Pivotal / Lucky moments that swung Slams

First topic message reminder :

I was thinking of what moments have driven Slams either way, so here's a list of what comes to mind. I've put ones that gained a Slam as well as those that lost them, and since only 4 people ever win these things nowadays (apols, JMDP) it's just on those four.

Federer

Gains:
1. Andy Roddicks awful high backhand volley miss that would have put him two sets up, most probably won Federer the 2009 title. He didn't get his first break until almost midday Monday so it's hard to argue he'd have won from two down.
2. In the 2009 French Open Roger was the new favourite after Rafas defeat. Surely Tommy Haas couldn't stop him? But at two sets down and serving at 3-4 Federer faced 30-40. His serve was returned deep and he stepped wide and planted a forehand onto the side line. Haas would have most likely served the match out and Roger wouldn't have his career Slam. Phew!
3. Hard to call a 6-2 set tight, but twice Federer faced break points early in the 5th set of his Wimbedon final with Nadal in 2007. In the second such game he was pulled very wide and hit a miraculous recovery, but Nadal had a makable drive down the line. It went wide, Federer recovered and ran away with it.
4. Yet again at Wimbledon! Federer had lost the 1st set in 2012 to Andy Murray and was on the receiving end in most of the 2nd. He'd scraped to 6-5 having staved off break points (pivotal moments themselves?) but at 30-0 a tie break looked certain. Suddenly good play by Federer and errors by Murray set up 30-40; a great rally followed culminating in a wonderful wickedly sliced backhand volley drop shot that even the speedy Murray couldn't reach. The match was suddenly even and though much remained to be done the momentum stayed with Federer.

Losses:
1. in 2008 at Wimbledon they played on into the gloom and against protests from Federer who claimed he was having difficulty seeing clearly. Maybe he had a point as he dropped serve soon after, with an easy forehand driven long. Ironic to think that just two years later the roof would have been closed after the 4th set and given common perception of their indoor prowess Federer would probably have stolen it. Then again, he did only escape to the 5th with a crazy backhand on mp down that might otherwise have made this list.

Nadal

Gains:
1. The 2008 Wimbledon above.
2. In the 2013 French Open Rafa was returning from injury and carrying all before him on clay.... except he'd been beaten up badly in his favoured Monte Carlo by Djokovic. Their semi-final meeting went the (long) distance of course, but Djokovic was poised to win at 4-2, deuce in the final set. An easy putaway at the net beckoned. He put it away all right.... then inexplicably hit the net! I firmly believe that changed the match, and it was something Rafa had no control over, except to point it out.

Losses:
1. In the 2012 Australian Open Rafa had Novak on the ropes after they'd set about breaking every record for longest this or that in Slam finals. finally, he had his man cold. An easy backhand down the line awaited and he'd be in the closing straight........ but he pushed it wide!!!!!
2. The 2007 Wimbedon final described above. It's said he cried in the dressing room after the match, no doubt that break point was a principal cause.

Djokovic:

Gains:
1. In 2011 in the USO semi v Federer he was match point down. A desperate forehand - nicknamed 'The Slap' by tennis fans - saved the day. It was followed by a Federer forehand into the net on the 2nd match point - an aggressive shot to be fair -  but then a df for the break. All brought about by that one moment? Possibly. In nine parallel realities it flew wide, in this one he won the title. I have not included this as a lost title event to Federer as a very tough final still awaited.
2. The 2012 AO, as described above.
3. In 2013 Novak faced Murray in a repeat of the previous Slam. Andy was a set to the good but knew after his tough 5-setter with Federer he couldn't afford this to go long. He won the first set and stood 2-2 in the 2nd set tie break. Just as he was about to send his crucial secondserve down......... a feather descended and he waited for it to clear! It was as if the Gods themselves had decided to intervene for Novak. A double-fault followed and a critical moment had passed.

Losses:
1. The 2013 French, described above.
2. The US 2012, described below.

Murray

Gains:
1. In 2012 Andy Murray had come closest to breaking his Slam duck at Wimbedon but another chance beckoned at the US. In windy conditions some have said helped him he took a two sets lead. Surely he'd win now? But Djokovic came back, and by the 4th set Murray looked weary and was telling his box his legs were weak. The momentum was with Djokovic as they entered the 5th. One last stand for Andy? He engineered a break point in the first game and a backhand helpfully clipped the net. The tightly sprung US net didn't let it drop dead, but Djokovic was discomforted enough to net his shot. The momentum turned and Murray ran away from a dispirited Djokovic. Without that clip who knows?

