Roger Federer has won a fair share of epic Grand Slam matches throughout his illustrious career. He has lost more than a few instant classics, as well.
There’s the 2008 Wimbledon final, the 2010 U.S. Open semifinals, and the 2011 U.S. Open semifinals to name several that fall into the latter category.
This time around, in Sunday’s Wimbledon final, it looked like Federer was going to be on the right side of history against the opponent who beat him in those two aforementioned U.S. Open thrillers. Coming off a semifinal win over Rafael Nadal, his conqueror in the 2008 Wimbledon title match, Federer had every reason to take down world No. 1 Novak Djokovic.
The 37-year-old outperformed his Serbian rival in just about every statistical category: more aces, fewer double-faults, higher first-serve percentage, more first-serve points won, more second-serve points won, more net points won in terms of both quantity and effectiveness, more break points won and with a better conversion rate, more winners, and more total points. Only in unforced errors did Djokovic check a single box.
Federer also served for the match at 8-7 in the fifth set and had two championship points at 40-15 and 40-30. It was all right there for the Swiss to give himself–and a raucous, pro-Federer crowd–a 21st Grand Slam title, his ninth at the All-England Club.
Instead, another Wimbledon coronation for Federer became U.S. Open deja vu.
Djokovic saved two match points, just as he had in the two semifinals at Flushing Meadows, and clawed his way to a 7-6(5), 1-6, 7-6(4), 4-6, 13-12(3) triumph that needed four hours and 57 minutes to be completed.
It was the longest final in Wimbledon history. Interestingly, it surpassed the 2008 final on the first point of the historic, first-ever fifth-set singles tiebreaker when the clock hit four hours and 49 minutes.
Eight minutes later, it was finally all over–leaving everyone inside the most famous court in tennis unsure how to react. Djokovic’s celebration was muted, Federer was stunned, the Centre Court crowd crushed.
In his press conference, the second-seeded runner-up was asked about how he recovers from a defeat such as this one.
“Similar to getting broken when serving for the match,” he noted. “Take it on your chin, you move on. You try to forget, try to take the good things out of this match. There’s just tons of it. Like similar to ’08 maybe, I will look back at it and think, ‘Well, it’s not that bad after all.’ For now, it hurts–and it should, like every loss does here at Wimbledon.
“I think it’s a mindset. I’m very strong at being able to move on because I don’t want to be depressed about actually an amazing tennis match.”
While experiencing emotions at the complete other end of the spectrum, Djokovic agreed with his rival’s assessment of what had just taken place.
“It was probably the most demanding, mentally most demanding, match I was ever part of,” the 16-time major champion admitted. “I had the most physically demanding match against Nadal in the (2012) finals of Australia that went almost six hours. But mentally this was (a) different level, because of everything.
“I was one shot away from losing the match, as well. This match had everything. It could have gone easily his way.”
Could have…. Really should have, to be fair…. And it would have, with just one more point in the 16th game of the deciding set.
‘Could have, should have, would have….’ It’s a phase we hear often in tennis, a sport with impossibly small margins. Perhaps never have those margins been smaller than they were on Sunday in yet another Djokovic-Federer classic.
in the words of Federer, I can’t believe it
Probably one of Fed’s hardest losses ever. Two championship points. Still lost.
Agreed, Nole snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. What a match!
more aces, fewer double-faults, higher first-serve percentage, more first-serve points won, more second-serve points won, more net points won in terms of both quantity and effectiveness, more break points won and with a better conversion rate, more winners, and more total points.” – all offset by a tiny bit more mental strength
The most devastating sport event ever that happened to me. And I had some… Interestingly, if Fed won, I would be happy and not asking myself complicated questions like: Was Djoko better? And if not, how’s that fair? Is there a God? Who decides in that moment that he’ll lose the next 2 match points…
It’s strange that Novak managed to win those 2 US Open matches after Fed had 4 match points in total and here 2 more… I mean that can’t be only about Fed’s weakness or Novak’a great return. It’s like there is a higher power on Novak’s side… This loss really brings up in me so many questions about existence and the reason/randomness of some events occuring.
Eugene, believe me you are not alone. As a Rafa fan, I have been through a fair share of the exact same feelings that you are going through. Especially after AO2012,AO2014,AO2017, Wimbledon 2007,2018. In fact I remember picking up some philosophy books after he retired vs Cilic in AO2018. It was as if, like you said, a force which never wanted him to do well at Australia.
Feels refreshing to be understood @vmk1.
