Federer defined by defeat

Amid the glorious victories, the endless number of Grand Slam wins, the numerous titles and the record weeks at number one, it's one of sport's great ironies that Roger Federer may be best remembered for....two defeats.
  Yet the five-set epic with Rafa at Wimbledon in 2008 and this latest roller-coaster with Djoko have been particularly defining. They have showed the great player fighting back against seemingly impossible odds, glimpsing a great victory and then, ultimately, having to settle for heartache and the runner-up slot.
  Previously Johnny Mac had the same experience when he lost the famous "tiebreak final" to Borg in 1980. Mac says people still come up to him and talk about that "win" for him, forcing him to tell them that, actually, it was Bjorn that emerged victorious.
  Similarly, Steve Davies, although initially "gutted" at his blackball final-frame defeat by Denis Taylor in the 1985 world snooker final, eventually came to the realisation that he'd been part of a great match.
  Some of the American newspaper today have spoken of the latest Fed defeat actually enhancing his legend and you can see why. Snooker champion Terry Griffiths once, movingly, spoke of there being "great beauty in defeat". Sometimes there is.

Whilst it's true that to be involved in two of the greatest televised matches ever is a privilege for the Fed I think 17 major titles makes these two losses a great deal easier to digest than, say, if he was a player who ended up with none at all. Would Steve Davis be all jokey when it came to talking about 1985 had he not won any world titles? I seriously doubt it. Being a "nearly man" is much easier when you've already achieved it.

(I think the Joe Johnson defeat hurt Steve a hell of a lot more than 1985. I'm sure there's a tennis comparison to be made there but I can't think of anything at the moment)

Reading the coverage and comment on the match in the media this morning, I can't think of another occasion when both competitors have come out of a match with their reputations so enhanced. Everything, from the shotmaking, to the drama, to the speeches in the ceremony is attacting positive comment.

This is rather different to how I recall 2008. Back then, the quality was recognised but a cloud hung over Federer. It seemed to mark the end of his dominance and his concession of the rivalry with Rafa.

Yesterday was a great match but I don't think it will have the longevity of 2008 in people's affections as it didn't tell us anything new. All it did was confirm what we thought we knew but were perhaps beginning to doubt - that Federer's talent is such that he remains a force at 33 and that Djokovic has the ability and toughness to further elevate his place in the sport's history.

No I don't quite buy it. Roger Federer has 17 slam wins and (until beaten and perhaps even if it is) he'll be best remembered as the greatest player of all-time. Sure the great matches he was involved in will be referred to but that won't erase everything he has achieved in my opinion.

Federer has lost nearly all the high quality 5 setters he has played. Safin AO 2005, Nalbandian 2005, Ao 2009, Wim 2008, Rome 2006. Wimbledon 2009 was not good quality. The only exception I can think of is Wim 2007.

This will certainly be a negative part of his legacy

Hi there sfp, I've always found your comments & musings sensible and nicely-balanced, but in this case there's no way I can go with your analysis.

I have to say it's well wide of the mark, simply because the unprecedented achievements of Roger Federer are so remarkably unique that they can never be outweighed by a couple of gallant and narrow defeats, even if they did occur on the biggest stage of the sport.

This man's stellar legacy is more than secure, and has been for quite some time. Nothing can change it.

Andy48 wrote:Federer has  lost nearly all the  high quality 5 setters he has played. Safin AO 2005, Nalbandian 2005, Ao 2009, Wim 2008, Rome 2006. Wimbledon 2009 was not good quality. The only exception I can think of is Wim 2007.

This will certainly be a negative part of his legacy

I don't think it really affects his legacy but his record in 5th sets is the one statistic in his otherwise stellar career numbers that is pretty ordinary.