Losses:
1. Could he have turned it around in 2008 at the USO, when Federers long forehand at bp down in the 2nd set was called in and Murray played on? Maybe. Probably not, but nonetheless he may then have squared the match and gone on against Federer in his Annus horribilis. I'm not putting this in Feds 'Gains' column as its a touch speculative.
2. Wimbledon 2012, described above.
3. Australian Open 2013, described above. "The Feather from Belgrade"


Anyway, I'm sure there'll be disagreement. Any ones to add?

Yes, I just can't recall it with the precision needed to write it up. It's worthy of making the list if anyone can.

Tiger Tim at Wimbledon 2001. Having won a set in the semi final 6-0 the heavens opened and momentum was lost. He would have faced Pat Rafter who he had comfortably dispatched at Wimbledon before, therefore he would have probably won the final.

So close, yet so far!

I'm keeping it recent, but what a shame. I would have loved him to win it, he played great tennis and was incredibly unlucky to have his time overlap with Sampras.

Good guy too.

VTR wrote:Tiger Tim at Wimbledon 2001. Having won a set in the semi final 6-0 the heavens opened and momentum was lost. He would have faced Pat Rafter who he had comfortably dispatched at Wimbledon before, therefore he would have probably won the final.

So close, yet so far!

But that's a weather induced change in momentum and the match did not swing in any particular direction on the win/loss of a particular point caused by the weather. I think if there was a longer gap between the Sampras years and Federer, and had Henman been a little younger he could have taken advantage and maybe got the title just as we are seeing at the moment in the slams.

I have to be honest. I never quite understand the link between Henman being unlucky to be playing at the same time of Sampras and the ascertion he may have got a Wimbledon if not for that.

Reason being, how many times did Sampras knock Henman out of Wimbledon? I don't recall it being that many times?

If so, Henman playing at the same time as Sampras was really kind of incidental. And had no bearing on Tim's chances to win Wimbledon? Happy to be corrected.

I've heard other people make that link as well to be honest (in other walks of life). Hence why I'm bringing it up.

bogbrush wrote:I'm keeping it recent, but what a shame. I would have loved him to win it, he played great tennis and was incredibly unlucky to have his time overlap with Sampras.

Good guy too.

Agreed - would have at least liked to have seen him in a final, I always thought he deserved that given his consistency. A bit unfair he is often labelled as a choker as there were some very gutsy wins along the way and given his seeding QF/SFs were usually going to be against higher ranked players.

Johnyjeep wrote:I have to be honest. I never quite understand the link between Henman being unlucky to be playing at the same time of Sampras and the ascertion he may have got a Wimbledon if not for that.

Reason being, how many times did Sampras knock Henman out of Wimbledon? I don't recall it being that many times?

If so, Henman playing at the same time as Sampras was really kind of incidental. And had no bearing on Tim's chances to win Wimbledon? Happy to be corrected.

I've heard other people make that link as well to be honest (in other walks of life). Hence why I'm bringing it up.

I see your point. If you are good enough you will be able to beat who is in front of you I guess. I checked on the h2h and Sampras beat Henman 3 times at Wimbledon of which 2 years consecutively and in 1999 he got him in the semis and the final at Queens...ouch!

That said, many say Roddick would have won more than 1 slam if not for Federer getting him in 4 finals not to mention many times in semis/QFs. Its all about match up at the end of the day and we need not look any further than Federer/Nadal.

Just had a quick look. Sampras beat him in Semi's at Wimbledon in 98 and 99. So perhaps a small element of truth.

However that was the last time they played (the only other time was in 95 when Tim was a WC) at Wimbledon (only played 3 times in total at SW19).

Tim still got to 2 QF and 2 SF after 2000. Not least played another 8 Wimbo's after that date. Granted, towards the end he stood little chance of winning. But I don't think his time and Pete's were that closely sychronised. To the extent I don't recall him (or the media for that matter!!) having that much to say about Pete Sampras adversly affecting his chances.

Not like say Andy Roddick and Roger Federer!