Eugene, Djoko said he was calm and I think that says it all. I was posting during the match that Djoko looked calm out there, and Fed was the more eager one. Perhaps, the more one wants it, the more nervous one gets. I think Fed was nervous during those crucial moments. I think the same happened to Rafa in the AO 2012 and 2017 finals, and last year’s Wimbledon SF.
I guess it’s best that Fedal avoid Djoko at the slams if they want to win; I feel their ‘sufferings’ at the hands of Djoko have made them nervous or tense up once they see him across the net in important matches.
Fed and Rafa needs to win big without Djoko standing in their way, like in 2017, then they’ll rebuild their confidence, perhaps once they could win what matters to them (for Fed Wimbledon; for Rafa AO and Wimbledon again) they may then relax against Djoko? The question is how to avoid Djoko? Hope for a tougher draw for Djoko, or Djoko not having his best days at the slams?
It’s obvious to me now that Fed has Djoko in his head, more so after losing to him at Cincy last year ( the last place where Fed had the upper hand all along). Fed was losing to Djoko everywhere lately – AO, IW, Miami, Wimbledon, USO, Paris, WTF and then Cincy. He only has a 1-0 against Djoko at Shanghai, and maybe still a positive H2H at Dubai; that’s quite a bad record against his main rival.
Having said all these, I think is the luck of the draw, that Fed had Rafa in the SF. Fed played well and should win the title, if not for having to beat Rafa in the SF followed by Djoko in the final.
That “higher power” is called “being six years younger”. I do not think God interferes in sporting events nor do I think that the good guys always win. There is chance – a ball drops in or out by a fraction of a millimeter. That’s the way it goes.
Djoko does go for his shots when he’s desperate. I don’t think Fed does. He tends to play more controlled. If you’re as good as they are maybe it’s a better strategy.
Disagree that it is skill which helped Novak play match points in a certain fashion. Nor do I believe in some higher power. But just statistically it is remarkable that with the serve as good as Federer’s, he will be losing so often after holding match points. That too he had two aces in that game. TWO free points to take him to 40-15. I think such situations are 50-50 and we feel that it is unfair when it happens against our Fav and conveniently attribute it to skill when it happens in the favour of our Fav.
The list is long
1. Today
2. Anderson last year
3. Nole in 10,11
4. Delpo in IW 2018
no way any non-slam deserves to be on the list.
2008 Wimbledon?
(but yes, 2018 IW final was epic and brutal for Fed)
(oh, are you referring only to matches lost from MP up?)
Yeah – I was only referring to the big points play. There are some vivid ones in my memory. Like Roger not taking the set point vs Rafa at French open final in the first set and then going on to lose the set. Also against Delpo at USO 201, he had set points to go two sets to one up and botched it, I think .
At the same time I remember Roddick failing on set point in Set 2 of the 2009 final foregoing a chance to go 2 sets to love up against Roger. Similarly Monfils missed a match point against at Roger at US open 2014.
So it all balances out but the misses are more vivid since they result in a loss which is a rarity for the big 3
Roddick had multiple consecutive set points in that tb in the 2nd set. It was a miracle that Fed won that set and made it 1:1. I remember I felt sorry for Roddick for losing that match. He maybe deserved to win, but Fed hit a ridiculous number of winners and many UEs.
So, it’s a game of statistics and probabilities? But in this case guys something doesn’t look right. The probability of Fed being denied so many MP is very low on his serve…
I couldn’t even watch the whole thing in the 2009 Wimbledon final. I was so gutted for Roddick. He was supposed to be the next great player but Fed came along. Watching Roddick lose repeatedly to Fed is part of the reason I stopped watching tennis starting in 2005. I couldn’t stand it anymore. By the time Roddick had another shot at a slam final in 2009, I was a diehard Rafa fan. But I still was gutted when he lost in such a close match. I often think that Roddick never recovered from that loss.
But I thought watching the match today, Fed has two championship points. All he needs is just ONE ace. With that serve, I could not see Fed losing at that point. But it happened. I remember years ago at the USO when Novak hit that unbelievable return when Fed has s chance to break him. It was like this fluke thing. Fed went on to lose that match. It is odd how things play out.
I guess it depends on who’s your opponent; against Rafa and Djoko, Fed tends to be more anxious; he wasn’t anxious I believe when facing Roddick in that Wimbledon final. But, I do feel as he gets older, he’s starting to lose to the younger guys too – Delpo and Thiem at IW. May I also include Tsitsipas at the AO, when Fed had so many BPs against a rookie player yet he couldn’t take advantage.