His win/loss record in 5th sets is 22-19, only 54%

In comparison to other greats:

Borg........24-6...80%
Nadal.......16-5...76%
Laver.......29-11...73%
Sampras...33-15...69%
McEnroe....25-13...66%

I always remember Pele for that Gordon Banks save and the shot he missed from the halfway line

Fed's 5 set record isn't great. I've always suspected that despite his fitness regime, he's lost a number of 5-setters, particularly against Rafa and Djoko, simply because he is incapable of achieving the levels of stamina that they have.
He also panics a bit if he's had match point(s) but failed to convert them - almost as if he thinks his chance has gone.

The title is rather provocative!!

Can't say I go along with it. Take one of my other favourite sporting hero in Jack Nicklaus. Twice he was pipped at Majors by Tom Watson (The Open 1977 and US Open 1982) Oddly enough he was chasing 18 at the US Open 1982. Watson on both occassions narrowly defeated Jack.

Yes Roger's 5 set record is a bit weak, however as lags pointed out his other achievements far outweigh any close defeats in the Slams. I think if anything it demonstrates how hard and well Nadal and Djokovic have had to play to beat Roger in a Slam final!

Not "defined by defeat" but if you are asking if the greatest & most memorable matches he was involved in are ones that he lost, then I'd say yes. Of course, someone who is a fan might pick some of his matches that were more a supreme performance from Fed, but one-sided.

Oh dear. I debated about the title of this post and I wanted something snappy but I understand the comments.
 The guy is the ultimate champion and plays beautiful tennis. I'm not sure if I've ever got behind a sports person as much as I have with Rog. When he retires it will be like a death in the family and I can see some of the headline writers coming up with lines such as "Was This the Most-Loved Sportsman Ever?".
  I merely wanted to say that the defeats have ADDED to the legend - the manner of them, the style of them, even the bitter-sweet knowledge that the best on the day was not quite good enough,. even with the support, the adulation of the crowd there and the unseen millions not there.

sirfredperry wrote:When he retires it will be like a death in the family and I can see some of the headline writers coming up with lines such as "Was This the Most-Loved Sportsman Ever?".

Now there's a question! Not even close to Ballesteros for me and I've never even watched golf and have no idea what his career accomplishments were.

Mardy Fish tweeted yesterday that Fed is the most respected athlete of any sport ever.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mardy Fish tweeted yesterday that Fed is the most respected athlete of any sport ever.

I would go along with that too

Well, he's the most loved athlete in South Africa.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mardy Fish tweeted yesterday that Fed is the most respected athlete of any sport ever.

I do love how everything has to be ever.

Are we to presume that Mardy has weighed up the merits of Theagenes, Orsippus, medieval jousters etc and decided that Federer has the edge?

...and Europe, I mean the land, not islands   

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mardy Fish tweeted yesterday that Fed is the most respected athlete of any sport ever.

I do love how everything has to be ever.

Are we to presume that Mardy has weighed up the merits of Theagenes, Orsippus, medieval jousters etc and decided that Federer has the edge?

Fish had a long injury lay-off - he's well-read in classical sporting history and has also seen all the Police Academy films multiple times.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mardy Fish tweeted yesterday that Fed is the most respected athlete of any sport ever.

I do love how everything has to be ever.

Are we to presume that Mardy has weighed up the merits of Theagenes, Orsippus, medieval jousters etc and decided that Federer has the edge?

Fish had a long injury lay-off - he's well-read in classical sporting history and has also seen all the Police Academy films multiple times.

He thinks the Blue Oyster is the funniest recurring gag of the last 2000 years.

I am glad he has not delivered a retirement speech yet. There are many more titles to be won, matches to be played.

GOATs, GOTEs, GOAS(port - Thanks Mardy), the titles and monikers cannot define the athlete.

I though Vivian Richards was the GOAS, Mardy!

YvonneT wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:When he retires it will be like a death in the family and I can see some of the headline writers coming up with lines such as "Was This the Most-Loved Sportsman Ever?".

Now there's a question! Not even close to Ballesteros for me and I've never even watched golf and have no idea what his career accomplishments were.

