If You Could Change One Result?

Hmmmmm....I have often looked back at matches and asked myself 'If only he/she had won' There have been so many matches I have wished it on. Feds v Rafa Wim 2008, Agassi v Feds USO 2005, Murray v Roddick Wim 2009, Becker v Sampras Wim 1995, Rusedski v Roddick Wim 2003 (Shockingly I know!!) Novotna v Graf 1990 Wim, Davenport v Williams Wim 2005. So many to name.

But for me.....

Henman v Ivanisevic Wim 2001

Because I am British? Partially. Because it's Tiger Tim? Maybe. I think more than anything else it was an opporunity wasted and for me watching someone just throw it away because the pressure was too much. What fans would give for Murray to face a wildcard ranked 125 in the world in a Semi Final at Wimbledon. I know we have seen 3 Murray whitewashes in GS Finals, but Tim had a real chance. Rafter waiting on the other side. Already with a Final loss under his belt at Wimbledon. Granted he is a US Open champion and already slayed fellow Brit Rusedski in a GS Final, but this was Wimbledon. Tim having a 2-1 lead in the match as the Heavens opened on that fateful Saturday. Come Sunday he was out in 5. I would so love to know what Tim done in those 24 hours. For the time being I will never know. So many if's and what's for me came from that. For me that is the biggest opportuniy ever granted to a British player since the days of Fred.

Wimby 2008 final. Not even the result but just to be played in proper daylight.

Could have been 7 wimbies in a row for Federer. And in my view he largely deserves it!

Tenez wrote:Wimby 2008 final. Not even the result but just to be played in proper daylight.

Could have been 7 wimbies in a row for Federer. And in my view he largely deserves it!

Quite agree he deserves to at least be on the same footing as Sampras on Grass. If Centre Court did not have the roof, it would be quite interesting to see they would allow play to continue as late as it did.

Yeah, Wimbledon 2008 for me too. The comeback from two sets down, the terrible year that was 2008, 6 in a row and the faded light all conspired to make it a desperately disappointing result.

After that I agree that Henman was tough.

I guess any Federer fan would pick the Wimbledon 2008 final. Throughout that match Federer had good starts after the delays..Much better than Nadal. So I was kinda hoping for the match to get suspended. In the twilght there was only one winner, the one with the percentage shots

I wasn’t very pleased with Rome 2006 either, to say the least. Somehow i think that a 5 hour winning match over Nadal on clay would have given Federer a confidence boost he could have fed from for quite a few matches against Nadal.
We’ll never know the influence that this match had on their H2H

LK - being British also, I'm torn between the Henman v Goran match and possibly Murray v Federer at US open in Murray's first slam final. Admittedly, Murray was outplayed but I do wonder what he'd have achieved by now if he'd got that monkey off his back at the first attempt. That's not to say he'd have won every slam since, but if he had a slam under the belt i'm not sure he'd have buckled as many times as he has in semis and finals since that date...

But I think I'd agree with the Henman match overall, just because he was so close to a Wimbledon final. It was 5-5 in the 4th set tie break so he was 2 points away from the victory... In fact, if i remember rightly it was at that point that Goran produced a second serve ace which Henman complained was out (a view supported by the slow motion replays)....

Oh what could have been for the tiger....

Tenez wrote:Wimby 2008 final. Not even the result but just to be played in proper daylight.

Could have been 7 wimbies in a row for Federer. And in my view he largely deserves it!

What if Nadal had won it in straight sets during proper daylight?

My preference would be FO 2011 Federer vs. Nadal. That missed drop shot at 5-2 30-40 would have given the first set to Federer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko3P-x2tj2Y&feature=related

Rusedski losing to Courier in the 5th set of the 5th Davis Cup rubber against the USA, 1999. I was there for that one, and if Rusedski had won it would have been awesome.

As a Federer fan, W 08 does not hurt that much. It became a classic; it enhanced Fed's legacy. I don't think it was the greatest match between the pair (i'd go for Rome '06 or the AUS '09 in terms of quality) but the drama and the occasion made it great.

