Is Federer the first number one to lose 3 tight matches in a row? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Federer the first number one to lose 3 tight matches in a row?

andy neyer
04-27-2010, 07:00 PM
Voo del Mar raised this question in the Gulbis-Federer thread and it got me thinking too.

Does Federer have the honour of being the only number 1 whose last 3 losses have been in 3 tight sets? :lol:

Arkulari
04-27-2010, 07:01 PM
what a mug this guy is... :o

Santoro Magician
04-27-2010, 07:04 PM
He hasnt lost 3 matches in a row? Only two

You should change your title to lost three tight matches in three tournaments in a row

rubbERR
04-27-2010, 07:04 PM
it wasnt tight today, gulbis was controlling last two sets

duong
04-27-2010, 08:57 PM
it wasnt tight today, gulbis was controlling last two sets

exactly

Anyway Voo de Mar gave an even more impressive streak : that he lost last 8 matches, I think, where at 5-5 in third final set.

Anyway it's like that : Federer likes records and streaks :lol:

He has won 22 or 23 finals in a row, I don't remember, played 22 semifinals in grands slams in a row, still holds the record for percentage of tiebreaks won including a tremendous one for tiebreaks won in grand slam final (and also great figures for tiebreaks played at 6-6 as Voo de Mar mentioned once).

He even has the record of cookie plates for being runner-up of every grand slam (not only winner) :lol:

He also likes wasting some records which are nearly given from time to time as he may do for the record number of weeks at number 1 and as he did against Canas in the past for Vilas's record streak of matches won, as he also may do for Agassi's record in MS1000 tournaments :lol:

Also for tiebreaks in grand slam finals, he won 80% of them but once he lost one, he lost two of them (against Del Potro in the US Open) :lol: the same for the streak of tiebreaks won : he lost it against Djokovic and lost two tiebreaks to lose Montreal that day ; once he lost to Canas to end his winning streak, he lost twice to the same one ... it all goes by streaks even when the previous one ends :lol:

heya
04-27-2010, 09:05 PM
All lucky for those one dimensional opponents. Maybe Fed was injured. Maybe he was so wonderful that he tanked the match in order to bottle feed his crying babies.

heya
04-27-2010, 09:11 PM
exactly


He also likes wasting some records which are nearly given from time to time as he may do for the record number of weeks at number 1 and as he did against Canas in the past for Vilas's record streak of matches won, as he also may do for Agassi's record in MS1000 tournaments :lol:

Also for tiebreaks in grand slam finals, he won 80% of them but once he lost one, he lost two of them (against Del Potro in the US Open) :lol: the same for the streak of tiebreaks won : he lost it against Djokovic and lost two tiebreaks to lose Montreal that day ; once he lost to Canas to end his winning streak, he lost twice to the same one ... it all goes by streaks even when the previous one ends :lol:
Poor Fed. If he wasn't peaking with the right draws & rain delays helping his schedule, his results would be like those of journeymen & you'd be a fan of someone else.

duong
04-27-2010, 09:19 PM
Poor Fed. If he wasn't peaking with the right draws & rain delays helping his schedule, his results would be like those of journeymen & you'd be a fan of someone else.

he's often lucky (people overrate him actually, I totally agree with that ;) ), sometimes unlucky, far from invincible as some people think, it makes it more fascinating in a way :lol:

Voo de Mar
04-27-2010, 09:52 PM
Voo del Mar raised this question in the Gulbis-Federer thread and it got me thinking too.

Does Federer have the honour of being the only number 1 whose last 3 losses have been in 3 tight sets? :lol:

No (to be precise: three *tight defeats* in three consecutive tournaments, not three matches in a row). I've just checked Sampras who being No. 1 in the world first few months (year 1993), lost in three consecutive tournaments after a tie-break of the third set:

Los Angeles SF: Krajicek 4-6 6-3 6-7(3)
Cincinnati SF: Edberg 7-6(3) 5-7 6-7(5)
Indianapolis QF: Rafter 6-7(6) 7-6(2) 6-7(5)

* As a tight defeat I consider a match where a player who lost was at least two games away from victory (on the assumption that was a set at least 7-5 not 6-4)

Voo de Mar
04-27-2010, 10:04 PM
^ Sampras hadn't match point in any of those matches.

dijus
04-27-2010, 10:16 PM
but Sampras lost to decent players, not mugs like Berdych, Gulbis...

