Is it better for the legacy of a player like Federer.... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is it better for the legacy of a player like Federer....

abraxas21
02-13-2010, 06:49 PM
...to reach a tournament final and lose it than it would be to lose in the semis of that tourney?

I've often thought about this. I think that a top player's record in finals is important given that it shows the mental fortitude of the player to confront a tense and important moment which is full of expectations of success. Plus, it is normally mentally tougher to cope for a player who has won so much already to see himself losing in the final after being only one match away from winning the whole thing...
On the other side there are of course more ATP points to be gained for reaching a final... That's always a plus.

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 07:12 PM
Fed has choked quite a bit of those slam finals away. Could u imagine he would have won the majority of the slam finals he lost? he would be damn near on 30 slams. Wimbledon, all those French Opens, the Australian, the USO.

Goldenoldie
02-13-2010, 07:13 PM
Final losers are remembered more often than semi-final losers

Tripster
02-13-2010, 07:17 PM
only MTF-lunatics think that it's more impressive not to reach a final than to lose a final...

Everko
02-13-2010, 07:20 PM
Lendl 8-11 in slam finals. Would he be better remembered with 8-4 finals record?

Arkulari
02-13-2010, 07:21 PM
according to MTF logic it's better to lose to a mug in the first rounds than losing in the final to a good player :shrug:

Dini
02-13-2010, 07:25 PM
As long as his finals record remains positive, I doubt it matters much what he does from now on. He's got very little to prove if anything at all.

tea
02-13-2010, 07:27 PM
Federer is perhaps the first and only player in history of this sport unto whom this kind of questions could be raised. GOAT. Period. End of discussion.

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 10:03 PM
Fed has choked quite a bit of those slam finals away. Could u imagine he would have won the majority of the slam finals he lost? he would be damn near on 30 slams. Wimbledon, all those French Opens, the Australian, the USO.

You are an idiot.

He "choked"????

What slam finals did he choke away? He lost 3 times to Nadal at RG. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer, so those arent chokes. They are just the expected result. He lost to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, but I would hardly call coming back from 2 sets down to almost win a choke. His loss to Del Potro last year was not a choke either. His serve wasn't on, but otherwise he played quite well; Del Potro was just played exceptionally well. The only one you could possibly call a choke is the 2009 Australian Open where he had outplayed Nadal going into the 5th set and then folded. Should Federer have won that one? Yeah, he shouldve. He actually won more points than Nadal did in that match, But over the course of a 5 set match, players frequently have a set where their level drops a lot. That just happened to occur to Federer in the 5th set.

Action Jackson
02-13-2010, 10:06 PM
Not enough Federer and Nadal threads there needs to be more.

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 10:57 PM
You are an idiot.

He "choked"????

What slam finals did he choke away? He lost 3 times to Nadal at RG. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer, so those arent chokes. They are just the expected result. He lost to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, but I would hardly call coming back from 2 sets down to almost win a choke. His loss to Del Potro last year was not a choke either. His serve wasn't on, but otherwise he played quite well; Del Potro was just played exceptionally well. The only one you could possibly call a choke is the 2009 Australian Open where he had outplayed Nadal going into the 5th set and then folded. Should Federer have won that one? Yeah, he shouldve. He actually won more points than Nadal did in that match, But over the course of a 5 set match, players frequently have a set where their level drops a lot. That just happened to occur to Federer in the 5th set.





Ehh shut up Federphile... If you dont like what I have to write, fake it and pretend Im Mirka. Alot of his losses at the slams were mental no doubt about it. A major problem is his serve falls apart... How many times has it happened against Rafa? Just happened last Australian Open... It happened last year against Del Potro. Had his serve not of fallen apart theres two slams right there. How about his AO 2005 Australian match? That was his to win. It went down to the wire with Safin.



Ohh but I course I forgot.. Youre a Federphile. Fed could possibly NEVER of choked in his career :eek: Everything he does is perfect. He has never had a mental collapse or played a bad match. And people call sampras fans biases. Hell even I will admit Sampras choke his share of a few matches away. Just Federer's serve going to shit is a clear indication that his nerves were being challenge along with his mind. Its happened how many times against Rafa?

