Roger and the huge matches

[DarthFed]

Kind of random but I was thinking:

1. Roger has been in an incredible amount of "huge" matches and
2. What exactly should be considered a huge match

It goes without saying there could be different criteria on what constitutes a big time match but mine is the following: GS finals and semifinals, Olympic finals and semifinals, and YEC finals

By this measure we have Roger at:

1. 17-9 in GS finals
2. 26-11 in GS semis
3. 0-1 in Olympic finals
4. 1-0 in Olympic semis
5. 6-2 in YEC finals played (he's reached 9 finals but had to withdraw last year)

So a total of 50-23 in the "huge" matches by this criteria. Lots of glory and a decent amount of heartbreak but it is amazing just how resilient he has been over the years. It goes without saying he's played in more big time showdowns than anyone, has won more than anyone, but has also probably had the most losses and some of the toughest to boot.

In comparison I think Rafa's at a total of 36-11 (47 such matches vs. 73 for Roger) and Nole is at 29-20.

Believe it or not, I'm not one of the freaks that lives on Roger's facebook page but I did recently visit it and noticed that within an hour of the trophy presentation Fed posted that he can't wait to play in Wimbledon next year and is already counting down the days. He may not win another big one but it's obvious this loss and no loss in general will keep him down.

 

[nehmeth]

I did recently visit it and noticed that within an hour of the trophy presentation Fed posted that he can't wait to play in Wimbledon next year and is already counting down the days. He may not win another big one but it's obvious this loss and no loss in general will keep him down.

If Roger continues at this level, we could well see him in one or two more Wimbledon finals, maybe another USO final. Before it's all said and done, his won/loss record in slam finals may be "worse", but the fact that he's still the #2 player in the world and contending for championships at the age of 33 is incredible.

 

[El Dude]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

 

[DarthFed]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

Yep and that's obviously the main point where a bunch of people could differ. I personally wouldn't put Master finals as high as a match that clinches a medal but it's definitely close. I really don't think an MS final is close to a slam semi but again, just my opinion.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Why would not you consider a Semi in WTF a big time match? Considering that only the top 8 are even allowed to play in the WTF and the winner of one group plays against the runner-up of another group, that sure is a big time match, IMO.

 

[I.Haychew]

My opinion...
...Any match he loses at a Major is a huge match and any other match he loses to anyone outside the top ten (What is Folks ranked?) is a huge match.

 

[atttomole]

Kind of random but I was thinking:

1. Roger has been in an incredible amount of "huge" matches and
2. What exactly should be considered a huge match

It goes without saying there could be different criteria on what constitutes a big time match but mine is the following: GS finals and semifinals, Olympic finals and semifinals, and YEC finals

By this measure we have Roger at:

1. 17-9 in GS finals
2. 26-11 in GS semis
3. 0-1 in Olympic finals
4. 1-0 in Olympic semis
5. 6-2 in YEC finals played (he's reached 9 finals but had to withdraw last year)

So a total of 50-23 in the "huge" matches by this criteria. Lots of glory and a decent amount of heartbreak but it is amazing just how resilient he has been over the years. It goes without saying he's played in more big time showdowns than anyone, has won more than anyone, but has also probably had the most losses and some of the toughest to boot.

In comparison I think Rafa's at a total of 36-11 (47 such matches vs. 73 for Roger) and Nole is at 29-20.

Believe it or not, I'm not one of the freaks that lives on Roger's facebook page but I did recently visit it and noticed that within an hour of the trophy presentation Fed posted that he can't wait to play in Wimbledon next year and is already counting down the days. He may not win another big one but it's obvious this loss and no loss in general will keep him down.

Its refreshing to see that you like some of Roger's statistics. I always felt you were expecting far more from him.

 

[shawnbm]

Roger's stats in Masters finals have been dropping for five or more years and will continue to do so. It was Djokeresque for five or six years, but he loses more of them now than before. It has happened with Nadal and it will with Nole. This is not surprising. He has a great record as do the other two.

 

[Federberg]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

Trust you to try to quantify it! :laydownlaughing

Well.. I reckon a Masters finals isn't much bigger than a Slam quarter final. So there! :snicker

In all seriousness, the guy uses these matches to get in shape for the slams these days. It's pointless to do comparisons. Doesn't feel like a priority to me, and he skips enough of them these days

 

[Backhand_DTL]

By this measure we have Roger at:

1. 17-9 in GS finals
2. 26-11 in GS semis
3. 0-1 in Olympic finals
4. 1-0 in Olympic semis
5. 6-2 in YEC finals played (he's reached 9 finals but had to withdraw last year)

Minor correction: He's actually at 1-1 in Olympic semis as he lost in 2000 to Tommy Haas if I remember correctly and was also defeated in the Bronze Medal-match afterwards. But he was 18 or 19 at that time, so he did probably better than anybody expected in getting that far.

