Roger Federer : Snatches Defeats at the Jaws of Victory

[Federberg]

has nothing to do with that. these stats simply show that he is not as good at closing out matches as many other top players.......so can be considered as a flaw of his.

Federer has this flaw, it's a fact.

Lol! Look who appeared from under the bridge. How are you doing matey? I don't recall saying it wasn't a flaw. I just said that you can look at it another way. Anyway.. I know you just want to fight so have at it!

 

[masterclass]

There is a reason you remember Nadal's loss to Fognini at that USO ('15.) That's because he had been 151-0 when winning the first two sets at a Major. That's still the only time it's happened to him, to date. And he was pretty woeful in 2015...really failing to close out matches. Anyway, I looked up a few stats as comparisons: After winning the first set, 1. Novak, 2. Borg, 3. Rafa, with Roger at #8. After losing the first set, 6. Nadal, 7. Djokovic, 9. Murray, 10. Fed. And in Deciders (3rd or 5th): 1. Nishikori, 2. Djokovic, 8. Nadal, 28. Federer. (These stats include all Open Era, so retired players, and are from the ATP website.)

I offer this to show that actually Nadal and Djokovic have been better in this specific aspect, to RZ's OP. Still, we've always known that Roger's a great front-runner, which has served him well. I like Britbox's notion that Roger is generally more of a middle-distance runner than a marathoner, and Dude's point that for Roger and Rafa, specifically, their accomplishments reflect their abilities. And if I'm paraphrasing...everyone loses sometimes and somehow. On top of that, Roger just gutted out a Major win over his old nemesis in a 5-setter, by having a better strategy. Old dog, new tricks, anyone? So, while I'm perfectly happy to call out the flaws that dent Roger's GOATness, and I'm addressing @Robert Zimmerman here, I'd say this is a bit meagre. And to the point of "should have won," we fans have a few that we rue, but, hey, you can't win 'em all, but some players still win a lot of them.

Federer lost his 1st Major when 2 sets up to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga at Wimbledon in the 2011 QF. Federer played very well. Tsonga simply served and played lights out tennis on the grass in the final 3 sets and was just better. There was not much Roger could do. He couldn't sniff a break point in the final 3 sets.

Federer.......Tsonga
57.... Winners....... 63
11 Unforced errors 22​

Federer was 29 years and almost 11 months old at that point in his 964th ATP Tour level match.. He was 177-0 when 2 sets up in a Major previous to that match.

Federer's only other Major loss from 2 sets up was oddly the slam after the Tsonga loss, in the SF at the 2011 US Open to Novak Djokovic after having 2 match points at 5-4 in the decider and was obviously a bit unlucky to lose it.

Currently, at 35 1/2 years old and after 1332 total matches, Federer is 249-2 when leading 2 sets to love at Majors.
He is 8-1 in matches that went 5 sets after losing the first 2 sets in Majors. His only loss in that situation? To Nadal in the Final at 2008 Wimbledon, 9-7 in the decider.

I don't know how anyone can pick on those stats. Seems pretty amazing to me.

Currently Nadal at 30 years, 8 months and after 990 matches, is 157-1 when leading 2 sets to love at Majors. He is 2-0 in matches that went 5 sets after losing the first 2 sets in Majors.

Nadal's only loss in the 2 sets up situation occurred to Fabio Fognini in the 3rd round of the 2015 US Open at age 29 years and 3 months and in his 905th overall ATP Tour level match, and he was 148-0 when 2 sets up prior to that loss.

These stats are also amazing to me.

Comparison to Novak Djokovic? Currently, at 29 years 9 months, and after 913 total matches, Novak is 162-1 when 2 sets up at Majors. His only loss in that situation was to Jurgen Melzer at the 2010 French Open in the QF in his 431st ATP Tour level match, and he was 49-0 when 2 sets up prior to that only loss. Novak is 4-1 in Majors after losing the first two sets in a 5 set match. His only loss was to Murray in the 2012 US Open Final losing 6-2 in the decider.

At the most important events, these are just incredible records, no?

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[DarthFed]

I always saw it more as Roger being a middle distance runner than a marathon runner. Take the legs away and you're toast.

I agree in a sense that Roger probably didn't have the insane stamina we've seen from Rafa, Djokovic, and maybe a few others yet I don't think it was his endurance that caused most of those losses.

