Nole's defeat in slam finals

[Moxie]

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.

Darth is having a moment. It cannot possibly be better to lose in a SF than make the F, even if you lose it. Even the psychological machinations don't necessarily play out over time. Winning breeds winning. And losing to a rival is tough, but it's better than losing to an also-ran.

 

[Kirijax]

I think with Djokovic's case is not being 8-8 in finals but in how many of those he was favored but ended up losing? Seems like an awful lot but maybe my opinion of Djokovic is still too inflated right now. He is a great player, 16 Grand Slam finals, but it just feels like he should be doing better. Maybe we've been spoiled by Federer and Nadal. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Moxie]

I think with Djokovic's case is not being 8-8 in finals but in how many of those he was favored but ended up losing? Seems like an awful lot but maybe my opinion of Djokovic is still too inflated right now. He is a great player, 16 Grand Slam finals, but it just feels like he should be doing better. Maybe we've been spoiled by Federer and Nadal. Just thinking out loud.

The OP already laid it out:

1. 2007 US Open vs Fed 6–7(4–7), 6–7(2–7), 4–6
2. 2010 US Open vs Rafa 4–6, 7–5, 4–6, 2–6
3. 2012 French Open vs Rafa 4–6, 3–6, 6–2, 5–7
4. 2012 USO vs Murray 6–7(10–12), 5–7, 6–2, 6–3, 2–6
5. 2013 Wimbledon vs Murray 4–6, 5–7, 4–6
6. 2013 USO vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
7. 2014 French Open vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
8. 2015 French Open vs Stan 6–4, 4–6, 3–6, 4–6

Folks here will argue about ones he should have won, or where other players just out-played him, but where he lost as a favorite? I'm thinking: 2012 USO, 2013 Wimbledon, and 2015 FO this year. Not so bad, and yes, I think we're spoiled by Federer and Nadal. I'm wondering how many they lost as the favorites.

 

[Fiero425]

I think with Djokovic's case is not being 8-8 in finals but in how many of those he was favored but ended up losing? Seems like an awful lot but maybe my opinion of Djokovic is still too inflated right now. He is a great player, 16 Grand Slam finals, but it just feels like he should be doing better. Maybe we've been spoiled by Federer and Nadal. Just thinking out loud.

The OP already laid it out:

1. 2007 US Open vs Fed 6–7(4–7), 6–7(2–7), 4–6
2. 2010 US Open vs Rafa 4–6, 7–5, 4–6, 2–6
3. 2012 French Open vs Rafa 4–6, 3–6, 6–2, 5–7
4. 2012 USO vs Murray 6–7(10–12), 5–7, 6–2, 6–3, 2–6
5. 2013 Wimbledon vs Murray 4–6, 5–7, 4–6
6. 2013 USO vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
7. 2014 French Open vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
8. 2015 French Open vs Stan 6–4, 4–6, 3–6, 4–6

Folks here will argue about ones he should have won, or where other players just out-played him, but where he lost as a favorite? I'm thinking: 2012 USO, 2013 Wimbledon, and 2015 FO this year. Not so bad, and yes, I think we're spoiled by Federer and Nadal. I'm wondering how many they lost as the favorites.

Easy; without looking, almost none! Hence Fed winning 3 majors a year 3 times with the scraps of a FO going to a young Rafa! Murray had his chance at Wimbledon against Fed in '12; waited until next month to win at same venue in Olympic final for the GOLD! Stan got his win over Rafa in Australia last year, but he wasn't given much credit with Rafa "limping around" by the 2nd set! Delpo was probably the most definitive in his upset win at '09 USO; wiping out Rafa in straight set semi and outlasting Federer in a 5 set final! It's such a rare occasion, it trips off the top of my head! I've said how disgusted I've been with the tour allowing 2 players to rule like that from the last decade to 2010 when Nole interrupted the party! You had a sprinkling of Murray and people's rush to anoint him part of the Big 4 even though he owns only 2 majors after all these years! We're being influenced more by his Masters' wins! After all is said and done, I think Nole's number of 1000's will cement his legacy even though he doesn't have a chance of catching Roger and Rafa in the GS count! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[DarthFed]

Roger has lost 2 as the favorite for sure, USO 2009 and Wimbledon 2008. I'd also think given Rafa's semi at AO 2009 he may have been considered the favorite in that match as well. Rafa was favorite against Stan at 2014 AO and maybe (incorrectly) he would have been the bookies favorite for 2011 Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

I think with Djokovic's case is not being 8-8 in finals but in how many of those he was favored but ended up losing? Seems like an awful lot but maybe my opinion of Djokovic is still too inflated right now. He is a great player, 16 Grand Slam finals, but it just feels like he should be doing better. Maybe we've been spoiled by Federer and Nadal. Just thinking out loud.