A somewhat puzzling comment there Yvonne T.

I am a bit of a golf nut, I followed Seve, I was thrilled by his play, and have huge admiration for what Seve did in his career, and indeed for golf as a sport.

But if you don't follow golf at all and - by your own admission - know nothing about what he achieved in his chosen field, then I am intrigued as to what it is that you love about him ....? Is it the fact that he suffered a tragically early death   
And, if so, is that your measurement of greatness ?

Andy48 wrote:Federer has  lost nearly all the  high quality 5 setters he has played. Safin AO 2005, Nalbandian 2005, Ao 2009, Wim 2008, Rome 2006. Wimbledon 2009 was not good quality. The only exception I can think of is Wim 2007.

This will certainly be a negative part of his legacy

What about the ones he won?

Del Potro in RG semi finals
Roddick in 2009
Tommy Haas in USO and RG
Berdych Federer AO 2009

This thread trying to make out Federer never won in the 5th sets

At the end of the day people remember winners, not losers. When you talk about Becker you think of Champion at 17 but do you remember the runner up? You think of a great match and you think of the winner or winners. Same with Federer and Nadal. You mention Federer and you think Wimbledon and Nadal RG. Whatever happened inbetween is irrelevent except to a generation of fans that witnessed that generation play and watched those great encounters.

Maybe in a 100 years time Renshaw, Sampras and Federer would be mentioned when someone is going for a record wimbledon haul. Who knows! I am just glad and sad that this was a close encounter. Imagine if Roger was rolled in 3 straight sets in 2-1-2 or something? Ask anyone and they will say it was close and you couldn't pick a winner after 2 sets all.

Andy48 wrote:Federer has  lost nearly all the  high quality 5 setters he has played. Safin AO 2005, Nalbandian 2005, Ao 2009, Wim 2008, Rome 2006. Wimbledon 2009 was not good quality. The only exception I can think of is Wim 2007.

This will certainly be a negative part of his legacy

Imagine, if had won all these matches, we would be debating Wee Keira for the last 16 years.

Perhaps the H2H v Nadal should also be a negative part of his legacy.

I think the thread had lost the purpose of the OP.

for me, Federer is defined as the only guy to sustain dominance in tennis through artistry. Other greats I've witnessed, such as Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Nadal did so through no little skill of course, but fundamentally on massive firepower. McEnroe was the only other I can recall but his dominance was fleeting and aggregate achievements smaller.

Federer is the only guy I've seen with the "Quan" (Jerry McGuire fans will know). He's brought the touch of Amritrage and won 17 Slams with it, and held #1 for > 300 weeks, including a period when he was 31 and had wonderful rivals much younger than him.

I'm with Fred; this is the sportsman I have most regard for in any sport. Not just for the winning and not just for the style, but for the winning with style. It's kind of uplifting to think it can be done that way, sort of makes you think maybe the high road isn't just for moral victories.

laverfan wrote:

Andy48 wrote:Federer has  lost nearly all the  high quality 5 setters he has played. Safin AO 2005, Nalbandian 2005, Ao 2009, Wim 2008, Rome 2006. Wimbledon 2009 was not good quality. The only exception I can think of is Wim 2007.

This will certainly be a negative part of his legacy

Imagine, if had won all these matches, we would be debating Wee Keira for the last 16 years.

Perhaps the H2H v Nadal should also be a negative part of his legacy.

Nadal has a pretty strong h2h vs most guys and the only one who is near him is Djokovic. You have to consider ages etc. Also, its all about match ups and Nadal is a bad match up for Federer just as once upon a time Federer was fo Djokovic and as Djokovic is for Nadal. So in that case Miloslav Mecir must be a better player than Mats Wilander if you go on h2h. I know its different but do you see what I mean?

