Turning Points of Great Champions.

On another thread the Special Juan said this:

The Special Juan wrote:I think behind every champion there is a huge beating.

I thought that was a very interesting remark - there's something in that, for sure. I thought it might be interesting to have a thread in which people could try to identify the "huge beating" or other turning point or significant event in the development of any player (male or female) as great Champions. It's obviously silly to try and be too precise, but there's often a moment one can look at (frequently with hindsight) as one when a hugely talented player with loads of potential finally sets firmly down the road of realising that and stepping up a grade to the rank of true Slam champion.

Sampras is very a good example - he won the USO vs. the strongish favourite Agassi in 1990 but failed to capitalise, even to the extent of being heavily criticised by Connors in 1991 after he lost to Courier in the QF and said that losing the title and the attention that went with it was a monkey off his back. His next slam final was USO 1992 (amazingly in 1992 Agassi won Wimbledon before Sampras - who lost to Goran in the SF in 1992). At the USO Sampras took a bad beating from Edberg - thereafter he made a determined effort to go about things differently. He got to No. 1 in early 1993 to some disquiet as he was not a slam holder, but all doubts were erased after he went on a tear of 3 slams in a row from Wimbledon 1993 from which he never looked back.

It's amazing how history followed a not dissimilar patter just over 10 years later - with Fed I'd be tempted to nominate his 5-set loss to Hewitt in the DC SF in September 2003. He'd got his act together to win Wimbledon, but followed that up with losses to Nalbandian and Roddick in the USO and US HC series, and then a heartbreaking 5 setter in the DC which he lost to Hewitt from two sets up, thereby falling to 2-7 in his H2H with Hewitt. Fed regrouped by the end of the year to win the 2003 Season-ending Championship from which he never looked back - 2004 was his first annus mirabilis. He moved to No. 1 with the Aus Open and beat Hewitt 6 times, including at each of the 3 slams he won and twice at the 2004 Season-ending Championship.

Agassi and Lendl seem to have needed very many defeats and miserable disappointments - who knows, perhaps Murray is the same, maybe his two finals in quick succession at SW19 will have had the 'magic' effect on him? We can only hope.

Any more suggestions?

Lendl had many heartbreaking defeats so with him surely it has to be a win that finally lifted him - the amazing 1984 French.

bogbrush wrote:Lendl had many heartbreaking defeats so with him surely it has to be a win that finally lifted him - the amazing 1984 French.

Yes - but rather like Agassi he continued to suffer heartbreaking defeats on all surfaces even after that win. On the subject of heart-breaking defeats, the 1984 French was a bit of a killer for Mac too.

Fantastic article

I think the best example was McEnroe when losing the Borg in 1980 at Wimbledon. Granted he won the 1979 US Open, but without a shadow of a doubt 1980 at Wimbledon made him the great champion and player he became.

Not everyone is good enough for a huge beating.

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Lendl had many heartbreaking defeats so with him surely it has to be a win that finally lifted him - the amazing 1984 French.

Yes - but rather like Agassi he continued to suffer heartbreaking defeats on all surfaces even after that win. On the subject of heart-breaking defeats, the 1984 French was a bit of a killer for Mac too.

Let's look at Lendl's record:
French Open: lost first final (1981), won the next three out of four finals he appeared in:
1984 won, 1985 lost, 1986 won, 1987 won.

US Open: 8 consecutive finals 1982-L, 1983-L, 1984-L, 1985-W, 1986-W, 1987-W, 1988-L, 1989-L.

A Open: four finals 1983-L, 1989-W, 1990-W, 1991-L

Wimbledon: 1983-SF, 1984-SF, 1985-4R, 1986-F, 1987-F, 1988-SF, 1989-SF, 1990-SF

For each slam there is a pattern of improvement, then steady peaking, then a falling away.

Del Potro winning USO 2009 after a 6-3 6-0 6-0 against Federer at AO 2009. RG 2009 was close between these two.

Federer's 2009 after the AO 2009 loss to Nadal is another good example.

