Poll: What Was The Bigger Wimbledon Upset: Nadal, Federer Or Serena?
by Staff | July 1st, 2013, 6:39 pm

The fourth round of the Wimbledon Championships claimed it’s fourth major upset of the tournament when 5-time champion Serena Williams was shocked today by German 23-year-old Sabine Lisicki in three sets.

Through seven days of play the tournament has lost the Top 3 women’s seeds – Serena, Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova – as well as men’s superstars Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.

So what’s the biggest upset thus far?

The case for Rafa: Had won 22 straight matches, the French Open and been to the finals at all nine events this year plus had never lost first round at any Slam. And who the heck is Steve Darcis anyway??

The case for Federer: Defending champion and 7-time Wimbledon winner easily won his first round and his second round opponent Sergiy Stakhovsky was 0-20 against Top 10 players.

The case for Serena: Had been unstoppable the last 52 weeks riding a 34 match win streak before she blew a 3-0 lead in the third set this afternoon against Lisicki.

The case for Sharapova: The scream queen would never dare to lose to a scream teen in Larcher De Brito, would she? But she did.

You Might Like:
Poll: Will Rafael Nadal Ever Win Wimbledon Again?
Poll: Better Chance Of Winning The French Open: Rafael Nadal Or Serena Williams?
Poll: Who’s Your Early Favorite To Win Wimbledon?
Poll: Entering Week 2 Who’s Your Favorite Now To Win Wimbledon?
Poll: Who’ll Win The Wimbledon Final, Novak Djokovic Or Roger Federer?

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

69 Comments for Poll: What Was The Bigger Wimbledon Upset: Nadal, Federer Or Serena?

Wog boy Says:

Something tells me that Rafa fans are busy casting votes:)

Polo Says:

Something tells me this poll/article is a joke.

jamie Says:

Serena by far.

Federer’s and Nadal’s careers are winding down and they don’t have much time left on the ATP tour. Retirement will come much sooner than when their fans think. Federer will not win anymore slams and Nadal will win his last slam in 2014, RG.

Skeezer Says:

Re; Poll.

Really? Why?

As Fed says, lets give respect and attention to players that are still competing for the title. Sorry, this topic sucks.

Humble Rafa Says:

As Fed says, lets give respect and attention to players that are still competing for the title.

Fed also told the best uncle in the world, Toni, to shut up.

skeezer Says:

“As Fed says, lets give respect”

Something you cannot or have never done.
Just sayin “bad comedic one”.

Danny Morris Says:

LOL! @ wog boy!

They are dense that way, aren’t they?

HR : remember, this is not a poll you HAVE TO win. So take it easy with rigging the votes. ok?

Michael Says:

The biggest upset in this Wimbledon, I would pick Nadal just because he made one of the extraordinary comebacks in Tennis History winning about 7 tournaments and was red hot. He was also tagged as the one of the favourite to win Wimbledon and nobody expected him to fall in the first round to a little known player who was ranked No. 135 and that too in straight sets. It was definitely an earth quake which caused major tremors in the Tennis World.

gonzalowski Says:

Difficult to say…
In this very one blog, the announcement of Federer’s loss had the more tragical headline I remember from this site.

However, apart from what has been said about Nadal, in tennis x poll Rafa was the favourite to win the title.

Glad about Serena”bigmouth”‘s upset.

Giles Says:

I say Faaderer, being the defending champion and grass court king, losing to world no. 116. Shocker that

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Michael nobody expected Roger A 7 Wimbledon champion to lose to SS either,also Serena was thee womens favorite,and a 5 times Wimbledon champion,also i didnt think Sharapova would to lose to De Brito a player who showed much promise but never quite lived up to her potential,Novak lost early to Safin 2nd round in 2008,ok Safin was a GS champion so is a very different animal,but he hardly had any GC pedigree to speak of,the point is any player can lose to an inspired opponent on any given day.

