Complete the missing piece of your favourite player's career...

[britbox]

We posted a thread on the careers of Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker recently and it reminded me of great memories of Edberg's career accomplishments...

If you had to name ONE thing, and ONE thing only that would have significantly boosted the legacy of your favourite player, then what would it have been.

As Edberg was my fave, then I'll put down winning the French Open. It would have given him a career slam. He came so close, losing in 5 to Chang.

For your favourite player, what would be the missing piece of the jigsaw - Fed fans? Nadal fans? Djokerites? Davydenko fans? ... Let's hear from you, and others.

 

[brokenshoelace]

More wins against Nalbandian...

 

[britbox]

More wins against Nalbandian...

Hello stranger - long time, no see. Welcome back.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

As Bjorn Borg was my tennis idol, winning a USO title, he made the USO finals 4 times, in 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1981, losing to Connors twice and John McEnroe twice.

 

[brokenshoelace]

A few years ago I would have said ATP finals since it's the only big tournament Nadal hasn't won, but honestly looking back now, does it really matter? That was a time when all 3 legends were embroiled in a seemingly never-ending legacy battle and we all ate it up. They all won so much that we were grasping at straws to dissect their resumes to assess who has the greater achievements.

In reality, they had all won so much that I don't think most of what was discussed among fan bases was actually all that important (ATP finals, gold medals, etc...). That's not to say that the tournaments themselves didn't matter or that they all wouldn't have loved to win whichever title they were missing. However, stressing over these "minor" achievements for us fans undermined the magnitude of their accomplishments. We are talking about 20+ slams for all of them, which some of these younger generations take for granted now cause they may not have been there since day one, but for some of us who were here since the literal very beginning, it's hard to emphasize how flat out impossible this seemed. 20 slams was a fantasy number that was never even entertained. For Nadal, he was projected to win 6-8 "if his body held up." So for me to sit here having watched all 22 Grand Slam triumphs and say his career is missing anything now that he's retired doesn't sit right with me. Yes, I wanted him to win the ATP finals when he was active and I still remember the 2010 loss to Roger in London and how much that hurt at the time (what an all around great tournament that was. The Murray-Nadal semi is a forgotten classic). But now? It's not something a Nadal fan should really dwell on.

The reason for that ties into the second point that a Nadal fan could potentially raise in response to the OP's question: winning more non-Roland Garros slams. Obviously, I would have liked Nadal to win more slams of any kind really. That obviously applies to any fan of any player. And yes, I do feel a little disappointed he didn't win another Wimbledon after his 2017 return, where it seemed to me his grass court game was a lot better than it was between 2012-2015. Nadal himself explicitly mentioned that on the podcast with Roddick last year (he said his knees just weren't allowing him to play well on grass until then, a statement that would have started a civil war on these forums 5 years earlier). The 2018 semi final loss to Djokovic hurts because he was clearly the better player that match and Novak was definitely still lacking confidence at that time.

However, one thing I definitely wouldn't not take is exchanging some of those French Open titles for some other slams, in search for a "more balanced" resume. This was always an argument on these boards during those years, but in hindsight, Nadal's 14 French Open titles are exactly what makes him Nadal. Wishing for fewer titles in Paris, even if it meant more Australian Opens or Wimbledons, completely devalues Nadal's uniqueness. There's a reason his footprint is forever stamped on Chatrier. 14 French Opens is one of the most momentous feats of dominance and greatness in any sport, let alone tennis.

 

[britbox]

A few years ago I would have said ATP finals since it's the only big tournament Nadal hasn't won, but honestly looking back now, does it really matter? That was a time when all 3 legends were embroiled in a seemingly never-ending legacy battle and we all ate it up. They all won so much that we were grasping at straws to dissect their resumes to assess who has the greater achievements.

In reality, they had all won so much that I don't think most of what was discussed among fan bases was actually all that important (ATP finals, gold medals, etc...). That's not to say that the tournaments themselves didn't matter or that they all wouldn't have loved to win whatever tournament they were missing. However, stressing over these "minor" achievements for us fans undermined the magnitude of their accomplishments. We are talking about 20+ slams for all of them, which some of these younger generations take for granted now cause they may not have been there since day one, but for some of us who were here since the literal very beginning, it's hard to emphasize how flat out impossible this seemed. 20 slams was a fantasy number that was never even entertained. For Nadal, he was projected to win 6-8 "if his body held up." So for me to sit here having watched all 22 Grand Slam triumphs and say his career is missing anything now that he's retired doesn't sit right with me. Yes, I wanted him to win the ATP finals when he was active and I still remember the 2010 loss to Roger in London and how much that hurt at the time (what an all around great tournament that was. The Murray-Nadal semi is a forgotten classic). But now? It's not something a Nadal fan should really dwell on.