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 11:00 PM
See this is why I hate arguing with Fed fanatics. Fed NEVER has mental and clutch issues.. His nerves have NEVER affected him. When Nadal starts beating him it was the "ohh Federer is just way passed his prime so thats not fair." Yet at the same time hes reaching every slam final there is.

Vida
02-13-2010, 11:04 PM
Not enough Federer and Nadal threads there needs to be more.

was thinking the same thing.

JediFed
02-13-2010, 11:15 PM
16-6 is a pretty damn good record in slams. I don't understand the point of this thread. Federer isn't Lendl or Connors. 16-6-6 is an unbelievable record, to reach 28 slam semifinals and win 16 of them is far and away the best record.

Brazilianmug
02-13-2010, 11:17 PM
the name of this thread, as said already by others, is Ivan Lendl. All the answers someone need about legacy of a player who lost more finals than won were already answered.

Persimmon
02-13-2010, 11:51 PM
The more slam finals the better no matter the outcome. Shows amazing consistency like no other player on tour.

MacTheKnife
02-14-2010, 12:33 AM
The more slam finals the better no matter the outcome. Shows amazing consistency like no other player on tour.

This ^^. Always advantageous to make final, win or lose.

luie
02-14-2010, 12:47 AM
Making the finals & losing might hurt your h2h or hurt your overall winning percentage in finals but it helps you to remain #1 or #2 or whatever,thus helping your overall #weeks @1 @ give you and easier draw & tourny's (avoiding dangerous players early).

KingSodaPop
02-14-2010, 03:08 AM
Of course it is better for any legacy to do as well as possible. What a ridiculous question! Nothing can destroy his legacy at this point. But if he reaches more tournament finals, it will only enhance it further. The longer the list of his accomplishments, the better. The same would be true for any player in any sport.

HKz
02-14-2010, 03:44 AM
See this is why I hate arguing with Fed fanatics. Fed NEVER has mental and clutch issues.. His nerves have NEVER affected him. When Nadal starts beating him it was the "ohh Federer is just way passed his prime so thats not fair." Yet at the same time hes reaching every slam final there is.

Yet who was the one that made the thread about how no one apparently has the balls to challenge Federer, and that apparently Sampras had a 1000 times harder draw after Federer distanced himself further in the GS count? Hmm..

Macbrother
02-14-2010, 04:08 AM
See this is why I hate arguing with Fed fanatics. Fed NEVER has mental and clutch issues.. His nerves have NEVER affected him. When Nadal starts beating him it was the "ohh Federer is just way passed his prime so thats not fair." Yet at the same time hes reaching every slam final there is.

As one of this forum's biggest fanatics you have little business labeling others as so.

Arkulari
02-14-2010, 04:19 AM
See this is why I hate arguing with Fed fanatics. Fed NEVER has mental and clutch issues.. His nerves have NEVER affected him. When Nadal starts beating him it was the "ohh Federer is just way passed his prime so thats not fair." Yet at the same time hes reaching every slam final there is.

Roger IS human, of course he has lapses of concentration (what we jokingly call Mirkaland :lol: ), sometimes he has trouble closing a match (though those aren't as common as Mirkaland)

What's the problem with that? every single player in the story of humanity has had those, that doesn't change what Roger is or takes anything away from his achievements

Biggest chokes in Roger's career: Rome 06 and Montreal 09

Newsflash: neither one was a Slam, he lost to Rafa in RG but he never had any victory close there, he came from two sets to love in Wimbledon 08 to force a 5th set when he should have lost in straights if not for the rain delay and yes, he lost his 2nd set advantage against Juan, but it wasn't a choke because Juan fought and gave everything he could and he was the better player that day

Seems like you're following the MTF logic of: if Roger wins, his opponent chokes; if he loses then he's a mug choker

Giving credit to a fair winner is not something the MTFers do often

Sunset of Age
02-14-2010, 04:24 AM
Roger IS human, of course he has lapses of concentration (what we jokingly call Mirkaland :lol: ), sometimes he has trouble closing a match (though those aren't as common as Mirkaland)

What's the problem with that? every single player in the story of humanity has had those, that doesn't change what Roger is or takes anything away from his achievements.

