What are your favorite wins and worst losses (for your guy)?

[El Dude]

For me the most heartbreaking loss was when Robert Wrenn beat Wilberforce Eaves. I was 7 at the time, and Wilberforce was my uncle, brother-in-law to my mother, Patricia, widowed wife of Lord Bartholomew Wilberforce of Sussex. Uncle Wilberforce lost in five grueling sets. Worst of all, he lost to a Yankee. My father died while driving his first auto in 1898, which left Uncle Wilberforce heartbroken; he never recovered, dying in 1920 at age 52. I died in battle in World War II in 1940 at the age of 49 in the Battle of Britain, a Lieutenant-colonel for the British Army. It took me a few decades to be reborn as I had to work off some karma due to my actions in World War I and, to add insult to injury, I was reborn a Yank.

 

[Moxie]

AO17 for the win

But too many to count for the losses...

AO09, Wm19, US09, Wm08... take you pick. He should have won all of those. And what's worse is that there are probably more that I don't care to think about. The git should have more than 20!

I guess this thread is all about moaning and bemoaning, but I am a bit surprised at you with the "should have." Because it does smack of "would have." The only one I'd give you is W 19. But, hey, I guess this is all about the cri-de-coeur. Glad to see you back in the tennis mix.

 

[tented]

It’s fittingly ironic that my worst loss is @El Dude ‘s favorite — the 2017 AO final: the chance for Rafa to complete the double career slam, up a break in the fifth, fewer than a handful of games away from the championship — only to turn into the ultimate tennis example of watching a slow-motion train wreck.

Yet it’s difficult for me to whittle it down to one favorite match. Sure, there’s the 08 Wimbledon final, but it seems a little too obvious, even though it was a great match, packed with drama. The 09 Madrid SF, with Rafa saving three MPs to win the then-longest ever three set match. The 09 Australian Open, but that’s really a pair of five-set matches with the SF vs. Verdasco, plus the Fedal final. The 2010 USO final was a memorable match, and completed Rafa’s career slam, although I think the 2013 final was better. The 2006 Rome final, saving two championship points.

But I have a new favorite: the 2019 USO final. I think, in retrospect, it will be seen as having been Rafa’s last truly great, victorious battle. It’s especially sweet that it was on a hard court, with a valiant effort by Medvedev to take it to five sets, despite having nearly been won in three. And I thought Medvedev was going to pull off the win, too, with Rafa looking tired in the fifth, however it turned out to be a famous example of Federer’s apt word to describe Rafa’s game: tenacity.

 

[Federberg]

I guess this thread is all about moaning and bemoaning, but I am a bit surprised at you with the "should have." Because it does smack of "would have." The only one I'd give you is W 19. But, hey, I guess this is all about the cri-de-coeur. Glad to see you back in the tennis mix.

stop! There's no moaning and bemoaning. I never bring it up. This thread asks the question, and I answered. No injury excuses, no bad luck. Just a frustration at Roger letting - in my opinion - winnable matches slip by. I don't see anything wrong with that

 

[El Dude]

stop! There's no moaning and bemoaning. I never bring it up. This thread asks the question, and I answered. No injury excuses, no bad luck. Just a frustration at Roger letting - in my opinion - winnable matches slip by. I don't see anything wrong with that

I haven't done the research, but my impression is that Roger has let "winnable matches slip by" more often than Nadal and Djokovic. I'm not talking about mere comebacks, but matches in which Roger (or the others) had championship points, but ended up losing.

I think this speaks of both Roger's Achilles heel and Rafa and Novak's (Rafa, in particular) stronger ability to clamp down.

 

[tented]

I haven't done the research, but my impression is that Roger has let "winnable matches slip by" more often than Nadal and Djokovic. I'm not talking about mere comebacks, but matches in which Roger (or the others) had championship points, but ended up losing.

I think this speaks of both Roger's Achilles heel and Rafa and Novak's (Rafa, in particular) stronger ability to clamp down.

Several years ago, someone asked him which match he’d like to go back and re-do (or phrased something like that), and Roger said the 2009 US Open final. It makes perfect sense, too. He was two points from winning at least once (maybe twice?), but ultimately he became his own worst enemy that day. It was like watching him psychologically revert to the emotional teenager he used to be. Things got under his skin, and bothered him too much. He lost the ability to keep moving forward, and let things go. So, yeah, I can see why he would want a mulligan on that match.

 

[Kieran]

These matches that slip away, they linger, don’t they? I recently rewatched the 7th game of the fifth set of the 2012 Australian Open final, The Backhand, sliding into the tramlines like a nightmare. Impossible to imagine that if it was the 2nd game of the match, but even these players get these indescribable moments where they can’t control themselves. For a tonic I watched the FO semi, 8th game of the fifth, I think, Novak touched the net. It’s the same thing, and for us watching from the edge of the sofa, it’s almost impossible to forget. They all did great though, to come back and win big again.