Won or lost on a whisker. How many matches has Fed won on a whisker? Luck does come into it even at this level.
Im not too disappointed for Fed, though, IMO he still played the match of the tournament to beat Nadal.
How many he won on a whisker Big Al? Not so many, compared to what he lost. I’m referring to slams only. 3 Wimbledons lost to Djoko don’t reflect their fair value on grass.
There is something more than that. We humans, believe we are smart. But what we know is just a fraction of the reality. I love and statistics, but that doesn’t explain everything.
* I love maths and statistics
Most of those disappointing losses were to Nadal or Djokovic ,maybe one to Tsonga.But he still has more Slams than any of them, and stats overall do prove something .Its the scoring system in tennis that’s strange when you can be the better player but lose because don’t play well on the important points . Maybe Fed doesn’t play so well on them?
Maybe @Big Al. I think from a more objective point or view, a different scoring would be more accurte vs value of each player. Like playing to 50 points. If the difference is not at least 5 points, then playing to 75, 100 etc. If it’s 100 to 95 you win. No games, tbs. What’s the point of winning 6:1 if that gets neutralised by a lucky 6:7?
Yeah but I had this exact feeling when Rafa had his pair of epics with Roger at Wimbledon. Of the ten sets they played there, Roger won four tiebreaks. It all seemed so unfair that Roger only was ahead by a margin of 2 or more in the 5th. Similarly the 2008 final was so close owing to the two TB’s. But then when he won a pair against Kyrgios, I was like TB’s are not that bad :).
Tennis seems fair or unfair based on whom you support and how emotionally invested you are.
If you dig deeper at the point level, how can a point won on an ace be assigned the same value as say, a point won after a 25 stroke rally. How can a double fault have the same value as a crisp winner.
Maybe they should introduce a play-off system similar to golf, eg if the ‘winning’ player has not won by a clear advantage of overall points won , then the match goes on. That could counteract the effect of just playing well (or not) on big points .
Isn’t that pretty much what a tiebreaker is? Even in golf, they still play the sudden death/playoff hole. It’s not like the player who hits the most birdies or eagles over 72 holes wins.
What I would say is that Fed too often plays the big points *differently* from how he plays most points. I don’t fault him for the first championship point he lost; he went for an ace, narrowly missed; and then Novak hit a great return. But the second point, Fed came in very early in the point, behind a very shallow ball. He’ll normally work a point more before coming in; that was atypical play from him, imo. OTOH, it almost worked: Novak had to hit a brilliant cross-court pass, which easily could have gone out. If Fed makes the approach a bit deeper, he probably wins that point.
Another example was in the 1st service point of the TB, when Fed serve and volleyed, something he had done very little in the match. The serve wasn’t good enough, and he had to half-volley a hard return against at his laces, he was unable to do.
In general, I think Fed could slow down a bit on those huge points, take a couple breaths, and think about how he wants to play the point. Sometimes I feel like instinct or momentum takes over and he doesn’t play as smart as he could.
Djokovic has an ‘intangible’ ability to win when he shouldn’t. The match should’ve been done and dusted in 3-4 sets. Federer’s biggest lesson from all of this will not be those missed opportunities but to play his own game regardless of who is at the other side of the net.
History didn’t repeat itself in the Fedal semi. #selectivebias #cherrypicking
Exactly. Sometimes I feel like it’s more like Fed has an intangible ability to lose matches he shouldn’t.
Joe , but golf is still all about lowest score over 72 holes and beyond , quite different from tennis when you can score many more points and games in the match and still lose . However, I cant see them changing much .
True, but the relevant unit in tennis is the set, not the game. I guess you could play first one to x number of games, win by two. It would make for a very different type of match, though.
And golf isn’t a good comparison anyway because you have no control over your opponents ball.It still seems unfair that the better player in tennis often loses on one point .
True, Fed should just play his game and go for his shots. The same thing happened in his 2006 Rome final against Rafa, he reached MP after five hours and five sets and yet he faltered and Rafa ended up winning.
The same could be said of Rafa lately, when he also tense up at crucial moments and then lost. Maybe, just maybe, when Fedal are at the cusp of history making, they couldn’t help but become anxious, esp when they’re older now (and Rafa after all his injuries) and know that there won’t be that many opportunities left.
Actually TB tends to favour the big servers imo.
Consider the case of Kyrgios vs Rafa, Kyrgios isn’t a great returner of serves but he’s great with his serve, and so he won all five TBs played against Rafa, until this Wimbledon.