Michael Says:


The poll was about which is the greater upset amongst the three and my pick is Rafa for the reasons I stated therein. Honestly, I didn’t expect Roger to do well at this year’s Wimbledon but I never imagined that he will be upset by a over 100 ranked player and it happened. But I place Rafa on top in the list of shocks due to the form he was in this year after his extraordinary comeback. Losing to a 135 ranked player in straight sets. Well, even now I could never believe it. But it happened.

metan Says:

I picked Roger . My point is this is his best surface. I do know he is declined for factor age only but I never expected that it happened on second round after all he just won Halle.

Giles Says:

Rafa did not have the benefit of any grass court preparation prior to Wimby whereas fed did, geez he even won Halle! So no excuses for the grass court specialist! Big surprise and shock exit. Well, this is sport. Nothing is a given, you have to play the matches and the better player wins on the day.

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Given how we are always told,that Rafa is a CC ball bashing specialist who is an absolute pile of garbage everywhere else other than clay,who lost early last year,no i was not shocked he lost in the 1st round this year either,so hes played very little on grass since 2011,where as Roger and Serena were defending champions and Roger had just won Halle,ok i didnt think Roger would win Wimbledon this year,but to go out early was a bigger shock for me than Rafa,Serena was a bigger shock as she was on such a roll,however its gone,and we should now focus on the rest of the tournament,life goes on as they say.

Sirius Says:

None of the above.The biggest upset in wimbledon for me is that myself not being able to watch one single match of the tournament:-|

actually haven’t watch a tennis match since rome final. life sucks badly without tennis

James Says:

For me it would have been Nadal if Federer hadn’t lost in the 2nd round on a surface he’s a master of.

Serena isn’t much of a shock to me. Because unlike most tennis fans, I’ve followed Sabine Lisicki’s game for years and always knew she could beat the best esp on grass. I’ve always seen her as a future Slam winner.

James Says:

“For me it would have been Nadal if Federer hadn’t lost in the 2nd round on a surface he’s a master of.”

* on a surface he’s the best.

Wog boy Says:


Fair enough, I feel for you:(

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

^I wont actually see either final,as i am going away on holiday for a week this weekend,but i will record them both,hardly the same though,i think dare i say that i watch and talk about tennis way too much,and am in need of a detox^.

Wog boy Says:

hippy chic,

Make sure you record propr way, not like me last night. I recorded everything but Nole/Haas and I was really keen to see the both.

Enjoy your holiday, meanwhile I am looking after group of your countrymen who are here for British and Irish Lion decider agains Wallabies, it is estimated that there will be up to 40,000 Brits folowing saturday at Sydney Olympic Stadium watching British and Irish Lions against Wallabies. I will be there too, go Wallabies:)

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Wogboy hope you enjoy youself too,no matter what happens,haha sounds like alot of fun anyway :)..

Wog boy Says:

This saturday …my English:(

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Wogboy i love your posts,i love the pound for pounders on this forum,with the odd exception,we dont always agree on everything,but Nole has the best fans IMO :)..

Wog boy Says:

hippy chic,

It is a lot of fun, your people have a good sense of humor. They can take it but they can also give it back you:)

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Would love to sit and watch all the womens matches,as theres some interesting mouthwatering clashes,unfortunatly its such a shame as i have to go to work.

Wog boy Says:

hippy chic,


Wog boy Says:

“Likewise” was for your 7:50am post.

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Wogboy thanks my husband says im abit of a headcase but has stuck with me for 25 years so i must be doing something right haha.

Wog boy Says:

hippy chic,

This video is from the first match out of three in Brsbane where your people won, second one in Melbourne Australia won, Sydney one is decider. Just want you to see how fired up are both teams.

Tennis x hippy chic Says:

Thanks Wogboy unfortunatly this laptop has an outdated browser,so i cant download it,but i will look at it tonight on my husbands big screen monitor when i finish my shift at work,thanks for the sweet jesture though :)..

Wog boy Says:

No probs.