Tented is right, the 2019 US Open final was a classic, high quality, high drama match, and mainly because Medvedev did what few players do to the Big 3, he stepped up and hit huge…

 

[tented]

These matches that slip away, they linger, don’t they? I recently rewatched the 7th game of the fifth set of the 2012 Australian Open final, The Backhand, sliding into the tramlines like a nightmare.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

View attachment 5429

I was live.....that match took years off my life.

 

[Moxie]

Several years ago, someone asked him which match he’d like to go back and re-do (or phrased something like that), and Roger said the 2009 US Open final. It makes perfect sense, too. He was two points from winning at least once (maybe twice?), but ultimately he became his own worst enemy that day. It was like watching him psychologically revert to the emotional teenager he used to be. Things got under his skin, and bothered him too much. He lost the ability to keep moving forward, and let things go. So, yeah, I can see why he would want a mulligan on that match.

The thing that always bugs me about discussions of that match is that they focus on Roger's missed opportunity, and not on the fact that Juan Martín stepped up and won it. At 20. As if it were only about Roger, and the missed opportunity, and not about JMDP and the seized one. I remember watching that match and feeling like I was watching a young player learn to win a Major in real time. It is similar to the 2019 USO Nadal v Medvedev. The older, elite player was tight, and the younger player grew into the possibilities. I know that the Federer fans won't be happy that the outcomes were different, for the elite and favored player, but the matches did have similarities. In any case, I do think JMDP should not be throw out with the bathwater on that win, in the wash of Federer's and his fan-bases' regrets.

 

[El Dude]

Delpo probably deserves a career do-over, more than any other player of the last couple decades (with the possible exception of Robin Soderling; Mario Ancic and Guillermo Coria would be in the mix, as well, and of course Marat Safin, but his makeover would require more than just better luck/health).

I mean, if you dial back to the end of 2009, he was making an argument for a "Big Five." Imagine if he had stayed healthy...he could have been a beast, and even had a Stanimal-esque half decade.

 

[Moxie]

Delpo probably deserves a career do-over, more than any other player of the last couple decades (with the possible exception of Robin Soderling; Mario Ancic and Guillermo Coria would be in the mix, as well, and of course Marat Safin, but his makeover would require more than just better luck/health).

I mean, if you dial back to the end of 2009, he was making an argument for a "Big Five." Imagine if he had stayed healthy...he could have been a beast, and even had a Stanimal-esque half decade.

If he gets a do-over, how can you possibly think he only had 5 years in him. He was 21 when his body started to betray him. Of anyone, if he'd been healthy, I think he would have changed the landscape of the Big 3 conversation. Seriously...who else?

 

[Federberg]

If he gets a do-over, how can you possibly think he only had 5 years in him. He was 21 when his body started to betray him. Of anyone, if he'd been healthy, I think he would have changed the landscape of the Big 3 conversation. Seriously...who else?

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I remember that quarter/semi(?) against Roger at RG09. Delpo was hitting his backhand as hard as his forehand. He was absolutely terrifying. I firmly believe that if he had been able to avoid the wrist injury he would have been an enormous problem for the big 3. Particularly on clay and hard courts. If anyone was ever designed to match up with Rafa on clay, peak uninjured Delpo just might have been the one (there's no breaking down that backhand, if Rafa had tried that it would have been at his peril). And I also believe he would have presented the same sort of problem for Novak that Stan-imal did, but with more consistency and will. It's truly one of the great tragedies in tennis history

 

[El Dude]

If he gets a do-over, how can you possibly think he only had 5 years in him. He was 21 when his body started to betray him. Of anyone, if he'd been healthy, I think he would have changed the landscape of the Big 3 conversation. Seriously...who else?

It is just a random number, on the conservative side. But yeah, agreed. He would have made it a Big 5, at the very least, if not surpassed Murray.

 

[tented]

The thing that always bugs me about discussions of that match is that they focus on Roger's missed opportunity, and not on the fact that Juan Martín stepped up and won it. At 20. As if it were only about Roger, and the missed opportunity, and not about JMDP and the seized one. I remember watching that match and feeling like I was watching a young player learn to win a Major in real time. It is similar to the 2019 USO Nadal v Medvedev. The older, elite player was tight, and the younger player grew into the possibilities. I know that the Federer fans won't be happy that the outcomes were different, for the elite and favored player, but the matches did have similarities. In any case, I do think JMDP should not be throw out with the bathwater on that win, in the wash of Federer's and his fan-bases' regrets.

