Almagro is hanging with Nadal. Nadal took the first set in a tiebreak - Almagro actually broke in the first service game but couldn’t hang on to the lead. Almagro’s now serving to send this set to a tiebreak.
Don’t look now, but Melzer just pushed Djokovic to a fifth set. It’s not like Djokovic has disappeared, either- Melzer won the third set easily but the fourth went to a tiebreak. If Melzer can complete the comeback that would be a devastating loss for Djokovic. He’s lost some matches he shouldn’t have over the years but this might be the worst of them. Nadal is up two-zero on Almagro, on serve in the third. So for him, this is great news.
Serena is back on the court playing doubles with Venus, by the way. They’re in down a break in the third set against the #3 team.
Djokovic just fought off two break points to hold serve in the first game of the fifth set. If Melzer had gotten the break that would’ve been the end of it right there.
I don’t think it will be. By the way, the longest active streak is now… one, shared by Soderling, Berdych, Nadal, and whoever wins the Djokovic/Melzer match. (Melzer is about to serve for the match at 5-4.) None of those guys were in the semis in Australia.
Regarding Federer’s semifinal streak: I am hesitant to say it won’t happen again in my/our lifetimes (I am quite young, but it’s not the point). The reason why I don’t exactly want to say it won’t happen again is because people were saying (so I hear) that Pete Sampras’s Grand Slam title record wouldn’t be broken let alone matched.
Except it was and not technically that long after Pete stopped playing.
Federer was The Great One in the generation after Pete. So I am completely open to the idea that the next Great One after Roger can beat the semifinal record and perhaps even the Grand Slam titles record.
So what does everybody think of Jurgen Melzer’s chances at making the finals?
That’ll be my entry in the next “tennis stuff I never thought I’d say” contest. (I still haven’t found an excuse to use “Man, Nadal’s looking stylish!”)
That being said… I’ll grant you that the worst time to predict a record is unbreakable is right after the record has been set. Federer just did it, so obviously it’s not impossible to do. I’ll stand by my comment about the record, though. No one has ever even come close to Federer’s total. Lendl had the record at 10 straight and that lasted almost 20 years. Laver’s best (6) could have been longer if he hadn’t gone pro, but even with the interruption, nobody did better for 25 years. It’s a remarkable level of consistency across all surfaces year in and year out. Playing at a top level and staying healthy enough to enter every slam for six years is a feat by itself.
This is one of those ways Federer has raised the bar. Even during Sampras’ heyday, nobody expected the number one player to have a shot at every slam. But baseline game has become so prevalent today that there’s not as much specialization. It used to be that dirtballers almost always won the French and you had to serve and volley to win Wimbledon. They were too different. Practically nobody could do both successfully. Today, not only can Federer compete at every slam, so can Nadal. They’ve both done the French/Wimbledon double, Federer’s won a career grand slam, and Nadal might end up doing the same thing. (He’s definitely struggled with the U.S. Open to this point because he’s always exhausted at the end of the year, but he could have three or four more cracks at it as a top player. How surprised would you really be if he did it?)
For whatever it’s worth I never heard anyone say Sampras’ record was untouchable. People sure thought it would stand for longer than it did; nobody had come close to challenging Emerson’s record for decades. For that matter people understood for years that Federer was going to have a crack at Sampras. And he could still add a few more to his total, so the record may not be 16.
You almost make one of my points for me Marley. It is now easier to be good on all surfaces than in the past, making it easier for a new Great One to rise up and challenge Roger’s semifinals record.
Though you are correct that it does take an incredible amount of physical fitness not to get injured somewhere in there.
I guess my argument is more against the Grand Slam titles record, which probably is not at its highest just yet either. So I’ll just shut up. 
That’s pretty much the key to which (if any) of Federer’s records will get challenged in the future. If you’re not an outstanding player on all surfaces, you won’t reach 23 semis in a row, or 10 straight major finals, or 18 out of 19, or 22 total, or get to #1 for four and a half years in a row. Or whatever else. So then you wonder if the game is going to continue to move in that direction, where baseline and all-court play are the norm, or could something else happen that causes the direction to change again? You’re right that it’s a point in your favor as well as mine. But it’s possible that the trend that has helped Federer so much won’t last forever.
What was Sampras’ record at the French, and what was his best showing there?
I liked Nadal’s outfit! Although he is still pulling his pants out of his butt crack, which was a bit off putting when I was watching a match with my 84 year old mother! Does no one tell him he needs to go up a size???