Much as I would like Roger to go down as the GOAT, I think Nadal will take that off him. This is not because he didnt reach 18 yesterday, its because he needed to reach at least 20. No one thought Sampras would be caught but he was. Just the same as will Federer and Nadal one day.

Well at least Rog is enjoying his GS record for a while, and still trying to add to it. Did Pete think when he won the 2002 USO that his GS record would be gone within SEVEN years and taken by a player that had NO GS title wins at that stage?
Perhaps Nick K from Australia will tear up the record books.

FedsFan wrote:
Much as I would like Roger to go down as the GOAT, I think Nadal will take that off him. This is not because he didnt reach 18 yesterday, its because he needed to reach at least 20. No one thought Sampras would be caught but he was. Just the same as will Federer and Nadal one day.

There's a big difference.

I think if Rafa gets to 17 it'll be on the back of 10+ French, which for me marks him out as the stratospherically supreme clay courter, and a Hell of a good player elsewhere. I was even wondering if Fed got 8/18 whether his haul would start to look dependent on one event but that's nowhere near Rafa. Federer has a weakness in the cv at RG, but given the number of finals and presence of ATG mega-clay GOAT Nadal, I think he gets a break there.

Right now Rafa 9/10 French (FFS !!!!) and 5/LOTS elsewhere. It's tilted, just a bit. Doesn't make it naff or anything, just different from 7/5/4/1.

As has been mentioned before when it comes to GS wins, the Steffi Graf record is particularly impressive and all-round. Namely, at least FOUR wins at each of the four slam venues. Awesome.
Fact is no man in the Open era has won every slam at least TWICE although Rafa might and Rog, just, might. Djoko, you reckon, would happily settle for just the one RG.

Though it is technically possible, a resurgent Djokovic will make it rather difficult for Nadal to match 17 - despite this year's RG his results have been quietly on the wane for a while now.

sirfredperry wrote:As has been mentioned before when it comes to GS wins, the Steffi Graf record is particularly impressive and all-round. Namely, at least FOUR wins at each of the four slam venues. Awesome.
  Fact is no man in the Open era has won every slam at least TWICE although Rafa might and Rog, just, might. Djoko, you reckon, would happily settle for just the one RG.

Impressive indeed but also due to Seles being taken out of the picture.

Absolutely, she had Steffis measure until Hamburg.

reckoner wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:As has been mentioned before when it comes to GS wins, the Steffi Graf record is particularly impressive and all-round. Namely, at least FOUR wins at each of the four slam venues. Awesome.
  Fact is no man in the Open era has won every slam at least TWICE although Rafa might and Rog, just, might. Djoko, you reckon, would happily settle for just the one RG.

Impressive indeed but also due to Seles being taken out of the picture.

Sadly, what the stabbing guy said - that he wanted Graf to be number one - became only too true. I always thought Seles, although a terrific player, lacked a bit of the court craft that Graf had. The German's backhand slice on grass was amazing.

bogbrush wrote:I think the thread had lost the purpose of the OP.

for me, Federer is defined as the only guy to sustain dominance in tennis through artistry. Other greats I've witnessed, such as Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Nadal did so through no little skill of course, but fundamentally on massive firepower. McEnroe was the only other I can recall but his dominance was fleeting and aggregate achievements smaller.

Federer is the only guy I've seen with the "Quan" (Jerry McGuire fans will know). He's brought the touch of Amritrage and won 17 Slams with it, and held #1 for > 300 weeks, including a period when he was 31 and had wonderful rivals much younger than him.

I'm with Fred; this is the sportsman I have most regard for in any sport. Not just for the winning and not just for the style, but for the winning with style. It's kind of uplifting to think it can be done that way, sort of makes you think maybe the high road isn't just for moral victories.

There is so much in what you say here bb.

Worth mentioning that the OP did clarify his thoughts in a follow-up post (12.49pm) to the article itself.