Voo de Mar
04-27-2010, 10:19 PM
but Sampras lost to decent players, not mugs like Berdych, Gulbis...

That loss to Rafter was a huge surprise then! Rafter was ranked 139 and was playing his first QF in an ATP event. Maybe that win was crucial for his further career :shrug:

Frooty_Bazooty
04-27-2010, 10:20 PM
^ Sampras hadn't match point in any of those matches.

i was going to say 'how could you possibly remember that?' and then I saw it was Voo who said it and I immediately thought, 'oh, it's true' :lol:

FiBeR
04-27-2010, 10:22 PM
long live de Mar! :worship:

duong
04-27-2010, 10:23 PM
That loss to Rafter was a huge surprise then! Rafter was ranked 139 and was playing his first QF in an ATP event. Maybe that win was crucial for his further career :shrug:

yes it's not impossible that Gulbis has Rafter's carreer in the end, and then people will say "oh what a great opponent" :lol:

Sampras also nearly lost to Kafelnikov in Melbourne once when Kafelnikov was very little known ... but later of course it doesn't appear the same when people read that

dijus
04-27-2010, 10:23 PM
That loss to Rafter was a huge surprise then! Rafter was ranked 139 and was playing his first QF in an ATP event. Maybe that win was crucial for his further career :shrug:

maybe it was crucial win, but anyway, Gulbis and Berdych can't be compared to Edberg and Kraijcek...

duong
04-27-2010, 10:25 PM
but Sampras lost to decent players, not mugs like Berdych, Gulbis...

if you want to look for 3 nearly consecutive defeats by Sampras to "mugs" like those players (all top-10 one day or another, for Berdych and Baggy it has happened, for Gulbis it will happen one day), you will find them ... you only need to look for not tight scores.

And by the way Federer had already 3 consecutive defeats to worse mugs than that : Canas, Canas and Volandri in 2007.

But the scores were less tight, which doesn't make it better for me :lol:

duong
04-27-2010, 10:27 PM
maybe it was crucial win, but anyway, Gulbis and Berdych can't be compared to Edberg and Kraijcek...

oh you know how to speak to a Krajicek's fan ;)

you prefer when Sampras's defeats to mugs were on harsh scores ?

the first year I take : 2000

Davis Cup loses to Novak indoors 76 63 62
Hamburg loses to Di Pasquale 64 64
World Team Cup loses to the young Hrbaty 06 64 64 and young Haas 75 62
Roland-Garros loses to Philippoussis 46 75 76 46 86

(only the beginning of the first year I took ;) )


Anyway, I'm fed-up with all these Sampras's legends : nostalgia always makes it better :lol:

I far preferred McEnroe ;)

Voo de Mar
04-27-2010, 10:29 PM
maybe it was crucial win, but anyway, Gulbis and Berdych can't be compared to Edberg and Kraijcek...

Edberg is a player from a different league but ahead of players like Baghdatis, Berdych and Gulbis there is still possibility to have a Krajicek-like career.

Puschkin
04-27-2010, 10:29 PM
And by the way Federer had already 3 consecutive defeats to worse mugs than that : Canas, Canas and Volandri in 2007.
There was the MC final against NAdal in between!

Arkulari
04-27-2010, 10:31 PM
yeah, there is a difference, Sampras lost to mugs just in Slams :shrug:

dijus
04-27-2010, 10:32 PM
if you want to look for 3 nearly consecutive defeats by Sampras to "mugs" like those players (all top-10 one day or another, for Berdych and Baggy it has happened, for Gulbis it will happen one day), you will find them ... you only need to look for not tight scores.