The reason for that ties into the second point that a Nadal fan could potentially raise in response to the OP's question: winning more non-Roland Garros slams. Obviously, I would have liked Nadal to win more slams of any kind really. That obviously applies to any fan of any player. And yes, I do feel a little disappointed he didn't win another Wimbledon after his 2017 return, where it seemed to me his grass court game was a lot better than it was between 2012-2015. Nadal himself explicitly mentioned that on the podcast with Roddick last year (he said his knees just weren't allowing him to play well on grass until then, a statement that would have started a civil war on these forums 5 years earlier). The 2018 semi final loss to Djokovic hurts because he was clearly the better player that match and Novak was definitely still lacking confidence at that time.

However, one thing I definitely wouldn't not take is exchanging some of those French Open titles for some other slams, in search for a "more balanced" resume. This was always an argument on these boards during those years, but in hindsight, Nadal's 14 French Open titles are exactly what makes him Nadal. Wishing for fewer titles in Paris, even if it meant more Australian Opens or Wimbledons, completely devalues Nadal's uniqueness. There's a reason his footprint is forever stamped on Chatrier. 14 French Opens is one of the most momentous feats of dominance and greatness in any sport, let alone tennis.

Interesting point about the French Open tally - I guess it's the glass half full, half empty scenario. Whereas one might view it as making the overall major count less rounded than Federer or Djoker - the other lens sees Nadal at Roland Garros as the Ultimate Test in Tennis bar none. I think his peer group definitely felt the latter - which is really all that matters.

 

[Federberg]

We posted a thread on the careers of Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker recently and it reminded me of great memories of Edberg's career accomplishments...

If you had to name ONE thing, and ONE thing only that would have significantly boosted the legacy of your favourite player, then what would it have been.

As Edberg was my fave, then I'll put down winning the French Open. It would have given him a career slam. He came so close, losing in 5 to Chang.

For you favourite player, what would be the missing piece of the jigsaw - Fed fans? Nadal fans? Djokerites? Davydenko fans? ... Let's hear from you, and others.

lol! Just reading the title that was my immediate thought too. Stefan and that loss to Chang.

As for other ones... strangely.. the fact Roger could never get it together at Flushing after winning 5 in a row really grates me. I was particularly disgusted with him playing in Canada in 2017 which I believe led to him being unable to launch a proper campaign at Flushing. Memory a bit fuzzy about the specific events in the tournament, but I remember that Front, Darth and I were all fuming with him

 

[brokenshoelace]

Interesting point about the French Open tally - I guess it's the glass half full, half empty scenario. Whereas one might view it as making the overall major count less rounded than Federer or Djoker - the other lens sees Nadal at Roland Garros as the Ultimate Test in Tennis bar none. I think his peer group definitely felt the latter - which is really all that matters.

Honestly being distant from the constant message boards/social media fan wars helps. I know this is a dull take that might be considered a copout, but I just don't care for the resume comparison as much as I used to, in large part because they've all accomplished so much. At some point (I know that's not what you're suggesting), trying to boil it down to a science does a disservice to the whole thing. Once you've won 20+ slams and dominated for as long as they have, the impact of an extra slam or 2 just isn't as decisive for me. This is not a coping mechanism because Novak has more than Nadal (for instance, Nadal has more than Roger and I consider Federer to be the better - and yes, greater - player), but I don't think 22 slams makes you an irrefutably better player than someone who's won 20. If the comparison was say, 4 to 2 or even 6 to 4, it would be a different conversation.

Much of the stuff that I used to feel very strongly about, I don't anymore. And many of the things I used to dismiss, I've kinda come around on. I don't really care that Nadal's Grand Slam trophy cabinet isn't as diverse as the other two. He's done plenty of winning outside of clay. Meanwhile, the other two haven't won nearly enough on clay by comparison to other surfaces. I don't think either of these things matter much. Both Djokovic and Federer would have won far more French Opens had it not been for Nadal, and Nadal would have won far more Wimbledons and Australian Opens without the other two. It's impossible to have a spotless resume when you're competing against that level of greatness, yet I'd argue that all three have come very close to doing just that.