However the one match I would change would be Fed v Delpo USO '09. Had Fed won that he would most likely have achieved the 'Fed slam' with all four slams being held at once. That would be the closest thing to winning the CYGS, and would have sealed his position as GOAT.



emancipator - intergalactic tennis historian

That is a rather clever spot there emancipator. See now I didn't think of that, and furthermore for that reason.

I must admit that nothing beats a bit of Tiger Tim drama.

emancipator wrote:As a Federer fan, W 08 does not hurt that much. It became a classic; it enhanced Fed's legacy. I don't think it was the greatest match between the pair (i'd go for Rome '06 or the AUS '09 in terms of quality) but the drama and the occasion made it great.

However the one match I would change would be Fed v Delpo USO '09. Had Fed won that he would most likely have achieved the 'Fed slam' with all four slams being held at once. That would be the closest thing to winning the CYGS, and would have sealed his position as GOAT.



emancipator - intergalactic tennis historian

Yes, you have persuaded me from W '08. Maybe. Or maybe not.

Can I have both?

The really annoying thing about USO '09 was that Fed was the better player and lost his rag plus was the loser from Stupid Saturday - his semi might have been 3 sets but it was not easy at all.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Wimby 2008 final. Not even the result but just to be played in proper daylight.

Could have been 7 wimbies in a row for Federer. And in my view he largely deserves it!

What if Nadal had won it in straight sets during proper daylight?

Then that would have been fair enough.

I frankly am not bothered about USO09. I blame the supersaturday and having 5 or 6 USOs is in my view not very relevant. Plus I don;t mind Delpo even if he was completely outplayed for nearly 3 sets. Having 7 wimbledons in a row woudl be out of this world.

I'm flip-flopping. Now I'm back with W'08, though he wasn't just saying 6 USO's, Tenez, it was followed by the AO'10 which would have left Fed with the FedSlam.

Trivia moment: how many single matches has Federer lost that would have delivered a FedSlam (and I'm counting USO '09)?

bogbrush wrote:I'm flip-flopping. Now I'm back with W'08, though he wasn't just saying 6 USO's, Tenez, it was followed by the AO'10 which would have left Fed with the FedSlam.

Oh yeah. Good point.

Trivia moment: how many single matches has Federer lost that would have delivered a FedSlam (and I'm counting USO '09)?

I don;t know but in 2009, Federer was 2 tie breaks away from holding the 4 in the same year....so in short a handfull of points maximum that could have gone either way!

FO 2006, 2007,

They are finals I know of

It's gotta be Henman-Goran in 01 at Wimbledon. I always reckoned that Henman would eventually win Wimbledon but only after all the really top players had been knocked out. Well they were all k-o'd in 01 and I'm sure Henman would have beaten Rafter in the final.
It was his best - and really only - chance to win Wimbledon. I remember hardly being able to eat or sleep over that weekend at the prospect of a Brit in the final. If Murray made it to the final now, I'd be very excited but he's made three other GS finals and the impact would not be so great.

Yeah, RG '06 and '07, and USO '09 plus as Tenez says 2 separate tbs in two finals in 2009 to have the lot in one year.

If only. I know I always say that if only my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle, but by God that's a teeth-gnashing statistic.

Murray v Novak 2011 AO final. The win was there for Muzza but he bottled it. If he'd won it, he could have won 3/4 slams this year. Or not...

I'd also go for Wimbledon 2001, but the other semi-final. Always liked Agassi and with Sampras out it was a great chance for him to get a second Wimbledon. A great match that ebbed and flowed but a bitter defeat for AA in the end. Strange year, I liked all four semi-finalists and think any combination in the final would have been interesting - possibly as it had been pretty much Sampras all the way for what seemed like an eternity.

Two other Agassi defeats stand out - to Sampras at the US Open in 2002 and the already-mentioned final with Federer in 2005 but 2001 was a closer match so that seals it for me.

i'd go for wimbledon 2009 final, i'm quite a big roddick fan and besides he deserved the slam for the way he played in that final, what makes it even worse is he actually won more games in a slam final than anyone in history but still lost the match.