Exactly. Federer — the older, elite player — got tight, and JMDP — the younger player — stepped up. My post doesn’t negative JMDP. Even when the best players are playing medium to bad tennis, they’re still dangerous and can often beat the majority of the field. Often, but not always. Someone still has to step up and beat them. Roger teetered, and JMDP went for the kill. But it’s not as if JMDP beat Roger in straight sets either.

 

[tented]

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I remember that quarter/semi(?) against Roger at RG09. Delpo was hitting his backhand as hard as his forehand. He was absolutely terrifying. I firmly believe that if he had been able to avoid the wrist injury he would have been an enormous problem for the big 3. Particularly on clay and hard courts. If anyone was ever designed to match up with Rafa on clay, peak uninjured Delpo just might have been the one (there's no breaking down that backhand, if Rafa had tried that it would have been at his peril). And I also believe he would have presented the same sort of problem for Novak that Stan-imal did, but with more consistency and will. It's truly one of the great tragedies in tennis history

It was the semifinal at RG 09. Roger barely made it out alive to get to the final and complete the career slam. And I completely agree that JMDP could have easily become part of the Big Four, pushing Murray aside.

 

[Federberg]

It was the semifinal at RG 09. Roger barely made it out alive to get to the final and complete the career slam. And I completely agree that JMDP could have easily become part of the Big Four, pushing Murray aside.

aaaaargh!! sacriledge!! The Big 4 was never a thing. Out of respect for rankings consistency I'll concede there was a top 4 once. But only ever a Big 3

 

[Fiero425]

aaaaargh!! sacriledge!! The Big 4 was never a thing. Out of respect for rankings consistency I'll concede there was a top 4 once. But only ever a Big 3

True enough, but going back to the beginning of Open Tennis, there's always been a "Big 4" even if you had to create them out of whole cloth like making Gerulaitus part of the quartet being "BFF" with Connors, McEnroe, & Borg! A more legit 4th was Vilas, but he came and went from the tour due to suspensions of under the table $$ to play tourneys! I think that was part of him being managed by Tiriac! Murray wasn't as phony winning 3 majors, a YEC, and held the #1 ranking! Most #4's never get there; regardless if something happens to the players above them! Borg would be seeded if he came back 2 years later just lying on the beaches of Monaco! The closest we come to this actually occurring was "old man" Connors coming back from the dead as #3 behind Borg and McEnroe, but with Borg gone/retired, McEnroe unmotivated, with the help of Lendl actually pulled a Fed winning 3 majors late in his career; 2 USO's and a Wimbledon!

 

[El Dude]

aaaaargh!! sacriledge!! The Big 4 was never a thing. Out of respect for rankings consistency I'll concede there was a top 4 once. But only ever a Big 3

But seriously, though, while I agree that the gap between the Big Three and Murray is large enough to make Murray not warrant being truly part of that group--at least in terms of tennis greatness--over the course of his prime, the gap between him and everyone else was also quite large. Each year there was someone close, but he was overall the fourth best player during that time and--taking that period as a whole--no one was particularly close.

I'll put a bit of elbow grease into it. Let's look at 2008-17, which is the ten-year span that Andy finished in the top 10. I looked at the top players of that time and came up with an average ATP point value for each, over those ten years:

1. Novak Djokovic 10,097
2. Rafael Nadal 8,369
3. Roger Federer 7,742
4. Andy Murray 6,600
5. David Ferrer 3,596
6. Tomas Berdych 3,376
7. Stan Wawrinka 3,305
8. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 2,841
9. Juan Martin del Potro 2,511
10. Marin Cilic 2,492

What stands out to me is the huge gap between Murray and the rest.

Now of course the time-span benefits Murray, as those are his prime years, but I think that's the point: for a decade, he was the clear #4 in the sport, and closer to #2-3 than he was to #5, as far as ATP points are concerned (and as a representation of overall performance).

So if we want a "Big Four Era," we can say it is 2008-17, perhaps peaking in 2012 when they all won a Slam.

Truly the Worst of the Best, and the Best of the Rest at the same time.

 

[El Dude]

I think another angle on this is that, in terms of career accomplishments, you have to go all the way back to Agassi and Sampras to find someone clearly better than Andy Murray (other than the Holy Trinity). I'm not talking about peak performance, as I think we can say that--at their best--Del Potro and Wawrinka were better, not to mention Safin and peak (young) Hewitt. And there are several young guys who could eventually eclipse Andy. But as far as extended quality over a long period of time, and career accomplishments, Andy Murray is the 4th best player of the 21st century.

IMO, of course.