Wilander's 1987 with two losses to Lendl at USO and RG in finals and Cash at W in QF. His 1988 was 3 slams, and Mecir beating him in W QFs.

Djokovic's 2010 USO loss followed by wins in 3 slams @ AO, W, USO in 2011.

Need to find some older ones similar in nature.

I'd see Fed as having more than one turning point. 2003, as stated, would seem to be one but I think we could also add:

AO09 - Slam defeats to Nadal had moved from clay to grass and now onto hard court. Fed's time appeared to be passing. At RG however, some narrow wins enabled him to finally win that event which led to an amazing run that took in wins at Wimbledon, AO and a runner up spot at USO (we didn't know at the time but that defeat to DelPo stopped Fed holding all 4 slams at the same time).

USO11 - The SF defeat to Novak was the second consecutive slam he'd lost from being two sets up (also v Tsonga at W) and was the eighth consecutive slam he had not been able to win. At the age of 30, it appeared a slow decline was starting to speed up. Fed had brought in Annacone before USO but it was following that SF defeat that this relationship really begain to yield fruit. A stunning last quarter of 2011 followed into an excellent 2012 in which slam number 17 was won and the #1 spot reclaimed. All this at a time when talented rivals were in their prime.

It's perhaps not as poetic to have more than one turning point but, in the real world, I think if someone is going to win 17 slams, more than one is required!

I suspect Murray losing to Djokovic in the 2011 AO may be one. He was garbage and perhaps finally realised he had to find guidance from a higher authority than his Mother.

I think, perhaps, that a "big beating" (as I said) could mean 2 different things. It can either be thumping scoreline or a huge mental blow, such as Federer to Tsonga at Wimbledon last year. As Murdoch said, I reckon someone such as Federer could have more than 1 turning point. A couple of times he's looked on the decline, but he's said "I'm not finished yet" and come back, worked hard and won titles, beating his rivals comprehensively at times.

As for Nadal, I don't know a lot of the facts about his career but perhaps the Wimbledon final where he was bagelled? There might have been something earlier, maybe the loss to Gilles Muller.

Djokovic... Maybe he bucked the trend in that it wasn't a huge beating, it was a huge win with the Davis Cup in 2011. Of course, you could point to that year (2009?) when he couldn't serve for toffee and, even though he was Number 3, no one was talking about him winning the big titles.

The Special Juan wrote:As for Nadal, I don't know a lot of the facts about his career but perhaps the Wimbledon final where he was bagelled? There might have been something earlier, maybe the loss to Gilles Muller.

I don't think Nadal has had a turning point. Despite its undoubted brilliance, it has been quite a steady career. If we leave aside his stellar 2010:
2005 - 1 slam
2006 - 1 slam
2007 - 1 slam
2008 - 2 slams
2009 - 1 slam
2011 - 1 slam
2012 - 1 slam

If anything, Nadal has had rather negative turning points. Just as he looks set to really dominate (AO09, USO10), things don't quite work out for one reason or another.

I agree that Nadal doesn't seem to have a turning point in the same way as others - winning at least one slam every year from a teenager suggests that he hit the ground running and never really stopped - but he has changed from dirtballer to career slammer and I think he's had two very big matches at important times at Wimbledon:

a. Wimbledon 2006 2nd round when he came back from 2-sets down against Kendrick and didn't look back before the final

b. Wimbledon 2008 - his first slam off the dirt, who knows how he would have recovered if he'd added to the heartbreak of 2007 by a rain-assisted choke when he'd done so much to improve himself against Fed?

Yes I dont think all great champions have had to experience a huge loss prior to breaking through in terms of it being broadly publicly seen.

What we dont know is how many losses these players had in their formative years that had a huge impact on them. For example, Nadal may have experienced some bad losses as a younger teenager we're not acutely aware of and yet they drove him on. Or perhaps he was just able from the start to win the big ones...like Borg.

It also relates to how quickly players develop...some take until their early 20s to find their "champion" ways. We know Lendl did...likewise McEnroe and that loss to Borg in '80 as LK mentioned. Federer I'm not so sure about early on...