Fed’s records at playing TBs is one of the best if not the best, winning so many against his two main rivals. This Wimbledon is a bit strange, when Rafa could win two TBs in a row against Kyrgios for the first time, and Djoko winning all three TBs played against Fed (and Fed losing all three TBs in a single match??).
Perhaps both Rafa and Djoko did play the big points better than their opponents, despite not having much success in breaking their great serves during the normal service games until the TBs.
By the way, did the crowd irk Nole so much today that he spared them the boob throw?
https://twitter.com/NickKyrgios/status/1150210777162190848
Nick posted a tweet beseeching Federer to win. The gif replies to it are hilarious
Fed is Kyrgios’ hero. To Kyrgios tennis should be played the way Fed played, not the way Djoko or Rafa played. To him, tennis on clay is not real tennis, but tennis on grass is.
I think deep down he despises both Rafa and Djoko, perhaps thinking their more defence base tennis are not what real tennis should be.
He’s entitled to his own opinion, but I’ve to say I marvelled at what Djoko could do on the tennis court. I mean he really has the perfect game to win during this tennis era; he’s certainly the best player of this decade (the decade of the 2010s) whilst Fed was the best in the previous decade (the 2000s).
Djoko’s game is tailor made to play (and win) on the slowed down surfaces (from the quick 1990s).
I think God likes tennis. While I also believe hard work, talent, natural ability and mental toughness all play a part, I also think there is a spiritual aspect . How many times have you heard the phrase, “nick has a God given talent?” Not everybody has his gifts no matter how much they pracrice.
Call it mental toughness, being in the zone or whatever you want. How do you explain the things we see on the court? Fed had everything going his way, he lost. Guys win tournaments who were lucky losers, the top guys get beat by a player ranked in the 100’s and we shake our heads.
God is energy and has a vibration to it, quantum physics tells us so. The higher the vibration, the more intune you are. Ever get up in the morning and things go wrong? You say to yourself, “this is going to be a bad day.” And guess what, it is. All you have to do is change the vibration and the day changes. You attract what you put out there.
I don’t know what was going through Novak’s or Roger’s mind. What I do know is Novak seemed the calmer of the two, played he game, took his chances and won, while Roger played with caution. I think Novak had more of a belief and a higher vibration.
Yes, I think God likes tennis. You call it mental toughness, I call it being in the “Spiritual Zone.”
If you split the tennis fanbases between big 3..I think it’s 55 fed,35 rafa and 10 nole. 90 percent of the tennis fanbase is sad now as their fav lost. The 55 percent very dejected as a golden oppty lost. Rafa played timid n lost.
Sanju and lucky, Rafa playing timid and losing is easier to take than Rafa having two match points in a row on his serve and still losing. Honestly it’s unbearably painful. Roger is really strong taking this loss very well. If it was me, I would have had nightmares for weeks.
Somebody said maybe Roger should have served an underarm serve in one of those match points and I was like “No!!” but on second thought… why not, if nick can do it to nadal in several matches, why not. The match would have ended and djoko may be pissed but well… it’s a legitimate shot. What do you think?
Happy, I doubt Fed was thinking about that. Fed probably thought he could make it with his great serve to win the Championship point. Its easy to say on hindsight what he should or should not do, but at that moment, who could tell what would happen next?
Like what Rafa always said, ‘this is sport’, you win some you lose some. Rafa lost some painsaking matches (AO2012 final for example) but he won the FO 2013 SF in a similar fashion (this time its Djoko’s turn to feel the pain).
Can’t win all the time even when you’re the great Roger Federer, same for great Rafael Nadal and the great Novak Djokovic.
Those two match points really came out of the blue,maybe that threw Feds concentration .Up until then he was playing catchup
I couldn’t sleep last night. Nightmares. I remember thinking what if he closed the match at USO at 40:15, and then won a Wimby in or 2015 plus yesterday. He would be 23 slams, while Novak 13.
In 2014 or 2015 one of them*
Ha ha Eugene, we Rafa fans also thought about the narrow losses that he had – AO2012, 2017; Wimbledon 2007, SF of 2018 Wimbledon.
They happened, whether we like it or not. In the past, I was also bothered by such losses and was thinking about them for days or weeks. Nowadays, I recovered rather quickly as I told myself that life is full of regrets, we cant have everything we wished or desired for. There will always be disappointments along the way, we have to learn to accept.