I think it has always been the case that sporting greats see themselves in a different context to spectators and/or their fans. So, for example, we often talk of a 'glorious defeat', BUT - for those few people in this world with a talent on the scale of Federer - there is in truth no such thing. Such uber-achievers are motivated by winning, and ultimately that's what counts. Even though Federer has made frequent reference in these twilight days to his sheer enjoyment of being on a tennis court, he will never, for as long he plays competitive tennis on the main tour, be truly satisfied with anything other than victory.

Things do change of course when the career eventually comes to an end. Look at Jimmy Connors talking at Wimbledon this last week, where was happy to look back in a totally relaxed manner on some of the losses he suffered at the hands of Mac (and v.v. of course). Never would he have had expressed such sentiments in his pomp.

And Federer too will come to see his 'big' losses as part & parcel of a stunningly successful career. In the plethora of post-match media coverage devoted to yesterday's Centre Court spectacle, it's remarkable to see just how much of it views Federer's defeat as something to enhance his legacy rather than detract from it. And, paradoxically, Federer's fighting spirit and sheer quality of performance when faced with a much younger opponent whose career is still being shaped, has also added lustre to Djokovic's deserved triumph.

Yes, Seles was on the rise, and was kicking ass.

reckoner wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:As has been mentioned before when it comes to GS wins, the Steffi Graf record is particularly impressive and all-round. Namely, at least FOUR wins at each of the four slam venues. Awesome.
  Fact is no man in the Open era has won every slam at least TWICE although Rafa might and Rog, just, might. Djoko, you reckon, would happily settle for just the one RG.

Impressive indeed but also due to Seles being taken out of the picture.

Isn't every record dependent on something else though? A lot of Federer's 17 were won against average players (Baghdatis in a final????), Graf won loads because her main rival had her career drastically cut short, Nadal could have won loads if not for injuries, Federer/Djokovic/Murray could have won loads if it wasn't for the other 3 guys, Sampras won loads because the courts suited his style of play etc etc etc.

We'll Seles was better than her, and was stabbed in the back by a deranged Graf fan. I think that's pretty exceptional, and worth a note.

Harsh to say Baggie was average - he was a hell of a player at his peak. Sadly the lure of pies was too much...

As much as I hated Seles, she so had the measure of Graf.

As BB said it is an exceptional case.

I don't quite buy this thread at all, sorry to say, may be its worded completely wrong.

Yes these defeats will be remembered for Federer's fight back qualities but there have been numerous occasion he has fought back galantly and actual Tennis fans would know that, for instance, battling 2 set deficit against

1]Julian Benny @ Wimbledon
2]Tommy Haas @ French open
3]Thomas Berdych @ AO
4]Alenadro Fella @ Wimbledon
5]Rafael Nadal @ Miami

and many more

Outside that there are n-number of 5 set epics where he has staged a superb comeback from 2 sets to 1 down, there are also great matches in 3 setters where he was a set and break down and came back to win it convincingly, who could forget that Berdych match at Cincy where he staged a come back from a set and 2-5 down.

The problem is medias hype caught the author, it was a great match and it was sad to see Fed lose but it would have been sad even had Djoko lost it.

This match would add to the legacy of Fed but pale big time in comparison to his 17 slam and 6 WTF wins.

I'm inclined to agree, DV2

bogbrush wrote:I think the thread had lost the purpose of the OP.

for me, Federer is defined as the only guy to sustain dominance in tennis through artistry. Other greats I've witnessed, such as Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Nadal did so through no little skill of course, but fundamentally on massive firepower. McEnroe was the only other I can recall but his dominance was fleeting and aggregate achievements smaller.

Federer is the only guy I've seen with the "Quan" (Jerry McGuire fans will know). He's brought the touch of Amritrage and won 17 Slams with it, and held #1 for > 300 weeks, including a period when he was 31 and had wonderful rivals much younger than him.

I'm with Fred; this is the sportsman I have most regard for in any sport. Not just for the winning and not just for the style, but for the winning with style. It's kind of uplifting to think it can be done that way, sort of makes you think maybe the high road isn't just for moral victories.