 

[mrzz]

For Federer I get stuck between two different things: Taking in one of those two championship points against Djokovic at Wimbledon 2019 or winning one final against Nadal at the French. The first one was there for the taking, the second one way more complicated but... it could have changed the rest of his carreer (maybe even for the worst). If I would pick an opportunity to win the French, it would 2011. That drop shot that landed out in the first set, that would have given him a double break (and probably the set), could have changed the outcome of that match (remember, he won the second set, but more importantly the match was pretty competitve).

Wimbledon 2008 is a very distant third, actually fourth, I would put AO 2009 in front of that). Strangely enough, I feel that if Federer had lost that final against Roddick in W 2009 (which he deserved to lose, one his worst final appearances I can think of), he would have a better second half of his carreer.

 

[britbox]

As Bjorn Borg was my tennis idol, winning a USO title, he made the USO finals 4 times, in 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1981, losing to Connors twice and John McEnroe twice.

I recall Borg said that if he won the USO and the Grand Slam was on, he'd travel down under to attempt it (when the tourney was held in December). I think Connors said he's follow him down there to stop him (from memory) if that eventuality ever took place.

 

[britbox]

For Federer I get stuck between two different things: Taking in one of those two championship points against Djokovic at Wimbledon 2019 or winning one final against Nadal at the French. The first one was there for the taking, the second one way more complicated but... it could have changed the rest of his carreer (maybe even for the worst). If I would pick an opportunity to win the French, it would 2011. That drop shot that landed out in the first set, that would have given him a double break (and probably the set), could have changed the outcome of that match (remember, he won the second set, but more importantly the match was pretty competitve).

Wimbledon 2008 is a very distant third, actually fourth, I would put AO 2009 in front of that). Strangely enough, I feel that if Federer had lost that final against Roddick in W 2009 (which he deserved to lose, one his worst final appearances I can think of), he would have a better second half of his carreer.

For Fed, I found that Del Potro loss at the USO particularly irritable.

 

[brokenshoelace]

For Federer I get stuck between two different things: Taking in one of those two championship points against Djokovic at Wimbledon 2019 or winning one final against Nadal at the French. The first one was there for the taking, the second one way more complicated but... it could have changed the rest of his carreer (maybe even for the worst). If I would pick an opportunity to win the French, it would 2011. That drop shot that landed out in the first set, that would have given him a double break (and probably the set), could have changed the outcome of that match (remember, he won the second set, but more importantly the match was pretty competitve).

Wimbledon 2008 is a very distant third, actually fourth, I would put AO 2009 in front of that). Strangely enough, I feel that if Federer had lost that final against Roddick in W 2009 (which he deserved to lose, one his worst final appearances I can think of), he would have a better second half of his carreer.

The Del Potro loss, as BB mentioned above, is in my mind the most puzzling performance of Federer's career. He had the match under control and seemed like he just couldn't be bothered anymore. He had no fight in him and just sort of gave up. Even his post match interview was very odd and he flat out said he's not all that upset about it.

If we're talking about moments I would like to change for my favorite, the 2012 Australian Open is a major one, followed by Wimbledon in 2018. 2007 Wimbledon doesn't bother me as much anymore because I think it set the stage for Nadal's win the following year.

If we were to nit-pick, I agree with you that Federer could have used a win over Nadal at RG just to get that monkey off his back. Even then, he's still the greatest to ever touch a racket for my money.

 

[El Dude]

I was going to say something similar to broken (welcome back) - that for the Big Three, their overall accomplishments outweigh any little gaps in their resume. And of course Novak doesn't really have any gaps, but Rafa and Roger accomplished so much that to worry over one or two things is a bit silly.

I will also echo mrzz: for me, that 2019 Wimbledon loss was my least favorite moment in my Roger fandom and what I'd most like to have gone differently. But that isn't a gap on his resume, just a painful moment (which still smarts a bit).

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Pete - French Open

Capriati - playing her prime years (I wish she went the Iga path, and didn't go back to school in fall 1993. Jennifer was easily more talented than Iga, and probably would have won 10+ slams if she didn't self-destruct.) Remove hypotheticals, then it's easily the 2001 Wimbledon choke when she was chasing a calendar slam.

Henin - Wimbledon

Murray - Australian Open

Barty - US Open (I really hope she returns to complete this, so I don't wonder what if, like with Borg.)