I haven’t seen that much tennis sadly cause of time differences, but so far I like Monfil’s outfit best for the flashy dressers & The Fed for the conservative. & I never thought I would say this, but I thought Serena looked the best of the women.
I haven’t seen anything really bad with the men, but as I said before I don’t care for Sharapova’s dress this year. It did look better with the long sleeved top over it though.
Nadal is superstitious and ritualistic. He’d probably pick at his underwear no matter how well they fit.
His career record is 24-13. So on average he lost in the third round. He made the semifinals once (1996). He made the quarters three times, all earlier than '96. He lost in the first round three times and the second round five times. Looking at it a little closer, though, it’s not that bad for him. The years he lost really early were mostly before or after his peak, and during his peak years, he usually lost to a guy who won the tournament or who was really great on clay.
First round losses: Gilbert Schaller Gilbert Schaller ('95), Mark Philippoussis (2000), and Andrea Gaudenzi ('02).
Second round: Jorge Lozano ('89), Thierry Champion ('91), Todd Martin ('98), Andrei Medvedev ('99), and Galo Blanco ('01). Medvedev made the finals in '99. That was the year Agassi came back from two sets down to win the title and finish his career grand slam.
The guys who beat Sampras in the quarters were Agassi ('92), Sergi Brugera ('93, the first year Brugera won it), and Courier ('94, who’d won the tournament twice and then lost to Brugera, who won again). When Sampras lost in the semifinals in '96, it was to Kafelnikov, who won the tournament that year.
Interesting. Thanks much.
I agree with your assessment that Sampras’ record at the French is nothing to sneeze at in and of itself. But the only time his record at the French ever comes up is in comparisons with Federer, and by comparison it is borderline pathetic.
Hey wait, so Pete never won the French Open?
Sampras never won the French, heck he never was a finalist. And he only got to the semis one time.
FTR, according to Wiki, the best Sampras ever did with consecutive semi finals in grand slam events is 3, one time. (He did win all three of those events though)
Yes, that’s the whole point. In the “greatest ever” debates, people ding Federer with the old saw: “he’s not even better than Nadal, so how can he be the best ever?”
Thing is, Nadal owns Federer on clay only; on all other surfaces their record is .500 against each other. And while Nadal owns Federer on clay, Federer owns everyone else on clay. Compare that to Sampras, who was owned on clay by whoever happened to show up against him. (Marley’s research and response puts the lie to this specific claim that everyone owned Sampras on clay, but compared to Federer it has a relative truthiness about it.)
It’s a nervous tic. You could give him the baggiest shorts on earth and he’d still do it. It’s just gross. As far as his clothes go I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
No, he didn’t. He only got close once. It’s one of the best statistical arguments for Federer over Sampras. It’s also one of few arguments for Agassi over Sampras (and I say that as someone who’s always loved Agass): Agassi won every grand slam tournament at least once - he won Australia four times, the French and Wimbledon once, and the U.S. Open twice - so he has the a career grand slam. Sampras was dominant for a long time but he couldn’t do that.
That’s correct. I’ll point out that Federer’s won three in a row twice - Wimbledon-U.S.-Australia from 2005-06 and 2006-07 - and that his semfinal streak included runs of ten straight grand slam finals (eight wins), one loss in the semis, and then eight straight grand slam finals (four wins).
Whenever I compare Federer and Sampras - and I definitely give the edge to Federer - I’m reminded that their achievements are closer than I thought. Their best single seasons ('06 for Federer, '94 for Sampras) are pretty close to equal, with an edge to Federer. Their periods of dominance are close with Federer ahead. And the difference is clay: on grass they’re pretty much equal, and on hardcourt Federer leads, but it’s close. On clay, it’s not even close. Sampras had a few wins on clay, but he won those because he was a great tennis player. He lost to a few schlubs, but not many. Federer is a great clay court player. If Nadal didn’t exist there would be a serious argument that Federer is not only the best all-around player ever, but that he might be the best ever on each surface.
RE if Federer’s record will ever be matched, I wondered if the Slams record of Roy Emerson would be matched given that it was principally set in the amateurs era. However, Sampras got it and then along came Federer,
Given the way things are going I would not be shocked if Federer’s record was matched.
Federer’s streak isn’t just breaking the previous record; it shattered it by more than double. From 10 to 23 is a monumental jump, much more than the incremental increases in slam records by Sampras and then Federer. Unless the slam record that Sampras broke (with 14) was 5 or 6, it’s just not comparable.
The previous record was 10 I believe so the increase is substantial.
I don’t agree that it is not comparable.