Giles Says:

Hearing fed has taken a wild card at Gstaad in Switzerland.???

RZ Says:

I’m still going with Federer for 3 key reasons:
1) Opposition: Serena was upset by a player who excels on grass, and in the past had upset Li Na and Shriekapova at Wimbledon; Rafa’s opponent also had pulled off upsets on the grass before, beating Berdych in the first; Fed’s opponent had no such prior success on grass.
2) Trends: Rafa’s first round upset followed his second round upset last year – it was still a shocker but not completely out-of-the-blue; Serena has certainly been dominating recently but still has the occasional grand slam hiccup (last year’s French Open); Federer had not lost before the quarterfinals in 36 grand slam events!
3) Preparation: Rafa and Serena didn’t play any warm-up tournaments on grass, so it could be argued that they came into Wimbledon without sufficient grass court preparation and/or match play on grass; Fed played at and won Halle, beating 2 men who were still in the draw until yesterday (Haas and Youzhny).

RZ Says:

^ Under my point #1, that should be “beating Berdych in the first round of the Olympics last year”

Nick Says:

Serena and Nadal have been dominant lately, winning many tournaments leading up to Wimbledon so I’d say they’re losses were slightly more shocking than Federer’s. However there is a completely different element of surprise with Fed given his track record both here and in the Slams in general (He hadn’t lost before QF in a long long time). So, in my mind their losses were all quite shocking!

In the end I went with Serena. Unlike in Men’s tennis where each of the top 4 held a slam, Serena has be totally dominating Women’s tennis for about a year, winning 3 of the last 4 Slams (W12, US12 and FO13) along with the year end championships and several ATP 1000 events, beating her fellow top 10 players quite convincingly. No one in men’s tennis was playing this way on all surfaces this past year. Nadal’s run has been impressive since he came back, but most of that was on clay where he’s the heavy favorite, so it’s nowhere as impressive as Serena’s run.

So yea, I pick Serena and I don’t even like women’s tennis that much XD

SG1 Says:

I’m going Federer here with Rafa a close 2nd. Serena faced a Round of 16 opponent with a history of being a giant killer. And Lisicki’s game is fearsome. Though Rafa was bounced first round, you just know that injuries played a role in that loss.

Fed’s loss is just inexplicable. Like Pete losing in the 2nd round of the ’02 Wimbledon. Though Pete wasn’t the defending champion ’02 like Fed was in 2013. His opponent was somewhat off the radar with a history of losing to top 20 players. And Stakhovsky topped it all off by being bounced next round.

jane Says:

This one is hard to pick.

I am leaving Serena out of it. I was surprised that Lisicki beat her but Serena lost earlier than expected at the AO too. She went out in an early round at the FO last year – first? She has lost “early” at a slam more often than with Fedal methinks.

Between Fed and Rafa it’s a toss up.

On the one hand, Rafa was the form player going into this event; he had been in 9 straight finals after having a layoff, so looked to be on a roll. Everyone was talking about his comeback.

On the other hand, based on the warm-ups Fed won Halle and Rafa didn’t play. Also Fed was the defending champion.

In terms of the upsets themselves, Fed’s loss was a well-fought contest of excellent tennis that could have gone either way with a few points here or there, but I don’t think the Rafa match was as good. Darcis played well but Rafa was almost listless at times and made very strange errors for him.

So I guess Fed’s was more of a surprise insofar as you were on the edge of your seat until the end.

Rafa’s loss followed on an upset from the Rosol match last year, which was much more surprising and also a great match with lots of competitive fire. So I guess this loss was surprising in how it seemed almost not surprising. You know?

The biggest? I guess Fed’s in terms of points lost.

But it depends on what you mean by “biggest” – in terms of what? Significance? Points? News-worthiness?

Fed’s had a much less successful year than Rafa, so then maybe Rafa’s is the biggest in that he came into the event the player who had the most momentum. The way he lost was surprising; I was kind of agog watching it because you just don’t see that from Rafa very often.