I wonder which potential careers were damaged by losses though.

Surely Nalbandian 2002 Wimb loss has to be up there as having held him back for rest of career. Didnt Rios also lose a slam final meekly? (AO?)
When Coria lost to Nadal in 2004/5 on clay that destroyed him so much he went on to develop service yips (34 DFs in one match at USO in 2005), and not long after left the game completely.

lydian wrote: Surely Nalbandian 2002 Wimb loss has to be up there as having held him back for rest of career.

I think that's the wrong match - losing to Hewitt was pretty predictable, although he did perform badly in the final I agree - I'd say that the real killer for Nalbandian was his loss to Roddick in the 2003 USO.

Nick Bolleteri was talking about players in one of his excellent commentary slots on 5liveSX and he said that Rios was the most talented guy he'd ever seen, a man who could do anything and had everything except for the mind of a Champion. I think he was an unfulfilled potential waiting to happen. He did lose farily limply to Korda at the 1998 Aus Open 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, but that did not stop him from going on a huge tear in 1998.

That is what is so wonderful about tennis as a game because the greatest champions are able to dig deep and find the courage and the resolve to keep leaving everything on the line, even when their form is terrible - sooner or later that has to pay off.

This is a great thread, and I know it was inspired by a comment by TSJ (?) on the Murray/Raonic thread, so just wanted to add that I loved the way Raonic responded to his defeat - that it was 'amazing' to play Murray on AA. I hope I am right in thinking that what he is taking from the match is not that he lost, but that he has some way to go but he sees where he needs to and that he would like more of the big matches under the lights on the biggest stage.

Actually just checked and of course it was the Rafter/Tomic thread guess the above is a bit irrelevant except that Raonic's maturity seems to be in stark contrast to Tomic's

If getting beaten is a measure of future greatness, Donald Young will be a fantastic champion at some point!

Turron wrote:If getting beaten is a measure of future greatness, Donald Young will be a fantastic champion at some point!

Which one of his losses do you think will be turning point

So many to choose ... so little time ...

If the first turning point means a career going upwards in terms of grand slam tournament wins, then a second turning point will cause the career to head downwards with grand slam losses. Hence there would need to be a third turning point for the career to head upwards again.

Of course if everyone's career hit a downwards turning point except say for one player - lets call this player "Murray", then the Murray career would just need to be steady with no turning points to begin winning the slams.

Wonder what Delpo's tough agonising loss at the Olympics will make of him?

I can see a 2nd slam not too far away.

Since returning from injury Del Potro's successive grand slam results have been
2011
2R
3R
4R
3R
2012
QF
QF
4R
at least 4R

so steadily improving. This year he has been beaten by Ferrer (once) and Federer (twice) in grand slams - so only players in the top five. I think everyone will agree that Ferrer played some of his best career tennis at Wimbledon 2012.

ps On a separate matter - is Soderlings career over?

Interesting I tend to agree. But we also do have the supernova type star that bursts on the scene at such a young age that they really can't have any history of traumatic 5 set beatings. Guys like Nadal, Becker, Wilander, and Borg come to mind. I mean they were so gifted and so deveolped as players in their own style at such a young age they kind of came up right into a grandslam trophy ceremony. But those guys are rare even among the greats. Most of the greats did have this sort of apprenticship loss in a big slam to another great many times. I think the clearest example is obviously that of Mac v. Borg.

i remember in agassi's book it said either late 1997 or early 1998 he was playing challenger tournaments and there was one where he lost in the final and the prize money was something like 5 grand, that was pretty much the low point of his career but he was back in the top 10 within 6 months or so.

Nore Staat wrote:

Of course if everyone's career hit a downwards turning point except say for one player - lets call this player "Murray", then the Murray career would just need to be steady with no turning points to begin winning the slams.

Ha ha! That's called wishful thinking. But even then some wouldn't be happy. They would refuse to recognise the downward turning points whilst at the same time seeing upward turning points where none exist...