FedsFan wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:I have to be honest. I never quite understand the link between Henman being unlucky to be playing at the same time of Sampras and the ascertion he may have got a Wimbledon if not for that.

Reason being, how many times did Sampras knock Henman out of Wimbledon? I don't recall it being that many times?

If so, Henman playing at the same time as Sampras was really kind of incidental. And had no bearing on Tim's chances to win Wimbledon? Happy to be corrected.

I've heard other people make that link as well to be honest (in other walks of life). Hence why I'm bringing it up.

I see your point. If you are good enough you will be able to beat who is in front of you I guess. I checked on the h2h and Sampras beat Henman 3 times at Wimbledon of which 2 years consecutively and in 1999 he got him in the semis and the final at Queens...ouch!

That said, many say Roddick would have won more than 1 slam if not for Federer getting him in 4 finals not to mention many times in semis/QFs. Its all about match up at the end of the day and we need not look any further than Federer/Nadal.

haha touche my friend.

Johnyjeep wrote:

FedsFan wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:I have to be honest. I never quite understand the link between Henman being unlucky to be playing at the same time of Sampras and the ascertion he may have got a Wimbledon if not for that.

Reason being, how many times did Sampras knock Henman out of Wimbledon? I don't recall it being that many times?

If so, Henman playing at the same time as Sampras was really kind of incidental. And had no bearing on Tim's chances to win Wimbledon? Happy to be corrected.

I've heard other people make that link as well to be honest (in other walks of life). Hence why I'm bringing it up.

I see your point. If you are good enough you will be able to beat who is in front of you I guess. I checked on the h2h and Sampras beat Henman 3 times at Wimbledon of which 2 years consecutively and in 1999 he got him in the semis and the final at Queens...ouch!

That said, many say Roddick would have won more than 1 slam if not for Federer getting him in 4 finals not to mention many times in semis/QFs. Its all about match up at the end of the day and we need not look any further than Federer/Nadal.

haha touche my friend.

Lol! I got in there one minute quicker! Its true though I think when it comes to a select group of players. Sampras and Tim played each other 7 times which is quite low. But if you take Fed/Roddick at 21/3 it does look pretty bad. I think Roddick is one of the best grass courter's not to win Wimbledon. He never lost a Queens Final and won 4. Impressive...

USO11, after Nadal gritted his way to the third set, Nole took an extended MTO (Rafa was visibly annoyed). Nole would take the fourth set 6-1. Had he had a less skilled physio, who knows?

no chance. rafa was absolutely dead.
I have never seen him like that, barely moving after that monstrous 3rd set.

So was Djoko, hence the MTO.

This is a great thread, both the original article and the comments. Wonder if there are any earlier round close matches on the way to slam wins that are worth a mention, as well as the Haas one.

VTR wrote:Tiger Tim at Wimbledon 2001. Having won a set in the semi final 6-0 the heavens opened and momentum was lost. He would have faced Pat Rafter who he had comfortably dispatched at Wimbledon before, therefore he would have probably won the final.

So close, yet so far!

Often forgotten that he led Coria by a set and 4-2 in the FO semi final, with Gaston Gaudio, a man who only reached one slam quarter final in his career, being the final opponent.

It may seem small, but the second I saw Verdasco's hair gel begin to weaken against Murray, I knew it was over. Got broken immediately. As a guy with a rich head of hair, I know how difficult it is to recover from your gel betraying you.

Henman Bill wrote:This is a great thread, both the original article and the comments. Wonder if there are any earlier round close matches on the way to slam wins that are worth a mention, as well as the Haas one.

Great, thanks! It's fun getting your head back to those moments isn't it?

That's a challenge. To qualify a early round really has to be cliff edge stuff. Haas sets a high bar.

Henman Bill wrote:

Often forgotten that he led Coria by a set and 4-2 in the FO semi final, with Gaston Gaudio, a man who only reached one slam quarter final in his career, being the final opponent.

That's very interesting. Thanks for the information. Did Henman S&V at the French?

One that comes to my mind is nalbandian leading Roddick by 2 sets to love in US open 2003 semi final and in the third set tie break someone in the crowd shouted 'out', causing Nalbandian to miss. Roddick went on to win the match and his only Grand slam sitle against a tired Ferrero.

Also, Nalbandian could easily have beaten federer at the 2006 french open bujt got injured part way through.