Anyhow, didn’t vote as can’t decide.

Long Live The King Says:

I am going with Serena, Federer and Nadal in that order.

As great as Nadal is, if you have watched tennis, he always struggles early at wimbledon. 2005, 2007, 2010, he had tough calls which he eeked through. He had a tough 4 setter against Gulbis even in 2008. Ofcourse 2012 is well documented. I never bought into the idea that skipping a warm-up was going to do Nadal any good. I am sure his hand was forced by injury, which I am sure is going to be ALWAYS a factor going forward. Knee problems just do not vanish. Even if he goes for surgery, he will lose at least 1 year on circuit and then he has to play a style very opposite to his – like he did in 2010 USOpen.

Fed, I was not expecting the title, but more like a 4th round loss to Janowicz or semi-final loss to Murray. Let’s face it, at his age sampras had been out of pro-tennis for 9months and 2 months from officially calling it quits. Federer at same age has played 100+ matches than Pete in slower conditions which are more brutal on the body than Pete’s era.

Serena was the biggest shock. I knew she was fighting against odds having invested all her energy in a 2nd FO rather than a 6th wimbledon. It might prove to be the difference between her beating martina’s 9 wimbledon titles [maybe she has given up hope on that] and instead ending with not even crossing graf with 7 wimbledons. Maybe she wants to beat justine’s 4 FO record. Maybe she just doesn’t care a hoot.

Whichever way, she was battling the odds, even with her grass pedigree, it needs a lot of luck to do the channel slam. I still thought she would do it, having seen her beat up the field like they were flies/mosquitoes in the olympics last year, even wimbledon she put some real beat-downs as BG would say.

Serena, let us be frank, WILL win more slams than either Federer/Nadal, going forward. She might even win more slams going forward than BOTH Federer/Nadal together. Her loss is no doubt the biggest shock. No offense to Lisicki, who has got a great game and definitely has a great shot at the title, but Serena on WTA has never had any rival even come a mile off her in the last 10 years. The closest was Justine with 7 slams!

Another way to look at this is – Serena is NO.1 right now. Fed was 2nd closest no.1 [last year] and then Nadal [2years ago]. To further add, Fed/Serena were defending champs. Nadal last won wimbledon in 2010.

As for sharapova, her upset is bigger than federer for similar reasons, she has been closer to the top of the WTA in recent times, more convincingly than FEDAL. As much as Serena dominates WTA, she always leaves windows for players like Safina/Jankovic to control WTA, let alone Maria.

Bottom-line: Serena, Sharapova, Federer, Nadal.

RZ Says:

Here’s Bruce Jenkin’s take on the top 10 upsets of Wimbledon history. Interestingly he ranks Fed’s as low and Rafa’s upset this year doesn’t make the list.

Ben Pronin Says:

I don’t understand how he put Nadal at 1. He didn’t even justify except for saying he was really shocked at the time.

funches Says:

Sharapova’s result was not nearly as shocking as the others. Grass has been her worst surface for several years. You have to be a good mover and have good variety to excel on grass. Sharapova does neither. Her success on the grass in 2011 and last year at the Olympics, when she was waxed in the final both times, was due to her willpower and the weakness of the rest of the tour.

funches Says:

Federer’s loss was shocking because of his long streak of making the quarters or better in slams, but Stakhovsky is seriously underrated as a talent. He doesn’t bring his A game very often, but he has four tour titles, including one when he blew threw the Rosmalen field on grass. Most players with his ranking history would have zero career titles. Despite his utter lack of top 10 wins before beating Federer, he has played at a very high level at times.

Darcis has been a decent player for several years, and Nadal clearly was not 100 percent. Other than keeping his nerve on some big points, Darcis didn’t do anything special. I fully expected him to lose to Kubot in the second round BEFORE he pulled out.

Neither upset is as huge as Rosol beating Nadal last year. Rosol had done absolutely nothing in his career before zoning out from start to finish. It was awe-inspiring.