You're trying to talk sense into Mr. SetSampras here, dear Nat. Never mind, as much as you try, you won't manage. :o ;)

Biggest chokes in Roger's career: Rome 06 and Montreal 09

Uhmmmm... bolded case was him losing to the better player, there. No shame, it might well have been the best match he ever played on clay against Rafa, ever to come... No choke - just lost. ;)

Seems like you're following the MTF logic of: if Roger wins, his opponent chokes, if he loses then he's a mug choker

Yeah. :rolls:

Arkulari
02-14-2010, 04:26 AM
Uhmmmm... bolded case was him losing to the better player, there. No shame, it might well have been the best match he played on clay against Rafa, ever to come. No choke - just lost. ;)



To me it was a bit of both because he had MATCH POINTS there :lol:
had he converted ONE of those, he would have won :p
he didn't exactly went away after that but you knew that he was going to lose because in best of 5 mr Nadal is just too good in clay ;)

Boris Franz Ecker
02-14-2010, 08:56 AM
It is of no real importance. Finals don't count.

A_Skywalker
02-14-2010, 09:48 AM
Fed has choked quite a bit of those slam finals away. Could u imagine he would have won the majority of the slam finals he lost? he would be damn near on 30 slams. Wimbledon, all those French Opens, the Australian, the USO.

How about the other way, a lot of people choked against Federer.
He could have won 7-8 slams if they didnt.

Castafiore
02-14-2010, 09:58 AM
Seems like you're following the MTF logic of: if Roger wins, his opponent chokes; if he loses then he's a mug choker
Says the one who calls Rome 06 a big choke.

"choke" is one of the most overused words on MTF.


To answer the thread question, the more finals he reaches, the better, win or lose. I agree with those who've said that.

bokehlicious
02-14-2010, 10:05 AM
How about the other way, a lot of people choked against Federer.
He could have won 7-8 slams if they didnt.

:awww: :hug:

barbadosan
02-14-2010, 10:17 AM
Unless you reach Finals, you're in no position to win - and without a crystal ball.....

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 01:34 PM
Ehh shut up Federphile... If you dont like what I have to write, fake it and pretend Im Mirka. Alot of his losses at the slams were mental no doubt about it. A major problem is his serve falls apart... How many times has it happened against Rafa? Just happened last Australian Open... It happened last year against Del Potro. Had his serve not of fallen apart theres two slams right there. How about his AO 2005 Australian match? That was his to win. It went down to the wire with Safin.



Ohh but I course I forgot.. Youre a Federphile. Fed could possibly NEVER of choked in his career :eek: Everything he does is perfect. He has never had a mental collapse or played a bad match. And people call sampras fans biases. Hell even I will admit Sampras choke his share of a few matches away. Just Federer's serve going to shit is a clear indication that his nerves were being challenge along with his mind. Its happened how many times against Rafa?

You seem to have COMPLETELY ignored that I said I think Federer did choke the 2009 Australian Open final. Clearly I dont think Federer never chokes. Can you read?

Federer obviously can choke matches like any other player. I was taking issue with the fact that you seemed to be indicating that ALL his slam final losses were chokes. I do not see that to be the case. I dont think any of the RG finals can be called chokes since they were against the better clay court player. I dont think the Wimbledon Final can be called a choke since he actually made an epic comeback. And I dont think the US Open final can be called a choke since it was more an example of Del Potro just absolutely playing lights out well, rather than Federer's level being bad. Maybe if Federer had played at his very peak, he couldve won that match, but he played pretty well and just got beaten by a player who was playing even better.

And yes, sometimes his serve does leave him at inopportune times. CERTAINLY, the 2009 Australian Open final is an example of that. He claims it had to do with his back problems, which it probably did to some degree, but I would also agree with you that it was nerves. That final clearly mattered to him a ton, given that he cried after losing. And yeah, his serve left him in the 2009 US Open. But at the same time, he played quite well otherwise. This leads me to believe that it wasnt nerves, but just that his serve was off that day. That CAN and does happen without it being nerves. Besides, why in the world would Federer have been so nervous for that final? He already had the slam record, he wasn't going for a calendar slam, he was playing a player he has dominated head to head (hence, no fear of making a bad h2h worse), he was going to end the year #1 either way. There was just no reason to be uncharacteristically nervous for that one. It would've just been icing on the cake for him.