Tim put in an exemplary performance against chela in the 2004 FO qf, serve and volleying beautifully.
Was great to see s & v working great on the dirt.

Agreed, I watched that match too, and Chela doesn't didn't look used to it, it was as if he was thinking "hang on a minute, you're not supposed to do that". It worked simply because it was executed so well, not necessarily because of the surface. And Henman was looking to get into the net against Coria as well, although not serve volleying on every point.

Looking on you tube, at a set and 4-2 he hits a high smash to go up 30-15, but then a double fault to go 30-30 before losing that game. I think if he wins that point instead and goes up 40-15, maybe...not relevant to this big 4 thread though. He also served for set 4.

Coria would have underlined the fact that he was the greatest claycourter on earth had it not been for nerves/cramp. Shame, he probably consoled himself by telling himself he would get more chances. Funny how quickly it turns

How is it that this one is not mentioned, so far? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbI2dJYTVg

PS: Ah I see, this is about slams.

Federer was two points away at 15-30 on DelPo's serve at USO 2009.

I can't recall the match too well, but given how tight the USO final in 2007 was, perhaps there may have been moments there where Novak could've pounced? I think he had set points in the first two sets as a minimum.

I'd almost forgotten about the Feather from Belgrade!

Fantastic thread, BB.

Silver wrote:I can't recall the match too well, but given how tight the USO final in 2007 was, perhaps there may have been moments there where Novak could've pounced? I think he had set points in the first two sets as a minimum.

This one was a close call. The 20-year-old Djokovic was in his first Slam final, yet he led 6-5 in each of the opening two sets. In the first, he held five set points. In the second, he held two.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen07/news/story?id=3012146

Indeed. Who of those who witnessed it could forget poor Dr_Sincere on the old 606 suffering from Premature Speculation, when he declared "Djokovic has won the first set", only for Federer to recover from 40-0 down to break.
He and his allies (Impartial_Lion, etc,) were so deflated they renamed Novak "Chokovic".

I didn't put this on, though, because I think Federer would have won anyway. It wasn't the moment that won the title, it was just an extreme place to save a set from.

IMHO of course!

Thanks for the stat-hunting, LF

BB, I remember good old Dr_Sincere (Wise_Analyst, etc) losing his mind over that match. The Basel Bungler somehow forced his way through. Fair point, given that is was a straight sets win and momentum was arguably very even throughout, it probably doesn't quite make the cut. Not in the same way as some of the others, at any rate...

Very good article, but you forgot Fed unlucky matches in 2009 the USO.

Fed ran away with the first set like 6-1 and leading 2nd set like 5-2 and then an unneccessary argument with Umpire made him lose focus and Del Po from no where came back and won the 2nd set, despite all , in 4th set Del Po was down in the match by 2 sets and 4-5 and 0-30 in the 4th an easy put away forehand Fed missed it and Del Po followed it up with a stunning run cross court forehand and recovered to close the 4th set and the final set.

@iC... I knew you would recall the Del Potro exploits @USO 2009.

Federer was peed at Garner for allowing late challenges from Del Potro. Federer was fined USD1500 for that diatribe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZB9JfhzLzE .

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/09/18/tennis.federer.outburst.fine.garner/

Federer beat Djokovic in straight sets at the US Open, so there was hardly one decisive moment that swung the match. I don't think you can call a player winning the first set so decisive, the list should be about a point for a 2-0 lead, or a match point lost, or a point for a double break in the final set that was lost and then turned etc.
At 6-5 40-0 Federer hit a forehand winner on the line, on the replay it even looked like it might have been towards the outer edge. So maybe that was the moment that turned the set, but not necessarily the whole match.

laverfan wrote:@iC... I knew you would recall the Del Potro exploits @USO 2009.

Federer was peed at Garner for allowing late challenges from Del Potro. Federer was fined USD1500 for that diatribe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZB9JfhzLzE .

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/09/18/tennis.federer.outburst.fine.garner/

When i went to wimby this year I spoke to garner and asked him about that very incident.
He didn't linger too long on the subject, "it was an uncomfortable experience."

Federer was completely correct that the challenge was far too late but his language as as in wimbledon 2007 was unseemly. That occured in the third set which Federer won. I think the reason he lost was he played forehand to forehand too often and not using his slice enough. Probably a bit of arrogance on his part thinking no one can handle his forehand.