Danny Morris Says:

“Anyhow, didn’t vote as can’t decide.”

Colour me surprised Jane! You must be a libran. Not able to decide? It shows that you either have not information on the topic or are afraid/disinterested to make the decision. What is it?

I am going with LLTK’s analysis. That is what I call rational analysis. You may not agree but atleast point out the flaws in his logic before you do so.

Bravo LLTK! I hope you get to be a tennis writer and maybe write about sports. Sports writing or reporting is filled with absolute duffers who have no logical analysis but base their hunch on their instincts or what they call “knowledge of tennis”.

It is like a tennis player talking about match stats. They get a small percentage right or close to actual numbers, but the real numbers are with the statisticians. We need more moneyball coaches in tennis to show up these pretenders calling themselves tennis experts or analysts.

Danny Morris Says:

“Neither upset is as huge as Rosol beating Nadal last year. Rosol had done absolutely nothing in his career before zoning out from start to finish. It was awe-inspiring.”

Well said funches. What Rosol did was laugh out loud crazy league stuff. Even the best of tennis analysis and predictions could not have prepared anyone for that. Comparable events include hewitt losing to karlovic, graf to zina garrison-jackson, becker loosing to some weirdo in 87 in 2nd round wimbledon or something like that.

You cannot include fed being stakhed or pete being bastled because they were not coming to those slams having won a FO and 2/3 clay masters.

Are you still having the tennis contests on the x-board. Don’t want to spook you, but I liked your posts/analysis along with consafos, ccm, chrism, forehand lob, miriam and louise.

Ben Pronin Says:

Well, you heard him Jane, you didn’t vote, you lose your tennis-viewing privileges! Don’t even think of tennis anymore!

Ben Pronin Says:

Funches, I agree about Stakhovsky. I was in New Haven the year he won it. I’ve said it before, I don’t understand how his ranking is so low. He’s probably been spending too much time tweeting. I like his attitude following his loss, too. He does have the ambition to become better and follow up on his big win. But that’s what separates the greats from the also-rans, you have to adjust all the time, not only in retrospect.

But I still don’t think the Rosol upset is the biggest in Wimbledon history.

jane Says:

Actually if you’d’ve read my reply Danny Morris, you’d see that I gave plenty of reason either way. I also took issue with the word “biggest” because it’s not qualified.

Biggest how?

I did clarify that Serena’s out of it. Didn’t even mention Sharapova. She’s often on the edge.

I said I couldn’t decide between Rafa/Fed for the stated *reasons*.

Besides which, I think it’s not black/white like most things in life.

The liminal is often more true than not, in my experience.

RZ Says:

Interesting that Pironkova’s upset of Venus (the first time) didn’t make the list.

funches Says:


They don’t allow new threads on the X board, and you can’t even access it from this site without typing in tennisxforum. The people who run this site have given up on the inner board.

forehand lob has created a new tennis board at tennistalk.boardhost.com, but I’m the only other person who uses it, so the contests have had two people for the past year. Ccm, chrism, consafos and miriam were no longer posting on the X board anyway. Louise is still around but hasn’t posted on the new site forehand lob created.

jane Says:

funches, I agree with you – Rosol/Nadal last year was more of a shocker; as I said above it “…was much more surprising and also a great match with lots of competitive fire. “

funches Says:

If anyone who runs this site wants to fix the problem of not being able to post new threads on the inner board, please do so. My emails to the administrator never elicited a response.

Danny Morris Says:

that’s a pity funches! you guys were an awesome group. these pity lot could learn a lot from you. please keep posting here when you get a chance. I like your posts/views.

I hope the inner board gets fixed. I will see if I can make it to the other site you gave.

Jane, if you are convinced, that is fine and good. I have seen you post since you have started posting and you were a safin fan, jumped to roddick, then to rafa and finally to djokovic and murray.