Furthermore, its not our own career or our lives we are talking about, but some tennis players who we don’t even know personally, why are we so affected by their wins or their losses?
Nicely said lucky. I found myself asking the same question. It’s not my life. He has a lovely family, he’s a great tennis player and a multimillionaire. So, I should took it much easier.
Probably I will stop watching tennis soon. I don’t want to give my internal power to anyone.
Sorry u feel like that eugene…yeah!…i know it hurts…but,It will get better soon…
U’ll be strong okay?
Thank you Mira. It’s all good.
Hey Eugene! I had problems sleeping last night and I am a Rafa fan. Fed was the best player at wimby and a big reason he lost yesterday was however much of a genius he is he is 6 years older than Nole and had played an incredibly emotionally gruelling match against rafa.
So let’s put his performance in its proper context because it was immense.
I.find the urge by some to big up Nole at the expense of fedal very irritating. Yes he played very well to win but the draw was markedly in his favour. Last year he lucked out by playing on an indoor grass court in a de facto final. So can we please keep some perspective?
Thanks amy. Most people don’t consider these subtle nuances.
Some complain he doesn’t get enough love. Yes, of course. Playing at Wimby under roof on a sunny day or playing Bautista in a SF…thinks just work out his way.
I find this comment ridiculous Amy. Give credit where it’s due. Whatever said and done at the end of the day it is who wins that matters especially if done over long periods of time which is exactly what Nole has done against both Rafa and Fed. You need some perspective and objectivity.
Glad you find it ridiculous AVN! Good for you!
But Amy,Eugene..however few years down the line who will remember all this…all that people will remember who won what and not the circumstances.
I know sanju. That’s why the slam count don’t reflect totally their value. My opinion. It’s very subjective. A lot of factors have to be considered.
I think the young players, like Kyrgios, Tsitsipas should get inspired by this W’s SF and final match, and try to do the same. Enough of watching it on TV.
The replies to nick’s tweet are vicious and hilarious but cut the guy some slack. He admires fed n wanted him to win. Who didn’t?
What a match!!!
No Fed, no Rafa
Novak will probably get the highest SLAM tally, the way he’s going. (like it or not)
Fed will still be the GOAT because without him the others wouldnt be half as good. They got most of their inspiration from Fed.
“Jim Courier”, this is really not here or there! You could as well say that Fed wouldn’t be as good as he is now, if the other two GOAT- candidates hadn’t forced him to improve. Without the other two es cannot even be sure if Roger would still be around, since the competition would be totally uninteresting. Fact is that the Big Three have pushed each other to greater levels all the time. And that helps them to retain their superiority over the rest of the competition.
Djokovic won because he is better player than Roger. He is 5 years younger and won only slams less than Roger.
Djokovic won because he is better player than Roger. He is 6 years younger and won only 4 slams less than Roger.
He is not a better tennis player. I know this for sure. But he manages his nerves better. As a tennis player, he lost the match yesterday. Less point won. Could have easily been 3:0. Go home Goran.
Eugene when Fed came on court he didn’t seem as extremely dialled in and focused as he was against rafa. If he had been he would have won. It’s practically impossible to maintain such a focus and such intensity over 2 matches. And being a couple of years short of 40! does make a difference.
I appreciate your honesty
BTw that approach that Fed played on match point when he came to net…Rafa did exactly the same thing on break point in the fifth last year and got passed in exactly the same way!
Lesson for future matches is don’t come in on a dubious approach on an absolutely crucial point daring Nole to make the pass!
it is a measure of his match playing abilities that both last year and this he was able to make the pass under enormous pressure.
Yes but Amy it was dangerously close. It could have well gone out. I don’t think he executed it to just land on the line or just within it few cms away.
Nole has now snatched 2 wimbledons from fed n rafa when both were playing better than him. And guess who has nole to thank most in all this – isner . He screwed rafa last year by making match play indoors n this year too by forcing a tb last set.nole should send isner 30 percent of his prize money :+)
Haha yes sanju! let’s blame isner and his servebot tennis for everything! Strange how nervous Fed got in the tiebreak s….partly age I think…ie one fears unconsciously one won’t get another chance. I thought Nole looked a lot calmer from the get go …although apart from.the tiebreaks Fed played wonderful very gutsy tennis. But he lost it in the tiebreaks as much as Nole won them with so many.ues.
Did you read Novak said. He was waiting for the 5th set tb to come. He kinda knew looks like that fed will gift him the tb.
Correct, that was a terrible approach to come in on. Fed had a brain snap. Should’ve played a drop shot.