And Safin just played like a beast in the 2005 Australian Open semifinal. I think you confuse losing with choking. Sometimes a player just plays better in a match. And you also seem to think that players should win ANY close match they are in, otherwise they choked it, which is entirely absurd. Close matches can go either way, and it is rarely a choke. The 2005 AO match was NOT a choke, just a match where Safin played up to Federer's level, it was close, and Safin got the upper hand in the end.

Speed of Light
02-14-2010, 02:09 PM
It matters very much.
It just shows that the whole modern day tennis is based on choking.The atp clowns choke and let Grandaderer into the final and in the final Grandad is not good enough to win.. is what it shows.

HarryMan
02-14-2010, 02:12 PM
No, it is always better to perform better at the biggest stages, therefore, it will always be better for Federer to do well in all slam tournaments than to lose early at them.

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 02:22 PM
It SHOULD be better to lose in the finals than the semis. And in most cases, for Federer it is. However, it COULD be argued that he was better off losing in the semis in slams where he lost to Nadal in the finals, so that his h2h wouldnt be as bad.

I don't really agree with that logic though. If he had done that, he wouldnt have made 18 of 19 slam finals, which I think is his greatest achievement. He would also have his achievements at various slams diminished. For instance, his record at the French Open is actually EXTREMELY good. For instance, if he makes the French Open final this year, he will have the record for most French Open finals in a row.

Persimmon
02-14-2010, 03:21 PM
Nadal only reaches slam finals when he is playing great tennis. Federer doesn't need to be playing great tennis to reach slam finals. Fed is that awesome.

Castafiore
02-14-2010, 05:00 PM
Nadal only reaches slam finals when he is playing great tennis. Federer doesn't need to be playing great tennis to reach slam finals. Fed is that awesome.
Fed is that good. Right. Nadal always needs to play out of his mind, even in RG, to reach a slam final and Fed can reach any slam final with one finger in his nose while whistling a show tune because he's just that good. Got it.

You guys have a new mantra. :inlove:

And this is relevant to the thread question how?

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 06:57 PM
Fed is that good. Right. Nadal always needs to play out of his mind, even in RG, to reach a slam final and Fed can reach any slam final with one finger in his nose while whistling a show tune because he's just that good. Got it.

You guys have a new mantra. :inlove:

And this is relevant to the thread question how?

I would say Nadal could make the finals of RG not in his top form as well (though he didnt show that last year). But when it comes to other slams, yeah Nadal has to be at his best. When he isn't he goes down in the semis or quarters. And I really dont think it can be denied that Federer makes finals of slams when he is not at his best. He has made 18 of the last 19 slam finals. You can't possibly think he was at his top form for all of those. That would be impossible.

ForehandWinner
02-14-2010, 09:27 PM
Unbelievable crap!

Castafiore
02-15-2010, 07:27 AM
I would say Nadal could make the finals of RG not in his top form as well (though he didnt show that last year). But when it comes to other slams, yeah Nadal has to be at his best. When he isn't he goes down in the semis or quarters. And I really dont think it can be denied that Federer makes finals of slams when he is not at his best. He has made 18 of the last 19 slam finals. You can't possibly think he was at his top form for all of those. That would be impossible.
What I said. :shrug: Rafa, playing out of his mind if so a bit less in RG but still, a high level - Roger, whistling show tunes while reaching finals.

My take/summary on/of your recent series of posts on GM is:


Roger Federer is not only the best player of his era but of all time so far


In other words, he's the undisputed GOAT


To emphasize what a brilliant GOAT we're able to witness, it's important to make people understand that Roger is able to shine amidst brilliant players. His opponents >>>> the opponents of the Sampras era for example. Example given by you: Roddick >>>> Courier, right? Roger is so unbelievably good that he's able to outshine brilliant players of his time. People who moan about a mug era are bitter haters.


His opponents need to play out of his mind to reach finals whereas Roger can reach a final while not playing his best tennis.

If he doesn't reach a final (outside the slam events), it's either because he's still feeling the aftermath of mono or he's having back pain or he's making a choice of not playing his best tennis in order to save himself for the slams.