I think looking at the losses match by match that Roger was definitely gassed vs. Murray at 2013 AO, he was already old, had gone a pretty long 5 vs. Tsonga a couple days before that, and he was playing from behind the whole match. I also think he got tired fending off the DelPo bombs in the 2009 USO, that and maybe mental fatigue from knowing he should've won earlier led to the quick 5th set in that match. Aside from that I don't see the other losses as endurance issues. I look at the AO vs. Safin and the 2 long Wimbledon losses to Rafa and Nole respectively instances where he blinked first in the decider and had chances in each of those 5th sets beforehand. I know we disagree about the 2009 AO and many share your view that Roger was dead tired in the 5th set, but it was Roger serving at 2-3 and 30-0 and he missed a routine forehand down the line and that opened the door for Rafa and led to the ugly finish where Roger clearly lost the plot. I think that was mental more than physical. And Roger didn't suddenly become tired vs. Nole when he had match points in those USO matches. Even though Nole deserves credit for saving 3 of those 4 (the 2nd MP in 2011 was a missed put away forehand by Roger), it doesn't account for Roger quickly losing those matches after.

 

[DarthFed]

Agree with the last part for sure... I remember on some old boards, Lendl got a lot of stick for an 8-11 finals record in majors... and my argument was (paraphrasing) "So you think his legacy would be stronger, losing a round earlier?"

I think the same with Roger and the five set record to a large degree... Losing in four isn't any better!

Losing in three or four definitely isn't better. Roger's 5 set record doesn't take anything away from his greatness it just has prevented him from being even greater in the end. Basically it comes down to this: when Roger won the huge matches he usually has done so pretty easily and when he's lost it has often been a five-set brawl. I know there is great debate on what constitutes a "huge match" but certainly GS semis and finals are included and Roger has won a total of 46 of those with 5 being in five sets. He has lost 23 with 9 being in 5 sets It just shows how awesome he's been that he has that 5-9 record in the close matches on the big stage yet he is still the GOAT. On paper most or even all those 5th sets should be at worst 50-50 for Roger given who he is. And if he had a more respectable record in those he would be at 20+

 

[Federberg]

^Good points. I've always thought not being consistently able to take care of who you need to take care of is a more important factor than the 5 set record to be honest. Think about it, player A gets slated for losing in 5 sets against another top player. Player B gets a pass for getting knocked out by a no name. It's romanticism, the belief that it's worse to lose against a top quality player in a big match, than losing against someone you shouldn't. You take care of business first imho, which is why I think this argument used against Federer tends to be agenda driven

 

[Ricardo]

Losing in three or four definitely isn't better. Roger's 5 set record doesn't take anything away from his greatness it just has prevented him from being even greater in the end. Basically it comes down to this: when Roger won the huge matches he usually has done so pretty easily and when he's lost it has often been a five-set brawl. I know there is great debate on what constitutes a "huge match" but certainly GS semis and finals are included and Roger has won a total of 46 of those with 5 being in five sets. He has lost 23 with 9 being in 5 sets It just shows how awesome he's been that he has that 5-9 record in the close matches on the big stage yet he is still the GOAT. On paper most or even all those 5th sets should be at worst 50-50 for Roger given who he is. And if he had a more respectable record in those he would be at 20+

that 5-9 shows his mental flaw when it goes the distance on the big stages, or we can simply state that if you are able to hang in there long enough with Fed, you have a lot better chance of beating him than another top player. Hasn't happened too much as we know Fed is efficient in finishing off his opponents quickly in most cases.....while players like Rafa or Novak are built to outlast you even if you are good enough to take the match to decider.

 

[Ricardo]

^Good points. I've always thought not being consistently able to take care of who you need to take care of is a more important factor than the 5 set record to be honest. Think about it, player A gets slated for losing in 5 sets against another top player. Player B gets a pass for getting knocked out by a no name. It's romanticism, the belief that it's worse to lose against a top quality player in a big match, than losing against someone you shouldn't. You take care of business first imho, which is why I think this argument used against Federer tends to be agenda driven

Taking care of who you should beat is irrelevant, the thread is about when you are about to close the deal...Fed has had much less impressive stats than other top players, especially when we look at their comparative performances on the big stages. There is no agenda, i like Fed's game a lot but it is just a fact that his flaw in closing it out is obvious.

 

[isabelle]

Roger in his career, has had some really unbelievable defeats of matches he should have won but had squandered BIG TIME. While his fans proclaim Roger Federer as GOAT, which I don't agree with BTW, however I am not here to argue that point, but for someone who has been such a great champion, I cannot recall any other champion either before or during Roger's time that has squandered as many big leads (in other words matches he should've won) -

2011 U.S. Open Semifinal - Djokovic d. Federer, 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5
2003 Davis Cup SF- Hewitt defeated Federer, 5-7 ,2-6, 7-6, 7-5, 6-1
2005 Masters Cup - Nalbandian d. Federer , 6-7,6-7,6-2,6-1,7-6
2005 Australian SF- Safin d. Federer, 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6 ,9-7
2011 Wimbledon QF - Tsonga d. Federer, 3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4

By contrast, how many matches have Nadal or Djokovic lost when leading two sets to love?

Berdych also beat him in Wimbly if my memory is good

 

[britbox]

Berdych also beat him in Wimbly if my memory is good

Yeah. but that was in 4 and Roger only won the second set.