AO 2005 Federer-Safin SF is another one to consider in this list.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4207905.stm

I would go for Sampras - Agassi AO 1995. Sampras had invested so much into that match all that was happening with Tim Gullikson. I think for me it showed how much emotions can work for and against you, because come the final he was spent.

Henman v Goran definitely !



Only the weather and circumstances foliled our Tim from

winning Wimbledon and I have NEVER got over that !

Never mind yummy, at least he was beaten at each showing in the semi's at Wimbly by the eventual winner.

He did go on the play his best tennis at the FO of all places in 04, only to be beaten by a young Coria, but he was up against a wall of Argentinians.

The sad thing about his match with Goran was that Ivan's serve was faltering and Tim had the measure of it. Then the blasted rainbreak came and that was that.

If I could change anything it would have been Murray's appalling smash at SW19 this year against Nadal.

If that had gone in ? who knows, he may have had his first chance at the Wimbledon crown.

zx1234 wrote:i'd go for wimbledon 2009 final, i'm quite a big roddick fan and besides he deserved the slam for the way he played in that final, what makes it even worse is he actually won more games in a slam final than anyone in history but still lost the match.

If there's any Fed win I could live with switching to a loss it would be that by miles. One break of serve in the whole match, brutal to lose it for that.
That match still produced one of the stand-out pieces of commentary ever. It's 6-6 in the 2nd set tie break, Andy has just blown the backhand volley and he's on 2nd serve. Bouncing the ball, it catches his toe and runs away into the court forcing him to skip forward to retrieve it. Boris says in low key; "Oh my God". It summarised the moment perfectly.

Yes, well recall that Boris moment. He knew Andy R was gonna blow it. Feel sure that had Andy got that volley and gone two sets up he would have won. Remarkable thing is that IMHO Roddick is a MILES better player than when he was number one all those decades ago in 2003. Better groundstrokes, better backhand, more court craft. And where is he? Can't even get into the top 10. So I think that says a lot about the standard - or is it just the speed of the court/balls?

Feel sure that had Andy got that volley and gone two sets up he would have won.

Not so sure for me...The nerves that got him to miss that volley woudl have been there as well, even worse probably, when he'd have had to cross the line.
But we'll never know anyway.

Talking of being two sets up, have you ever seen Rafa so nervous as he was in the fourth set tiebreak that should have secured victory - there and then - against Rog in the 08 Wimbledon final ? His serves were hardly reaching the net. From there he did wonderfully well to hold himself together in the fifth set (shades of Borg after THAT tiebreak in 1980).

sirfredperry wrote:Talking of being two sets up, have you ever seen Rafa so nervous as he was in the fourth set tiebreak that should have secured victory - there and then - against Rog in the 08 Wimbledon final ? His serves were hardly reaching the net. From there he did wonderfully well to hold himself together in the fifth set (shades of Borg after THAT tiebreak in 1980).

For me in that 2008 final, when Roger was match point down in the 5th set and he produced the most amazing down the line BH I have seen. To have the nuts to go for it when Nadal was hitting as hard as he could and Roger just swotted it with that BH. For me is the best shot I have seen. Given the importance, the match, the situation. Just phenominal. I remember at the time saying "Oh no he didn't!"

Yeah, great shot, although it was in the fourth set, not the fifth. Thought Rog would go on to win from there but it was not to be. His "best" defeat in some ways. Said more about him than many victories. Will probably recall that match with as much pride as any of his GS wins. What are the views about that?

for me it would just be every major loss for feds in slams :P
luv da guy and his tennis is magical.
Wimby 08, aus 09, us 09 and french '11.
Throwing that 05 MC defeat to nalbo into the hat it was a classic gutted he lost

I'd leave W 2008 - I think that those who look at the numbers and the glory of 7 Wimbledons for Fed forget the importance to Fed's greatness of the rivalry with Nadal. I don't see how the story for tennis, or maybe even of either of their careers, could be as good or dramatic if Fed had won that match.

I'd change AO 2009. For me the tennis in that match was of an extraordinarily high level and Fed's defeat on what was supposed to be more his surface v. Nadal than grass was a real heartbreaker. Also, for me that is the one match in their H2H that I find most difficult to 'laugh off' as a fan of Fed's.

