Bombshell: Federer would lead the slam h2h vs Djokovic 9-8 if he had simply converted the match points in the 2010-11 USO and 2019 WB.

[Nadalfan2013]

Today it’s 11-6 in Djokovic’s favor but it could have been 9-8 for Federer because of only THREE points!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

And don't forget about 2014 Wimbledon. So, Roger could actually be leading the H2H 10-7, with 10 Wimbledon titles to his name.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't think Roger wins either the 2010 or 2011 US Open even if he converts against Novak.

 

[Kieran]

Today it’s 11-6 in Djokovic’s favor but it could have been 9-8 for Federer because of only THREE points!

Don’t forget that Rafa beat both of them from match point down, but had he lost those matches..

However, in his favour, Rafa never lost from match point up against either of them..

 

[El Dude]

BOMBSHELL: ROGER FEDERER WOULD HAVE 35 SLAM TITLES IF HE WASN'T SUCH A PUSSY IN KEY MOMENTS.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

BOMBSHELL: ROGER FEDERER WOULD HAVE 35 SLAM TITLES IF HE WASN'T SUCH A PUSSY IN KEY MOMENTS.

BOMBSHELL: RAFAEL NADAL WOULD HAVE 75 SLAM TITLES IF HE WAS HEALTHY AND FEDERER/DJOKOVIC WOULD HAVE 0 SLAM TITLES.

 

[Kieran]

BOMBSHELL: ROGER FEDERER WOULD HAVE 35 SLAM TITLES IF HE WASN'T SUCH A PUSSY IN KEY MOMENTS.

In fairness to Roger, he gets stick for losing matches at slams where he has match point, but I always took that as an indication of how tough he was, not as a weakness. He was a point away from beating Safin in Australia in 2005 and there was a blessed lob, and 3 times he had match point against Novak, and a couple of Hail Mary shots saved Djokovic, that’s how close it was. And was Roger playing his flat out best in any of those matches? His opponents were. He was almost 3-fricking-8 in 2019, and yet he got to within a point of winning the title, I think that’s mighty damn impressive.

I know you were joking, by the way. But some people will think you weren’t and agree with you. But still, given his style, which isn’t attritional the way Rafa and Novak get, so he doesn’t get the benefit of knowing he can outlast the bastard he’s facing, but it’s more based on risky shots, attack, and a greater imagination, while also being able to grind, I think he’s been fairly tough…

 

[tented]

In fairness to Roger, he gets stick for losing matches at slams where he has match point, but I always took that as an indication of how tough he was, not as a weakness. He was a point away from beating Safin in Australia in 2005 and there was a blessed lob, and 3 times he had match point against Novak, and a couple of Hail Mary shots saved Djokovic, that’s how close it was. And was Roger playing his flat out best in any of those matches? His opponents were. He was almost 3-fricking-8 in 2019, and yet he got to within a point of winning the title, I think that’s mighty damn impressive.

Exactly. And it also explains his stats for deciding sets and 5 setters, which at first don’t look impressive, but his opponents had to go to their limit to beat him.

 

[Moxie]

Exactly. And it also explains his stats for deciding sets and 5 setters, which at first don’t look impressive, but his opponents had to go to their limit to beat him.

View attachment 8363

As a Safin fan, I think I can say for sure the two greatest matches he played in his life were v. Sampras in the 2000 USO final, and that SF in Oz in 2005. He had 7 match points before he closed. He was a talented player, but it took everything he had to beat Roger on that day.

 

[El Dude]

In fairness to Roger, he gets stick for losing matches at slams where he has match point, but I always took that as an indication of how tough he was, not as a weakness. He was a point away from beating Safin in Australia in 2005 and there was a blessed lob, and 3 times he had match point against Novak, and a couple of Hail Mary shots saved Djokovic, that’s how close it was. And was Roger playing his flat out best in any of those matches? His opponents were. He was almost 3-fricking-8 in 2019, and yet he got to within a point of winning the title, I think that’s mighty damn impressive.

I know you were joking, by the way. But some people will think you weren’t and agree with you. But still, given his style, which isn’t attritional the way Rafa and Novak get, so he doesn’t get the benefit of knowing he can outlast the bastard he’s facing, but it’s more based on risky shots, attack, and a greater imagination, while also being able to grind, I think he’s been fairly tough…

Yes, joking - but to address the serious part. What you say reminds me of how people criticize players for reaching finals but not winning them. This is one of the more obvious reasons I don't like to overly focus on Slam wins. Take 2019, for example (which is my most painful loss as a Roger fan...I couldn't even pay attention to tennis for a month or two after that). If we only look at Slam titles, Novak is "1" and Roger is "0." But Roger still played a great match and, as you say, he was almost 38 playing against a 32 year old.

Or Andy Murray's Slam final record: 3-8. What a loser, right? Well, he peaked during a rather unfortunate era, and the fact is that he made it to 11 finals - the same number as McEnroe, Becker, and Wilander (and one more than Edberg). Or Lendl at 8-11...that's more than anyone other than the Big Three. I've said before that Lendl's prime might have overlapped with more all-time greats than anyone else: he came of age while Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were still prime, saw the rise of Wilander, Becker, and Edberg, and then was declining as Sampras, Agassi, and Courier were rising. No easy years in there (still, he should have beat Pat Cash!).

 

[Kieran]

Yes, joking - but to address the serious part. What you say reminds me of how people criticize players for reaching finals but not winning them. This is one of the more obvious reasons I don't like to overly focus on Slam wins. Take 2019, for example (which is my most painful loss as a Roger fan...I couldn't even pay attention to tennis for a month or two after that). If we only look at Slam titles, Novak is "1" and Roger is "0." But Roger still played a great match and, as you say, he was almost 38 playing against a 32 year old.

Or Andy Murray's Slam final record: 3-8. What a loser, right? Well, he peaked during a rather unfortunate era, and the fact is that he made it to 11 finals - the same number as McEnroe, Becker, and Wilander (and one more than Edberg). Or Lendl at 8-11...that's more than anyone other than the Big Three. I've said before that Lendl's prime might have overlapped with more all-time greats than anyone else: he came of age while Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were still prime, saw the rise of Wilander, Becker, and Edberg, and then was declining as Sampras, Agassi, and Courier were rising. No easy years in there (still, he should have beat Pat Cash!).

Well he’s some loser though, isn’t he? I mean I still stand by my point that he got so close so many times because he’s bastard to beat. I give him huge credit for staying relevant so long after his 2012 Wimbledon victory. He made hay when the Serbian rebel was young, and the rebel made hay when Fed was old.

And Rafa made hay all along!

 

[Ricardo]

El duh keeps posting backstabbing comment against Roger while posing as his fan....whats real unfortunate is that lack of knowledge, like Lendl should have beat Pat Cash who played lights out? get this through that Duh skull, Cash was simply a better grass courter than Lendl. Another Duh moment!!