Rafa can reach RG without playing his best but he still needs to moonball his ass off because last year was the evidence that he needs to play at a high level to even reach the RG final. This again underlines the brilliance of Roger, who can still reach the latter stages of a final while not playing his best



Would this be a fair summary of your posts in GM lately?

lessthanjake
02-15-2010, 08:25 AM
Roger Federer is not only the best player of his era but of all time so far

Yep. Sounds about right.

In other words, he's the undisputed GOAT

No. People like you dispute it, for who knows what reason.

To emphasize what a brilliant GOAT we're able to witness, it's important to make people understand that Roger is able to shine amidst brilliant players. His opponents >>>> the opponents of the Sampras era for example. Example given by you: Roddick >>>> Courier, right? Roger is so unbelievably good that he's able to outshine brilliant players of his time. People who moan about a mug era are bitter haters.


No. Can you read? I specifically said on 2 or 3 occasions in that thread that Courier is a better player than Roddick. Are you a fool or just acting like one?

And I never say his opponents are better than Sampras' opponents. I just say that the reasons people use for why Federer's opponents are bad (ie. he plays less slam winning players) are paradoxical because the presence of such a dominant player is what created those circumstances in the first place. Thus, by many people's logic, it would be impossible for a dominant player to exist in an era with good opposition. That is obviously silly, but yet it is what most weak era arguments rest upon. Fedgod has sent me to show you the light haha

His opponents need to play out of his mind to reach finals whereas Roger can reach a final while not playing his best tennis.

No one in the history of tennis has played their best tennis in 18 of 19 slams. That would be impossible, and really quite illogical, because if you play your "best" 95% of the time, then is that really always your best? Best implies that it is better than you play most of the time, thus you cant be at your best 95% of the time.

This is really simple stuff, yet you seem unable to grasp it. There is no logical way to argue against the idea that Federer reaches slams when not at his best.

If he doesn't reach a final (outside the slam events), it's either because he's still feeling the aftermath of mono or he's having back pain or he's making a choice of not playing his best tennis in order to save himself for the slams.

I very rarely mention the mono or back pain. I certainly don't use it as an excuse for Federer's 2008. Federer had a bad year that year. I'm sure some of it had to do with mono and back pain. Certainly those things SHOULD lower one's level of play, so it would be silly to suggest that they didnt do so for Federer. But it isnt all of it. I think he was declining a bit already, then got mono. As a result of both those things, he started playing significantly worse than before. Suddenly he was a lot more vulnerable. He wasn't used to this, and I think he found it hard to mentally handle no longer being untouchable. This lead him to play a little bit scared, IMO, which made things worse again. So I think it snowballed. I'm sure mono and back pain had something to do with it, but I would not blame everything on those two things, especially when other players play with pain as well.

As for not playing his best tennis, I do firmly believe that these days he doesnt bring his best tennis to non-slams. Why would he? They really add nothing to his legacy at this point. As i've said, I did a lot of debate, and I know that I was never motivated for local regular season tournaments and thus, I didnt prepare much. But for bigger tournaments like state championships or national tournaments, I was very motivated and prepared a lot. My level at the latter tournaments was therefore much higher, and I ended up being 2-time state and US national regional champion without really ever winning almost any local regular season tournaments (which should have been WAY easier to win because only a fraction of the best people attended any given one). I see a parallel with Federer who is likely not too motivated to bring his A-game to the lesser tournaments, but is a completely different animal at the slams, which matter to him a lot more. If I have experienced something I feel is quite similar in a competitive event, do you really think it is completely ridiculous to suggest Federer is the same way?

Rafa can reach RG without playing his best but he still needs to moonball his ass off because last year was the evidence that he needs to play at a high level to even reach the RG final. This again underlines the brilliance of Roger, who can still reach the latter stages of a final while not playing his best


Honestly, I think last year for Nadal went beyond "not playing his best." I think he was just downright injured, and on top of that, ran into a player who was playing at a very high level. I would think that Nadal has won plenty of clay tournaments (and maybe RG) while not playing his best as he went entire years without losing a clay match or only losing like one. Just as with Federer's 18 of 19, that kind of consistency clearly indicates that he won clay tournaments while not at his best.

Castafiore
02-15-2010, 08:37 AM
No. People like you dispute it, for who knows what reason.
:confused: I don't.

Federer is lord and master. :shrug: I just think that you're overselling your own viewpoints a bit on GM here but Federer rules. No doubt about it.