Next it's RG 2011 - winning that and beating Djoko and Nadal on the way would have been such a magnificent achievement for Fed in his gloaming that it would even have undone the oddity of AO 2009.

sirfredperry wrote:Yeah, great shot, although it was in the fourth set, not the fifth. Thought Rog would go on to win from there but it was not to be. His "best" defeat in some ways. Said more about him than many victories. Will probably recall that match with as much pride as any of his GS wins. What are the views about that?

That is actually quite a fair assessment of his career in the scheme of things, but I think people will remember his first Wimbledon victory and also his victory against Agassi in 2005 and his FO in 2009.

In some ways like McEnroe being more remembered for his defeat in Wimbledon 1980 than any off his Slam successes.

Going off into another sport it is similar to when Nicklaus lost the 'Duel in the Sun' to Watson at Turnberry in 1977. You could say Nicklaus was famed for that until he won the Masters in 1986 aged 46.

It is too early to summarise about Roger because there is still so much he could go on to achieve.

LK - that was sort of my point, if W 2008 had gone the other way it would have been a far more mundane contribution to the stories of both mens' careers, as well as to tennis as a whole.

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, well recall that Boris moment. He knew Andy R was gonna blow it. Feel sure that had Andy got that volley and gone two sets up he would have won. Remarkable thing is that IMHO Roddick is a MILES better player than when he was number one all those decades ago in 2003. Better groundstrokes, better backhand, more court craft. And where is he? Can't even get into the top 10. So I think that says a lot about the standard - or is it just the speed of the court/balls?

I think beating Andy in the conditions back then was a far tougher proposition then now. If you see the clips of his matches then his serve was around 10mph faster and his forehand had more power and explosiveness. I think, like Federer, he adapted his game to this all court game he's developed to move with the times and to a certain extent he's been successful too; he's stayed in the top 10 for all those years alongside players who developed their games for the conditions we have now. His game now though doesn't have the relative impact that it used to.

Didn't like the result of Wimbledon 2008 at the time but if I could change one result it would be between French open this year or Australian open 2009 where in both cases I thought Federer played amazing. I'm probably leaning more towards the French open though as I think Fed deserved a slam this year for the tennis he's produced.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Didn't like the result of Wimbledon 2008 at the time but if I could change one result it would be between French open this year or Australian open 2009 where in both cases I thought Federer played amazing. I'm probably leaning more towards the French open though as I think Fed deserved a slam this year for the tennis he's produced.

Yep - I agree with that.

Federer has had near-losses iwhich he managed to turn into wins...but unfortunately in his career, he had far more near-wins that turned into losses despite I think being one of the mentally toughest player. That's why I think, it's his physique that let him down most of the time and the problem of crossing the line that is inherent to attacking players.

Couple of times Fed was a set down in GS finals - Roddick (twice) at W'don and Baggy at Melbourne - he managed to turn it round. Only time in a final when he looked like he MIGHT lose and didn't was the 09 Roddick match. Possibly you could say the 07 Wimbledon final against Rafa when Rafa took the 4th set was a bit dodgy.
He certainly should have won against del Potro and perhaps should have won the 09 AO. If he'd got the first set at the French this year, he might have won that. Gosh, what would some players give to have so many chances - even if it was only to fail at the end.

It is incredible how quickly things turn around.

After AUS 10 most people were predicting around 19-20 slams as a final total for Fed; now I would be delighted if he got just one more.

A similar thing can be said for Rafa after USO 10.

Infact, each year since 2007 has been dramatically different:

2007: Fed looks absolutely dominant
2008: Rafa reaches the top
2009: Fed takes back number 1
2010: Rafa looks absolutely dominant
2011: Novak looks absolutely dominant

I'm expecting the unexpected in 2012.

barrystar wrote:I'd leave W 2008 - I think that those who look at the numbers and the glory of 7 Wimbledons for Fed forget the importance to Fed's greatness of the rivalry with Nadal. I don't see how the story for tennis, or maybe even of either of their careers, could be as good or dramatic if Fed had won that match.