I am sure any sane person knowing this will tell you what the common factor is – you supported everyone but Federer and you know I am not the only one who said that. I remember all Federer fans in 2006/07 and before realise that.

There is nothing wrong with it. I detest claydal and lady forehand. Ben detests rafa – on record, so on and so forth. I just want to tell you what I see from your posts as a Federer fan who supports nole.

I see this with Skeezer/contador/madmax – they support nole and his fans against all rafa “fans” like Giles/zod, yet skeezer and other federer fans are left to fend for themselves by indecisive nole “fans” like you.

I am only telling you how your posts come across and I am not one to pander to anyone and I call a spade a spade. I don’t expect you to support me or any other Federer fans – Fed fans always rally for Fed – he still is on a 10 time ATP fan-favorite winning streak and is head and shoulders above tennis players past or present [borg/agassi are the only ones who compare] but this is what it is.

I support your facts on djokovic or posts that back him but I will point out when your mandy/rafa bias shows up.

Ben: Please read properly. Everyone can watch tennis, but if you want to write and talk about it, you better have a good analysis/reason to back it up.

Again, I can deal with low-blows and petty comments on Federer from claydal/lady forehand fans or jane [sometimes no comment is a comment Jane] in the language they understand.

You have anything to say about Nole having a greater chance at breaking claydal’s achievements [slams and no.1 weeks] than claydal has of achieving fed’s numbers, please do so rationally with clouding up your brain – which believe me cannot comprehend a lot of stuff my brain can. We can take any IQ test and I will prove that to you, Ben. I am sure you are going to spin your way out of this and I will know why.

Bada Bing Says:

Wog Boy and Courbon
What are your feelings going into the Nole Tommy match?

Tennis Vagabond Says:

Wish we had a preview thread.
For the first time in years, there are only two marquee quarters: Novak v Tomas and JMDP v Ferrer. It is ironic, given the quarters we had pencilled in when we saw the draw!
Murray really should not be troubled by Verdasco who has really been best known in his career for two valiant grand slam losses. Anything can happen, but Verdasco was never a Slam contender in the prime of his career, and, this run aside, he has been at a decidedly lower than prime level the last two years.
The Polish Sausage Fest may be exciting, but its not exactly a clash of titans.
JMDP and Ferrer is a second tier tilt, still, isn’t it?
Novak v Tomas is the only 1st-tier vs 2nd-tier match, which is what you hope for in a quarterfinal, isn’t it?
Tomas is definitely threatening. He’s a great grass player, he’s gotten much mentally tougher, he’s beaten Novak at Wimbledon. But I think Novak’s at the top of his game right now. It will be a great match but ultimately NOvak should come through.
JMDP v Ferrer is a tougher one. I certainly want DelPotro though, as I think he’s a more legitmate slam contender than Ferrer who has been such a patsy to Fed and Rafa that its hard to see him with the cup. Nevertheless, Ferrer owns DelPotro, and he just seems to be getting closer to those Big Four all the time. I think Ferrer will take it.

grendel Says:


I agree with you on all counts on the Djokovic/Berdych front – i.e. Tomas is a great grass court player, he has got much tougher mentally (that’s really important)but Djokovic is on top of his game now. He has to be a big favourite (he said disarmingly in an interview with Sue Barker that it was going to be hard for both of them) but there’s going to be enough competition for this to be an exciting match as well as a parade of great tennis.

Much the same can be said about Murray/Verdasco. Verdasco seems somehow more assured this season and he could well give Murray a few frights. Remember Lopez very nearly taking Murray out at the AO?

The significance of the Polish Sausage Fest as you call it is not that either Pole is a genuine contender. But the rise of Janowicz is an important beacon for the future. He will surely have learnt and absorbed a great deal from this tournament. And that can only make future tournaments more interesting.