This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on Federer. Bravo. Agree with lags' additions too.

lags72 wrote:

YvonneT wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:When he retires it will be like a death in the family and I can see some of the headline writers coming up with lines such as "Was This the Most-Loved Sportsman Ever?".

Now there's a question! Not even close to Ballesteros for me and I've never even watched golf and have no idea what his career accomplishments were.

A somewhat puzzling comment there Yvonne T.

I am a bit of a golf nut, I followed Seve, I was thrilled by his play, and have huge admiration for what Seve did in his career, and indeed for golf as a sport.

But if you don't follow golf at all and - by your own admission - know nothing about what he achieved in his chosen field, then I am intrigued as to what it is that you love about him ....? Is it the fact that he suffered a tragically early death   
And, if so, is that your measurement of greatness ?

Firstly, the bit I highlighted from SFP's post was about emotion, and you're on a hiding to nothing asking a woman for the logic behind emotions  
Secondly, the question was not about greatness but about most-loved which is a different thing altogether - and also different from most admired/appreciated/respected.
Thirdly, I wasn't actually saying he is my most-loved sportsman (I don't love any!), but about the impression I get from my social circle. Of course, that's not all that comprehensive in global terms - and perhaps the global appeal of tennis compared to other sports does bring Federer firmly to the top. One thing that maybe helps with enduring appeal in a sport like golf though is that they don't compete against other individuals - they have to beat the field, but they don't raise their trophy in front of one dejected loser. So although the same rivalry stories don't build up as with tennis, there isn't the same kind of dislike either (well, not unless they behave like Tiger maybe...)

bogbrush wrote:
I'm with Fred; this is the sportsman I have most regard for in any sport. Not just for the winning and not just for the style, but for the winning with style. It's kind of uplifting to think it can be done that way, sort of makes you think maybe the high road isn't just for moral victories.

Nicely put. On a personal note, I have Fed and Senna as 2 sportsman I've loved most, thought I have not watched F1 since 1994, I will surely enjoy tennis when Fed leaves.

Thanks Silver. It was one of those posts which turned out better than I thought it would, even I enjoy reading it!

And thanks lags earlier.

reckoner wrote:I'm inclined to agree, DV2

  

I think in terms of love, I think Andre Agassi's last match in 2006 at the US Open was the most outpouring of love and affection for a retiring player I had ever seen.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think in terms of love, I think Andre Agassi's last match in 2006 at the US Open was the most outpouring of love and affection for a retiring player I had ever seen.

Agassi was unusually eloquent for a tennis player and there wan't a dry eye in the house after that speech. People really responded to his evident passion and emotional intelligence.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think in terms of love, I think Andre Agassi's last match in 2006 at the US Open was the most outpouring of love and affection for a retiring player I had ever seen.

Agassi was unusually eloquent for a tennis player and there wan't a dry eye in the house after that speech. People really responded to his evident passion and emotional intelligence.

It's weird when you think about it. When you look at the American players in the past, there was something that drew people to him. My mum loved Agassi and sobbed when he gave that speech.

I agree with the emotional intelligence part. Especially when you red how he felt on that final day in his book.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think in terms of love, I think Andre Agassi's last match in 2006 at the US Open was the most outpouring of love and affection for a retiring player I had ever seen.

Agassi was unusually eloquent for a tennis player and there wan't a dry eye in the house after that speech. People really responded to his evident passion and emotional intelligence.

It's weird when you think about it. When you look at the American players in the past, there was something that drew people to him. My mum loved Agassi and sobbed when he gave that speech.

I agree with the emotional intelligence part. Especially when you red how he felt on that final day in his book.

Yup. It was evident anyway. I heard him commentate for the USO once and he was awesome - really insightful. I guess he'll never be asked back for that sort of gig after the meth admission.