I'd change AO 2009. For me the tennis in that match was of an extraordinarily high level and Fed's defeat on what was supposed to be more his surface v. Nadal than grass was a real heartbreaker. Also, for me that is the one match in their H2H that I find most difficult to 'laugh off' as a fan of Fed's.

Next it's RG 2011 - winning that and beating Djoko and Nadal on the way would have been such a magnificent achievement for Fed in his gloaming that it would even have undone the oddity of AO 2009.

Agree wholeheartedly with all. The 08 win was a heartbreaker for Fed fans, but sort of knew it was coming after the 07 final - it also recalled the two great W matches between Borg and McEnroe, with Borg taking '80 and Mac '81 - there was sort of a nice symmetry to Rafa winning 08, even though of course I would love to have seen TMF pull it off.

The AO final in 09 was awful though - it broke TMF's heart and spirit a little, and I agree that it is one that is hard to laugh off or forget without a wrench if you are a Fed fan. I would choose, therefore, to change this result or perhaps, as you say barry, to change the result of FO 2011 which would have been wonderful and would have balanced the 'ying and yang' of the rivalry perfectly.

However, Fed has had a wonderful career, so the result I would opt for above all others is the Tim Henman vs Goran Ivanesevic semi in 2001 - I think the whole nation was gutted alongside Tim after the match, and you still wonder what might have been.

I think 2001 was Tim's best chance as well and what happened was unfortunate. I was happy for Ivanesevic though. Funnily enough I think Murray's best chance at Wimbledon and any grandslam was in 2009 when he lost to Roddick in that semi. Given that Fed was going to play so badly in the final, it was Murray's for the taking.

Andy M fans will not want to see a replay of one of the set points that Murray squandered in that semi with Roddick. He just would not attack and in the end Roddick came to the net to win the point. Disagree that Murray would have beaten Fed in the final but it would have been nice to have a Brit in the SW19 final for the first time since, ooh, I don't know, 1066.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I think 2001 was Tim's best chance as well and what happened was unfortunate. I was happy for Ivanesevic though. Funnily enough I think Murray's best chance at Wimbledon and any grandslam was in 2009 when he lost to Roddick in that semi. Given that Fed was going to play so badly in the final, it was Murray's for the taking.

Yeah I was happy for Ivanesevic in the final too, and it sort of made it better that Tim had lost to the eventual winner.

Agree and disagree re Andy M W 2009 - he was too complacent against Andy R, who actually played better than anyone thought poss. At that time Andy M was very complacent against Fed too (his notorious not much between No 2, which he was briefly, and No 1 apart from a few matches comment) so although he should have had a very good chance to win, he may well have presumed it was a given and blown his chances as he is wont to do on occasions anyway.

Certainly if Fed had scraped or scrapped through to a 5th with Andy M, the latter could never have held his own in such an epic and immaculate serving contest however good a returner he may be.

All fed could to do in that particular final was serve and return, his rallying skills seemed to have left him. Under those circumstances on a good day Murray would have been able to beat him. Well lets hope it goes differently to 1066 when it next happens or at the very least nobody loses an eye

Time, it wouldn't have necessarily become a serving contest. Murray would have just had to put enough returns in to get a few rallys going and thus break fed in each of the sets with his own service games not being under too much pressure due to feds diminished rallying ability.

It was a bit dismal on the rallying front I agree bitf - but I think I still think TMF would have prevailed!

I understand what you mean that it wouldn't necessarily have gone to 5th and epic serving contest, but Andy would have had to win and go for the win, not just try not to lose the next critical point - I agree with sirfred's point above about being hesitant and lacking nerve on set point - and that was against Roddick, not a 14 time grand slam champion in a Wimbledon final.

Easily Wimby 2001 Tim vs Goran !

The most dissapointing thing about is, in all their 5 meetings this is the only time that Goran won.

There seems to be an assumption here that Tim would have won Wimbledon that year if he had only got past Goran.

Funny thing that because I had Pat Rafter (along with the likes of Rosewall and Laver) as the unluckiest guy in modern times not to win it. Two finals (both hard fought - four and five sets respectively) but no trophy. Tim for all his noteworthy efforts never came close so guess where my money would have been if Tim had played Pat?!