 

[brokenshoelace]

Pete - French Open

Capriati - playing her prime years (I wish she went the Iga path, and didn't go back to school in fall 1993. Jennifer was easily more talented than Iga, and probably would have won 10+ slams if she didn't self-destruct.) Remove hypotheticals, then it's easily the 2001 Wimbledon choke when she was chasing a calendar slam.

Henin - Wimbledon

Murray - Australian Open

Barty - US Open (I really hope she returns to complete this, so I don't wonder what if, like with Borg.)

Henin not winning Wimbledon is one of the more underrated tragedies of tennis, especially with the kind of game she had.

 

[Federberg]

Honestly being distant from the constant message boards/social media fan wars helps. I know this is a dull take that might be considered a copout, but I just don't care for the resume comparison as much as I used to, in large part because they've all accomplished so much. At some point (I know that's not what you're suggesting), trying to boil it down to a science does a disservice to the whole thing. Once you've won 20+ slams and dominated for as long as they have, the impact of an extra slam or 2 just isn't as decisive for me. This is not a coping mechanism because Novak has more than Nadal (for instance, Nadal has more than Roger and I consider Federer to be the better - and yes, greater - player), but I don't think 22 slams makes you an irrefutably better player than someone who's won 20. If the comparison was say, 4 to 2 or even 6 to 4, it would be a different conversation.

Much of the stuff that I used to feel very strongly about, I don't anymore. And many of the things I used to dismiss, I've kinda come around on. I don't really care that Nadal's Grand Slam trophy cabinet isn't as diverse as the other two. He's done plenty of winning outside of clay. Meanwhile, the other two haven't won nearly enough on clay by comparison to other surfaces. I don't think either of these things matter much. Both Djokovic and Federer would have won far more French Opens had it not been for Nadal, and Nadal would have won far more Wimbledons and Australian Opens without the other two. It's impossible to have a spotless resume when you're competing against that level of greatness, yet I'd argue that all three have come very close to doing just that.

I 1000% agree with you. I've softened so much on Rafa now that I actually go back and watch matches of his that I couldn't stomach when the 3 were in their pomp. I'm actually a fan (hope Darth isn't reading this! ). I particularly agree with your point about his RG titles. That cannot, and should not ever be diminished. I don't think anyone will ever do that again. It's utterly stupendous. I can't think of anything close, maybe the next thing is Roger's 5 consecutive at both Wimbledon and Flushing. Not sure if that will ever be done again. At one of them perhaps, but both?? That's tough! In any case all 3 of them need to be treasured at this point, and arguing within the fan base just seems to completely miss the point. I would go so far as to say if you try to diminish one because you support another you actually end up diminishing all of them. Just happy I was along for the ride.

 

[Federberg]

oh.. but can I say one thing... not really thread related. Am I the only one who thinks Rafa's golf swing is super weird?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I 1000% agree with you. I've softened so much on Rafa now that I actually go back and watch matches of his that I couldn't stomach when the 3 were in their pomp. I'm actually a fan (hope Darth isn't reading this! ). I particularly agree with your point about his RG titles. That cannot, and should not ever be diminished. I don't think anyone will ever do that again. It's utterly stupendous. I can't think of anything close, maybe the next thing is Roger's 5 consecutive at both Wimbledon and Flushing. Not sure if that will ever be done again. At one of them perhaps, but both?? That's tough! In any case all 3 of them need to be treasured at this point, and arguing within the fan base just seems to completely miss the point. I would go so far as to say if you try to diminish one because you support another you actually end up diminishing all of them. Just happy I was along for the ride.

Agreed on all accounts.

I think we can admit that the endless Federer/Nadal/Djokovic wars online (and these boards were no different) raised the stakes for us fans, and we all went overboard. I never looked forward to this place after a major Nadal loss, much less to one of the other two. It's stupid to say but in a way, that added pressure while watching the matches for me, which is utterly ridiculous and to be honest, a touch joyless. That's no way to actually consume sports.

Those guys were just so fucking good, and played each other so much, that it was hard not to be so invested. By the end of it, I realized that for all the arbitrary reasons I'd give myself as to why I disliked certain players, ultimately, it was simply because they were my favorite player's rivals. No more, no less.

That said, what a ride it was, and my god, how many great moments it gave us. Tennis is a very unique sport in which the big moments within a match just feel HUGE in a way that few other sports replicate.