I would have put del Potro at 50-50 with Ferrer (wishful thinking?) But I gather delPo is not fully fit. What chance does he have, therefore,against a nonstop running machine who gets everything back?

skeezer Says:

re: 2:48 post

would have put connors/ashe at the top or at least much higher. if anyone here was around during those years, you know how schocking that was, connors was in his best career form. and ashe? that one win changed everything. him meditatiing during change overs was classic.

Polo Says:

Isn’t voting for who the bigger upset was the same as picking who is the biggest loser? I am curious to find out who you guys think is the biggest loser of all.

Kimberly Says:

the reality is we all know the answer to this poll and the purpose is to stir up controversy. If Federer lost in the first round of the French Open, Nadal in the second, Justine Henin to a good clay courter, in the 4th, Serena and Sharapova in the second. Would we doubt the what the biggest upset is? Federer losing to a journeyman in the second round is akin to Sampras losing to George Bastle. Of course its the biggest upset. Especially because Federer has been immune to losing early for years and years. Doesn’t take anything away from him. Just a big upset. Why not Rafa losing to a hack bigger, because he did it just last year at this same tournament. If he had done it at the French Open it would be the biggest upset in history. In fact, I will go on to say his losing to Soderling in the 4th round is the biggest upset in tennis history. So what?

Polo Says:

You’re spot on, Kimberly.

Kimberly Says:

my picks for the rest of the tournament are as follows:
Janowicz in 3
Murray in 3
Novak in 4
Ferrer in 4

Murray in 4
Djokovic in 3

Murray in 5

Radwanska in 3
Bartoli in 2

Radwanska in 2

I am actually rooting for Lisicki and Ferrer but this is not what I think will happen.

jane Says:

Danny Morris, actually I was never a Rafa fan per se; I was a Safin and Roddick fan from 2001-07, but have always liked several players at once. Then I saw Nole in 2007, and since then he has been my fave. He caught my eye at IW in 2007 when he played Rafa there and then when he beat Rafa at Miami in 2007 and won the tournament I began to follow him whole-heartedly. By the USO 2007, when he reached the finals and had DeNiro & Masha in his box, I was utterly hooked. Murray came up after Nole, in 2008, and they were friends; because both were the underdogs of the quartet at the top (this is a pattern for me, actually) I tended to support them both to break through Fedal. But Nole really crashed that party in 2011 – as well as by winning 5 of 6 of his slams going through one or both of Fedal – and he has always been #1 to me since 2007. Generally I root for underdogs.

However, I think the only “dominant” tennis players I’ve supported fully have been J-Mac, Graf and now Nole.

In the Sampras/Agassi era, I actually didn’t have a fave, although I leaned towards Pete probably. Before that I loved Becker.

Anyhow, as Ben said the other day, there are no RULES about fandom. Some people see things as Fed OR Nadal. But actually quite a few people like both, even though they favour one or the other more. Look at “M” for example.

Who I am a fan of and/or what has been said in the past – like 6 or 7 years ago now – comes up repeatedly here from time-to-time, often by a “new/old” poster like yourself.

It’s kind of weird.

Wog boy Says:

Bada Bing,

As much as I don’t like Berdych personality, I like his game. He is such a smooth, silky, clean hitter and moves pretty well. He also improved mentaly in the last few years. Very, very dangerous, particulary on grass. Nole has to be focused 100% from the word go. No walkabouts or he (and me) is in big trouble.

jane Says:

^ Agree with you Wog boy. I even think Berd’s personality can be misunderstood sometimes. But his game, when on song, can be breath-taking. Here’s hoping he’s off-song tomorrow. ;)

Bada Bing Says:

Novak had better come out swinging. Tommy boy was supposed to be the Novak slayer because he is so good on grass. Now, if you believe posters and some media, Berd is destined to do the take-down. I’m not entirely convinced that Novak is so bad on grass. He’s actually won Wimbledon! He’s certainly not been an error machine. He’s had what, nineteen errors in two matches? That’s better than everyone else. He’s playing better this Wimbledon than in 2011. I like him to win.

