despite going down pretty easily to Nadal in the final I'd say that tourney added something despite the fact he didn't win it.

But when we are talking the present...you got to get to the big show to have a chance. Hindsight is 20/20

Actually, only you are talking about hindsight, and your hindsight has rather bad eyesight. By which I mean that Roger didn't go down that easily to Rafa in the 2011 final. He could well have pressed a 5th. And you're the one that just said: "I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it." Would you really have preferred Roger to have lost those matches, rather than have lost the subsequent finals? OK, maybe I get preferring that Safin had reached the 08 Wimbledon final. But if Roger had lost there, and in all of the clay tournaments that you are thinking about, he might not have had the confidence to do all else that he did. He was losing to Rafa, but he was beating much of the rest of the field, which is a point of pride for you Feddies. You really can't have it both ways.

As with Djokovic yesterday, it's not great to lose, but he beat Murray to get to the next Slam, which may serve him at Wimbledon. You can't throw off the notion of a loss without seeing that it could have other affects. You only assume that Federer would have tossed off the difficulty of those losses, and done everything else exactly the same.

I'm not the only one talking about hindsight here. The question is who is greater, someone who is 8-0 in slam finals or someone who is 8-8? The question is not what's better, 16 slam finals or 8 slam finals as there is clearly some important missing information there. If memory serves me correctly Roger lost the 4th set 6-1 that match. It was a mildly competitive match not that a close loss would matter anyways. I think it's safe to say that the toughest losses to get over are major finals. And with Roger, Rafa, and Nole we've seen all of them rebound from very tough losses in slam finals, let alone semifinals. But with Roger the clay beatdowns hurt him mentally against Nadal and one could argue it led to his awful start in 2008 Wimbledon final, and that loss hurt him mentally for the AO final that followed, particularly the 5th set debacle. So there is the legit possibility that losing all those matches on clay hurt his results off of it...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Someone please explain to me like I am a 4 year old...I am reading all this stuff and I am still having a hard time understanding how not making a final is better than making it. Has any player ever said
"Thank The Baby Jesus I lost in the semis and lost the chance to fight for a title...because what if I lost the final?" ???

 

[Moxie]

Of course not. They have to make the final to have a shot at doing something great. But we are talking about things in hindsight. In hindsight I'd rather Roger lost in the semis of a lot of those clay tournaments instead of losing every time to Nadal and hurting his confidence on other surfaces. In hindsight I'd rather Roger got beaten by Safin in 2008 Wimbledon instead of a disastrous loss in the final, etc. RG '11 is an exception since he did something extraordinary by beating Nole and ending a 40+ match win streak. Despite going down pretty easily to Nadal in the final I'd say that tourney added something despite the fact he didn't win it.

But when we are talking the present...you got to get to the big show to have a chance. Hindsight is 20/20

Actually, only you are talking about hindsight, and your hindsight has rather bad eyesight. By which I mean that Roger didn't go down that easily to Rafa in the 2011 final. He could well have pressed a 5th. And you're the one that just said: "I guess the point is in order to "gain" greatness in sports you also risk a bit of it." Would you really have preferred Roger to have lost those matches, rather than have lost the subsequent finals? OK, maybe I get preferring that Safin had reached the 08 Wimbledon final. But if Roger had lost there, and in all of the clay tournaments that you are thinking about, he might not have had the confidence to do all else that he did. He was losing to Rafa, but he was beating much of the rest of the field, which is a point of pride for you Feddies. You really can't have it both ways.

As with Djokovic yesterday, it's not great to lose, but he beat Murray to get to the next Slam, which may serve him at Wimbledon. You can't throw off the notion of a loss without seeing that it could have other affects. You only assume that Federer would have tossed off the difficulty of those losses, and done everything else exactly the same.

I'm not the only one talking about hindsight here. The question is who is greater, someone who is 8-0 in slam finals or someone who is 8-8? The question is not what's better, 16 slam finals or 8 slam finals as there is clearly some important missing information there. If memory serves me correctly Roger lost the 4th set 6-1 that match. It was a mildly competitive match not that a close loss would matter anyways. I think it's safe to say that the toughest losses to get over are major finals. And with Roger, Rafa, and Nole we've seen all of them rebound from very tough losses in slam finals, let alone semifinals. But with Roger the clay beatdowns hurt him mentally against Nadal and one could argue it led to his awful start in 2008 Wimbledon final, and that loss hurt him mentally for the AO final that followed, particularly the 5th set debacle. So there is the legit possibility that losing all those matches on clay hurt his results off of it...

OK, you're right...the whole thread is somewhat about hindsight, right or wrong. And we'll always debate how many Federer "squandered" v. just being out-played. And there's some of that in there with Djokovic. I'm not convinced that Roger was so dispirited by some of those clay losses, though, as he would often go blithely along and still win the next thing on offer. After a rough summer against Rafa in 08, he still won the USO, after all. And Djokovic seems to take some losses on that big ol' chin and then regroup. It'll be interesting to see if Novak has a "hangover" at Wimbledon, after this loss. It's arguable that he did after the epic loss to Rafa in '13, and then was very lackluster v. Murray in the finals at Wimby.

 

[DarthFed]

Someone please explain to me like I am a 4 year old...I am reading all this stuff and I am still having a hard time understanding how not making a final is better than making it. Has any player ever said
"Thank The Baby Jesus I lost in the semis and lost the chance to fight for a title...because what if I lost the final?" ???

Hindsight we speak of. Know the past we do!

But in all seriousness it is a matter of opinion. I'd refer back to my first post on the subject as it is a fairly popular line of thought (Players A and B win the same amount but Player B made a lot more finals, SB's, NBA finals, etc. and lost on the big stage). I don't know if it's dependent upon where people are from but if most everything else is equal I will take the hypothetical player who is 8-0 in slam finals, or the QB who is 4-0 in SB's instead of 4-2, etc. You already have the kids too young to see Jordan comparing Lebron to him. The way it's played out Lebron would need 7 rings to be considered greater (and that's not happening), going 6-3 or worse in the finals won't cut it.