The OP already laid it out:

1. 2007 US Open vs Fed 6–7(4–7), 6–7(2–7), 4–6
2. 2010 US Open vs Rafa 4–6, 7–5, 4–6, 2–6
3. 2012 French Open vs Rafa 4–6, 3–6, 6–2, 5–7
4. 2012 USO vs Murray 6–7(10–12), 5–7, 6–2, 6–3, 2–6
5. 2013 Wimbledon vs Murray 4–6, 5–7, 4–6
6. 2013 USO vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
7. 2014 French Open vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
8. 2015 French Open vs Stan 6–4, 4–6, 3–6, 4–6

Folks here will argue about ones he should have won, or where other players just out-played him, but where he lost as a favorite? I'm thinking: 2012 USO, 2013 Wimbledon, and 2015 FO this year. Not so bad, and yes, I think we're spoiled by Federer and Nadal. I'm wondering how many they lost as the favorites.

Easy; without looking, almost none! Hence Fed winning 3 majors a year 3 times with the scraps of a FO going to a young Rafa! Murray had his chance at Wimbledon against Fed in '12; waited until next month to win at same venue in Olympic final for the GOLD! Stan got his win over Rafa in Australia last year, but he wasn't given much credit with Rafa "limping around" by the 2nd set! Delpo was probably the most definitive in his upset win at '09 USO; wiping out Rafa in straight set semi and outlasting Federer in a 5 set final! It's such a rare occasion, it trips off the top of my head! I've said how disgusted I've been with the tour allowing 2 players to rule like that from the last decade to 2010 when Nole interrupted the party! You had a sprinkling of Murray and people's rush to anoint him part of the Big 4 even though he owns only 2 majors after all these years! We're being influenced more by his Masters' wins! After all is said and done, I think Nole's number of 1000's will cement his legacy even though he doesn't have a chance of catching Roger and Rafa in the GS count! :angel: :dodgy:

Yes, you've said it a fair few times. You have no problem repeating yourself. And you have also no inclination for delving into the facts. (Let's not let facts stand in the way of an outrageous opinion, and a shower of emoticons, wut?)

Surely, Roger was favorite to win Wimbledon in '08 , AO in '09 and USO in '09. I don't think he lost other Majors when he was favored. Nadal probably hasn't lost any, given that he's won all at RG, and nobody favored him, specifically, for the off-court majors he won.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

So, you would prefer a player who is 8-0 in finals than the one who is 8-8, other things being equal. I know the illusion behind this thinking. It is because matches in a big stage get lot ofpublicity and the ignominy of the loss is great (to the fans mostly). For example, how many people sweat over Fed's early loss to Seppi at AO this year. On the other hand, if he had reached the finals and lost to Novak, many Fedfans like you would have crucified him.

But, I do not subscribe to your thinking. I would definitely pick 8-8 over 8-0. In fact, I would pick 8-1,000,000 over 8-0.

Having said that, I would always pick 9-0 to 8-1,000,000.

 

[Fiero425]

The OP already laid it out:

1. 2007 US Open vs Fed 6–7(4–7), 6–7(2–7), 4–6
2. 2010 US Open vs Rafa 4–6, 7–5, 4–6, 2–6
3. 2012 French Open vs Rafa 4–6, 3–6, 6–2, 5–7
4. 2012 USO vs Murray 6–7(10–12), 5–7, 6–2, 6–3, 2–6
5. 2013 Wimbledon vs Murray 4–6, 5–7, 4–6
6. 2013 USO vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
7. 2014 French Open vs Rafa 6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
8. 2015 French Open vs Stan 6–4, 4–6, 3–6, 4–6

Folks here will argue about ones he should have won, or where other players just out-played him, but where he lost as a favorite? I'm thinking: 2012 USO, 2013 Wimbledon, and 2015 FO this year. Not so bad, and yes, I think we're spoiled by Federer and Nadal. I'm wondering how many they lost as the favorites.

Easy; without looking, almost none! Hence Fed winning 3 majors a year 3 times with the scraps of a FO going to a young Rafa! Murray had his chance at Wimbledon against Fed in '12; waited until next month to win at same venue in Olympic final for the GOLD! Stan got his win over Rafa in Australia last year, but he wasn't given much credit with Rafa "limping around" by the 2nd set! Delpo was probably the most definitive in his upset win at '09 USO; wiping out Rafa in straight set semi and outlasting Federer in a 5 set final! It's such a rare occasion, it trips off the top of my head! I've said how disgusted I've been with the tour allowing 2 players to rule like that from the last decade to 2010 when Nole interrupted the party! You had a sprinkling of Murray and people's rush to anoint him part of the Big 4 even though he owns only 2 majors after all these years! We're being influenced more by his Masters' wins! After all is said and done, I think Nole's number of 1000's will cement his legacy even though he doesn't have a chance of catching Roger and Rafa in the GS count! :angel: :dodgy:

Yes, you've said it a fair few times. You have no problem repeating yourself. And you have also no inclination for delving into the facts. (Let's not let facts stand in the way of an outrageous opinion, and a shower of emoticons, wut?)

Surely, Roger was favorite to win Wimbledon in '08 , AO in '09 and USO in '09. I don't think he lost other Majors when he was favored. Nadal probably hasn't lost any, given that he's won all at RG, and nobody favored him, specifically, for the off-court majors he won.

I repeat myself for the people who have lives and can't possibly read every post like some around here! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

 

[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.