 

[Moxie]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

MS finals are equal to Olympic semis? By what measure? I thought a lot of folks around here didn't put much stock in the Olympics for tennis. And it is often discussed that Masters have a deep field, and there is no day off. In any case, I'm surprised that Darth chose to leave off the MS1000s completely. I'm also surprised that he put in SFs, since he's one who prizes a win over everything, and the rest a dog's dinner, by his usual estimation.

These numbers for finals only, but including MS:

Federer: GS 17-9, MS 23-18, YEC 6-2, OG 0-1 (if you want to include the Olympics) = 46-30
Nadal: GS 14-6, MS 27-17, YEC 0-2, OG 1-0 = 32-25

An alternate comparison for your consideration.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, I'd co-sign this. There's absolutely no measure in the sport to say a Masters final is like an Olympic semi. But if you're in the business of being a great tennis player, the masters finals are all big matches, especially when they involve facing your historic rivals...

 

[jhar26]

Yeah, I'd co-sign this. There's absolutely no measure in the sport to say a Masters final is like an Olympic semi. But if you're in the business of being a great tennis player, the masters finals are all big matches, especially when they involve facing your historic rivals...

For sure the masters finals are all big matches. I wouldn't underrate the value of an Olympic gold though. There are many, many more casual sports fans (and even tennis fans) who remember who won the Olympic gold than who won Rome or Shanghai. In the end it's the players themselves who decide what's important and what's not, and they clearly think of the Olympics as a very important event.

 

[Kirijax]

Yeah, I'd co-sign this. There's absolutely no measure in the sport to say a Masters final is like an Olympic semi. But if you're in the business of being a great tennis player, the masters finals are all big matches, especially when they involve facing your historic rivals...

For sure the masters finals are all big matches. I wouldn't underrate the value of an Olympic gold though. There are many, many more casual sports fans (and even tennis fans) who remember who won the Olympic gold than who won Rome or Shanghai. In the end it's the players themselves who decide what's important and what's not, and they clearly think of the Olympics as a very important event.

Really? I'm not sure about that one. While I consider the Olympics as one of the top accomplishments in tennis, I wonder if the casual fan remembers. They hear about the majors every year but I wonder how much attention the tennis at the Olympics gets. It's a nice accomplishment sure, and I might even rank it above the Masters titles because of the fact that it only comes around once every four years, but I wonder how much the casual fan is really aware of it.

 

[jhar26]

Yeah, I'd co-sign this. There's absolutely no measure in the sport to say a Masters final is like an Olympic semi. But if you're in the business of being a great tennis player, the masters finals are all big matches, especially when they involve facing your historic rivals...

For sure the masters finals are all big matches. I wouldn't underrate the value of an Olympic gold though. There are many, many more casual sports fans (and even tennis fans) who remember who won the Olympic gold than who won Rome or Shanghai. In the end it's the players themselves who decide what's important and what's not, and they clearly think of the Olympics as a very important event.

Really? I'm not sure about that one. While I consider the Olympics as one of the top accomplishments in tennis, I wonder if the casual fan remembers. They hear about the majors every year but I wonder how much attention the tennis at the Olympics gets. It's a nice accomplishment sure, and I might even rank it above the Masters titles because of the fact that it only comes around once every four years, but I wonder how much the casual fan is really aware of it.

Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised much if more casual sports fans knew that Murray won an Olympic gold than that he won the USO. Not that that makes it the bigger achievement of course. I rate an Olympic gold about as highly as a YEC title - a step below the slams, a step above the masters 1000's.

 

[Kirijax]

For sure the masters finals are all big matches. I wouldn't underrate the value of an Olympic gold though. There are many, many more casual sports fans (and even tennis fans) who remember who won the Olympic gold than who won Rome or Shanghai. In the end it's the players themselves who decide what's important and what's not, and they clearly think of the Olympics as a very important event.

Really? I'm not sure about that one. While I consider the Olympics as one of the top accomplishments in tennis, I wonder if the casual fan remembers. They hear about the majors every year but I wonder how much attention the tennis at the Olympics gets. It's a nice accomplishment sure, and I might even rank it above the Masters titles because of the fact that it only comes around once every four years, but I wonder how much the casual fan is really aware of it.

Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised much if more casual sports fans knew that Murray won an Olympic gold than that he won the USO. Not that that makes it the bigger achievement of course. I rate an Olympic gold about as highly as a YEC title - a step below the slams, a step above the masters 1000's.

I've always rated the titles as:
Wimbledon
USO
French/AO
WTF
Olympics
Masters
Davis Cup

These are the titles that have meaning and make a players career. I'm a big fan of the Davis Cup so I might even put it above the Masters, even though it is a team event. But getting the No. 1 ranking and the Year-End No. 1 would have to be above the Olympics as well.