And by the way Federer had already 3 consecutive defeats to worse mugs than that : Canas, Canas and Volandri in 2007.

But the scores were less tight, which doesn't make it better for me :lol:
yep, I know that man, those losses to Canas brought excitement back to tennis ;) Fed is well-known from such losses and it's nothing new he cares about GS nowadays...

oh you know how to speak to a Krajicek's fan ;)

you prefer when Sampras's defeats to mugs were on harsh scores ?

Anyway, I'm fed-up with all these Sampras's legends : nostalgia always makes it better :lol:

I far preferred McEnroe ;)

Fed has some harsh loses as well (shall I remind you Fish f.e.), that still doesn't change the fact Gulbis can't be compared to Edberg :shrug:

duong
04-27-2010, 10:37 PM
Edberg is a player from a different league but ahead of players like Baghdatis, Berdych and Gulbis there is still possibility to have a Krajicek-like career.

Admirable from a Krajicek's fan :worship:

Sunset of Age
04-27-2010, 10:38 PM
Admirable from a Krajicek's fan :worship:

Voo is a Krajicek fan? He's much too nice for that. :o

(just kidding, Voo. :p)

duong
04-27-2010, 10:39 PM
Fed has some harsh loses as well (shall I remind you Fish f.e.), that still doesn't change the fact Gulbis can't be compared to Edberg :shrug:

yes but what I don't understand is why it would be worse to have tight losses than harsh ones :confused:

I also said that Fed had had consecutive harsh losses before, I think it was worse :confused:

I consider that Baghdatis and Gulbis played very well on the day, Berdych it's different.

And Federer was esp unlucky against Baghdatis, he can't blame himself much for that loss.

Federer has often won playing bad to players who didn't play their best, this time he's had bad draws and lost to players playing at their best, well you can't always be lucky :shrug:

Voo de Mar
04-27-2010, 10:40 PM
Voo is a Krajicek fan? He's much too nice for that. :o

(just kidding, Voo. :p)

:ras: Krajicek is my all-time fave :)

Sunset of Age
04-27-2010, 10:40 PM
:ras: Krajicek is my all-time fave :)

Oh Gosh. :help:

:lol: I know.

dijus
04-27-2010, 10:43 PM
yes but what I don't understand is why it would be worse to have tight losses than harsh ones :confused:

I also said that Fed had had consecutive harsh losses before, I think it was worse :confused:

I consider that Baghdatis and Gulbis played very well on the day, Berdych it's different.

And Federer was esp unlucky against Baghdatis, he can't blame himself much for that loss.

Federer has often won playing bad to players who didn't play their best, this time he's had bad draws and lost to players playing at their best, well you can't always be lucky :shrug:

Fed is always lucky when it comes to GS...

Smoke944
04-27-2010, 10:43 PM
yeah, there is a difference, Sampras lost to mugs just in Slams :shrug:

Roger will too before his career is over ;)
But with that said, he never had it happen during his better years which happened to Pete a couple times.

duong
04-27-2010, 10:45 PM
Fed is always lucky when it comes to GS...

so far yes but it can change, as Smoke944 said ;)

And Sampras was also often lucky ;)

andy neyer
04-27-2010, 11:14 PM
No (to be precise: three *tight defeats* in three consecutive tournaments, not three matches in a row).

That's more or less what I meant :) The question is wrongly phrased in the thread title but it's rightly put in the OP.


I've just checked Sampras who being No. 1 in the world first few months (year 1993), lost in three consecutive tournaments after a tie-break of the third set:

Los Angeles SF: Krajicek 4-6 6-3 6-7(3)
Cincinnati SF: Edberg 7-6(3) 5-7 6-7(5)
Indianapolis QF: Rafter 6-7(6) 7-6(2) 6-7(5)

So dissapointed. :(

Let's see if Federer can break Sampras' record in Estoril. I have confidence in him.