So, you would prefer a player who is 8-0 in finals than the one who is 8-8, other things being equal. I know the illusion behind this thinking. It is because matches in a big stage get lot of
publicity and the ignominy of the loss is great (to the fans mostly). For example, how many people sweat over Fed's early loss to Seppi at AO this year. On the other hand, if he had reached the finals and lost to Novak, many Fedfans like you would have crucified him.

But, I do not subscribe to your thinking. I would definitely pick 8-8 over 8-0.

Having said that, I would always pick 9-0 to 8-1,000,000.

I don't have any problem with the differing opinion and the example you give regarding Fed is a good one. That's where you kind of have to examine things closer. Surely Roger losing a tough Wimbledon final last year is not as bad as when he lost one at age 26. Similarly he would be a huge underdog in an AO final with Nole at age 33 and we might judge that hypothetical loss a lot different than a couple of Nole's finals that he lost in his prime as a big favorite. 2nd place is still not an accomplishment even for the old man but most aren't expecting him to win any big ones at this point in time.

 

[Moxie]

Easy; without looking, almost none! Hence Fed winning 3 majors a year 3 times with the scraps of a FO going to a young Rafa! Murray had his chance at Wimbledon against Fed in '12; waited until next month to win at same venue in Olympic final for the GOLD! Stan got his win over Rafa in Australia last year, but he wasn't given much credit with Rafa "limping around" by the 2nd set! Delpo was probably the most definitive in his upset win at '09 USO; wiping out Rafa in straight set semi and outlasting Federer in a 5 set final! It's such a rare occasion, it trips off the top of my head! I've said how disgusted I've been with the tour allowing 2 players to rule like that from the last decade to 2010 when Nole interrupted the party! You had a sprinkling of Murray and people's rush to anoint him part of the Big 4 even though he owns only 2 majors after all these years! We're being influenced more by his Masters' wins! After all is said and done, I think Nole's number of 1000's will cement his legacy even though he doesn't have a chance of catching Roger and Rafa in the GS count! :angel: :dodgy:

Yes, you've said it a fair few times. You have no problem repeating yourself. And you have also no inclination for delving into the facts. (Let's not let facts stand in the way of an outrageous opinion, and a shower of emoticons, wut?)

Surely, Roger was favorite to win Wimbledon in '08 , AO in '09 and USO in '09. I don't think he lost other Majors when he was favored. Nadal probably hasn't lost any, given that he's won all at RG, and nobody favored him, specifically, for the off-court majors he won.

I repeat myself for the people who have lives and can't possibly read every post like some around here! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

Oh, heaven forfend that someone might miss one of your opinions by not checking in daily! That's really thoughtful of you.

 

[Fiero425]

.....

I repeat myself for the people who have lives and can't possibly read every post like some around here! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

Oh, heaven forfend that someone might miss one of your opinions by not checking in daily! That's really thoughtful of you.

I do the best I can to make sure everyone's fully informed! Modesty forbids me to brag! :lolz: :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

I repeat myself for the people who have lives and can't possibly read every post like some around here! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

Oh, heaven forfend that someone might miss one of your opinions by not checking in daily! That's really thoughtful of you.

I do the best I can to make sure everyone's fully informed! Modesty forbids me to brag! :lolz: :laydownlaughing

Well-played! :laydownlaughing

 

[BIG3]

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.

Roger was well regarded the 2nd best on RG. He has worst matchup against Rafa，no surprisingly kept losing and only losing to Rafa.

Nole's problem is that he lost different players on different surface and he has even or better h2h, except against Rafa on RG.

 

[BIG3]

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.

Nole 2013 Wimbledon final loss had more to do with 5 sets SF with Delpo rather than epic loss in RG, in my opinion.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.si.com/tennis/2015/06/08/novak-djokovic-french-open-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-grand-slams?

 

[Federberg]

http://sports.ndtv.com/tennis/news/243491-novak-djokovic-haunted-by-paris-ghosts-of-sampras-edberg-becker

 

[Federberg]

Personally I think Novak should worry more about the US Open than RG. Having only one title at Flushing is a more glaring absence than a clay title, considering he's without doubt one of the top 3 or 4 hard court players of all time

 

[brokenshoelace]

Personally I think Novak should worry more about the US Open than RG. Having only one title at Flushing is a more glaring absence than a clay title, considering he's without doubt one of the top 3 or 4 hard court players of all time

It is glaring, but A) 1 > 0 (meaning he's actually won the US Open) and B) A career slam is a career slam. It's among the most prestigious accomplishments in the sport.

You can make an argument he's the second best clay courter of his era, or the third best, and at the moment, THE BEST, which makes a FO title absence all the more glaring. With Nadal no longer what he once was, it would be a big blow for Novak to never win the FO and a missed opportunity. He'll do it, though.

 

[Federberg]

^I agree. Obviously the career slam is very important, but as they say in chess, "overprotect your strengths"... 1 US Open for a hard courter of his calibre just seems... bizarre

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I agree. Obviously the career slam is very important, but as they say in chess, "overprotect your strengths"... 1 US Open for a hard courter of his calibre just seems... bizarre

It is, especially with the amount of finals he's lost there. Now would be a good time to put the disappointment behind him and move on.