But I don't agree with the casual fan knowing more about the Olympics than the USO. I'm going to need more data, interviews, surveys, petitions, blood test results and urine samples before I change my mind.

 

[Kieran]

Olympic gold is a tacky, discredited bauble. Sure, the players love it, but more for the association with other sports, and other great athletes, than tennis. Tennis has no glorious history in the Olympics - it's a blow-in. Our own events are far more prestigious and relevant to the sport - imho.

And I say that as a Nadal fan, he has Olympic gold, and I wish he hadn't. I wish he'd never gotten on the plane to go Beijing. He came back knackered for the US Open... :nono :cover

 

[jhar26]

Really? I'm not sure about that one. While I consider the Olympics as one of the top accomplishments in tennis, I wonder if the casual fan remembers. They hear about the majors every year but I wonder how much attention the tennis at the Olympics gets. It's a nice accomplishment sure, and I might even rank it above the Masters titles because of the fact that it only comes around once every four years, but I wonder how much the casual fan is really aware of it.

Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised much if more casual sports fans knew that Murray won an Olympic gold than that he won the USO. Not that that makes it the bigger achievement of course. I rate an Olympic gold about as highly as a YEC title - a step below the slams, a step above the masters 1000's.

I've always rated the titles as:
Wimbledon
USO
French/AO
WTF
Olympics
Masters
Davis Cup

These are the titles that have meaning and make a players career. I'm a big fan of the Davis Cup so I might even put it above the Masters, even though it is a team event. But getting the No. 1 ranking and the Year-End No. 1 would have to be above the Olympics as well.

But I don't agree with the casual fan knowing more about the Olympics than the USO. I'm going to need more data, interviews, surveys, petitions, blood test results and urine samples before I change my mind.

Yes, but I'm not talking about tennis fans but about the the casual sports fan. The type of folks who watch the Olympics and remember Bolt breaking records, Mark Spitz winning seven and Nadia Comaneci's 10's. Those people aren't necessarily big fans of those sports, but they remember moments in history when the whole world was watching, so to speak. On a more modest scale, Murray finally getting into the big time, and before an adoring home crowd at that was one of those moments.

 

[Great Hands]

Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised much if more casual sports fans knew that Murray won an Olympic gold than that he won the USO. Not that that makes it the bigger achievement of course. I rate an Olympic gold about as highly as a YEC title - a step below the slams, a step above the masters 1000's.

I've always rated the titles as:
Wimbledon
USO
French/AO
WTF
Olympics
Masters
Davis Cup

These are the titles that have meaning and make a players career. I'm a big fan of the Davis Cup so I might even put it above the Masters, even though it is a team event. But getting the No. 1 ranking and the Year-End No. 1 would have to be above the Olympics as well.

But I don't agree with the casual fan knowing more about the Olympics than the USO. I'm going to need more data, interviews, surveys, petitions, blood test results and urine samples before I change my mind.

Yes, but I'm not talking about tennis fans but about the the casual sports fan. The type of folks who watch the Olympics and remember Bolt breaking records, Mark Spitz winning seven and Nadia Comaneci's 10's. Those people aren't necessarily big fans of those sports, but they remember moments in history when the whole world was watching, so to speak. On a more modest scale, Murray finally getting into the big time, and before an adoring home crowd at that was one of those moments.

A lot of times I've read in articles that Murray is an 'Olympic and Wimbledon Champion', with no mention of the USO at all!
Casual sports fans that I know who are not into tennis watch Wimbledon and the Olympics, but the not the other majors. If you told them a tennis player had won Olympic Gold they'd be more impressed than if you told them they'd won e.g. the AO. Doesn't mean they're right to do so, but there it is.

 

[Great Hands]

Olympic gold is a tacky, discredited bauble. Sure, the players love it, but more for the association with other sports, and other great athletes, than tennis. Tennis has no glorious history in the Olympics - it's a blow-in. Our own events are far more prestigious and relevant to the sport - imho.

And I say that as a Nadal fan, he has Olympic gold, and I wish he hadn't. I wish he'd never gotten on the plane to go Beijing. He came back knackered for the US Open... :nono :cover

What is the reason that you regard OG as a 'tacky, discredited bauable'? the only reason you seem to give here is that #'tennis has no gloriosu hsotry in teh olympics'. well, wimbledon had no 'glorious histroy' in 1877, now it does. teh austrlaian open was not prestigious for ages because the top players duidn't play it. now it's considered an achivenemtn euqal to the other slams to win it.

given that all the top players now play in teh olmyiocs, and given how important it si to the players and public, there's no doubt that og is second only to slams in prestige and this prestige will only grow as it coptinnues to be an event in the olympics.

well, not yet.