Michael Says:

Metan @5.15

Sorry for responding to you late. The question was about the bigger Wimbledon upset amongst Rafa, Roger and Serena. It looks that Rafa’s defeat must rank higher just because he was one of the favourites to win this tournament unlike Roger who although being the Defending Champion was not expected to win considering the awful form he was in. Rafa is no push over on Grass. He has made five finals and is a Champion twice. So, to say that Rafa’s defeat is no surprise since he is a novice on Grass is a misnomer and travesty of facts. Nobody expected him to cave in to a 135th ranked journeyman and that too in straight sets. Please note that this is not to disparage Rafa. It happens to every player. Even Sampras and Becker have been defeated in the early rounds at Wimbledon plus we have Roger too.

Eric Says:

Doesn’t happen often on this board, but there’s an obvious and objective answer to this question: Federer.

Forget names and consider: which is the bigger upset: someone who lost in the second round last year losing in the first round this year, or the defending champion losing in the second round? Answer is obvious. Rafa vs. Federer: Fed. (I admit if you consider recent form, this becomes more debatable; let’s agree that they were both pretty surprising upsets.)

As for Serena — undeniably an upset but hardly even remotely close to the magnitude of the other two — which is the bigger upset: the defending champion losing in the second round to the world 116, or the defending champion losing in the fourth round to a seed who has made the QFs or better at Wimbledon three years in a row? Again, the answer is obvious, and anyone who is not a complete and utter tennis ignoramus would have been less confident a priori of Serena beating Sabine than Rafa or Fed beating Darcis or Stakhovsky.

In short, the answer is trivially easy, basically objective fact. No need to even bring Sharapova in, however unexpected that may have been.

(On the other hand, we might also ask: which is the bigger surprise, Serena failing to defend, or Roger failing to defend? That has an equally obvious answer, to my mind; it is not, however, the question at hand.)

Danny Morris Says:


The most sensible answer to this, is to look up the odds or money 1 would make in case of each loss. You, ben, jane or other people can lie about what you really feel as no one is really keep track of your opinions, but betters/gamblers dont have that luxury because, they really have to PAY if they don’t get the odds/bets right.

Considering that, one just has to visit the archives of betting sites to see who was the bigger favorite going into each of the respective matches.

do you know what the odds were for

a) darcis winning in straight sets over rafa

b) stakhs in 4 over fed

c)lisicki in 3 over serena

d) de brito in 2 over sharapova.

If we want to be even more thorough and rigorous, we get the odds/chances from each betting/gambling site [maybe top 5] and average them and see which event was least probable and that my friend is the biggest upset.

any person who has put down their thoughts without following the rigorous procedure i suggested above is merely stating their opinion [including you and ben and jane and even me] and not facts.

hope you understood the process i desrcibed above, if not let me know which part of the process you want me to explain and I can explain.

Eric Says:

Danny, since I’m not in preschool I understand your process perfectly well. But two problems: first, no one is talking (or cares) about the number of sets involved in the matches, so including that in your search is a pure red herring. Win or loss is the only relevant factor. Second, you are confusing the aggregate opinion of the mob with the truth.

Let me step back. To claim that Serena was a bigger upset than Fed or Rafa is equivalent to claiming that if someone had put a gun to your head when the draw came out, and forced you to pick Darcis, Stakhovsky, or Lisicki to win the relevant match, you would have picked Darcis or Stakhovsky. My point is this, and obviously it is “merely” my opinion (which happens to be true, whether or not whatever set of people you care to specify agrees or not): anyone making that choice is a tennis ignoramus.

(Actually, this is a fairly irrelevant point since I would happily bet you any sum you care to name that Lisicki had better odds of beating Serena according to any top 5 betting site than Darcis or Stakhovsky had in their Rafa and Federer matches.)

Top story: Djokovic Leads Serbia Into Davis Cup SFs; Russia v Sweden Thurs.
Most Recent story: WTA Suspends All Events In China Over Concern For Peng Shuai