PDA

View Full Version : Federer - Post French Open Losses


McEnroeisanartist
06-10-2007, 10:16 AM
As a huge Federer fan, seeing the frustration and disappointment of Federer nearly brought me to tears. However, I do take some comfort in knowing that after losing in the French Open the last four years, he has gone on to have an extraordinary second half of the season. Consider:

In 2003, Federer lost in the first round of the French Open, then won Wimbledon five weeks later, which would be the spark for His greatness. He would also destroy Agassi in the Tennis Masters Cup.

In 2004, Federer lost in the third round of the French Open, then would go on to appear in a record eight consecutive Grand Slam finals. He would go 41-2 for the remainder of the year, winning seven tournaments including Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

In 2005, Federer lost in the semifinals of the French Open, then would go on to win three consecutive Grand Slams. He would go 35-1 for the remainder of the year, winning five tournaments.

In 2006, Federer lost in the final of the French Open, then would go on to win three consecutive Grand Slams. He would go 50-1 for the remainder of the year, winning eight tournaments.

Note: in 2006, after winning the French Open, Nadal would be rather pedestrian the rest of the year, appearing in only one final. For all of the compliments about his desire and intensity, I wonder where are such traits in Nadal on non-clay surfaces.

dh003i
06-10-2007, 10:20 AM
Federer will most likely still have a great season, probably winning Wimbledon and the USO.

However, at this stage in his career, it'd almost be better to lose everything else and just win the FO, than to win everything else and just lose to FO.

a guy
06-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Right now it looks like he'll keep reaching those GS finals. Just can't see him losing early on.

FitzRoy
06-10-2007, 10:31 AM
As a huge Federer fan, seeing the frustration and disappointment of Federer nearly brought me to tears.

Damn. I would suggest that you take it easy.

I can see some disappointment in terms of not winning the calendar Slam, but the guy has won 10 Slams. What's there to feel so bad about? I have trouble empathizing with any great sadness here. Federer is practically a tennis god; he's a living legend, an icon, and is having a life that most of us can only dream about.

Roger also made 30+ million dollars last year. I mean, come on...he has absolutely -everything- but a French Open, and we're supposed to feel bad because he's missing one thing? Most people don't have 1/10000th of what he's had.

Maybe I'm alone here (well, ok, there's also all the Nadal trolls), but it's hard for me to feel all that sorry for Roger right now.

isuk@tennis
06-10-2007, 12:46 PM
Roger also made 30+ million dollars last year. I mean, come on...he has absolutely -everything- but a French Open, and we're supposed to feel bad because he's missing one thing? Most people don't have 1/10000th of what he's had.

Maybe I'm alone here (well, ok, there's also all the Nadal trolls), but it's hard for me to feel all that sorry for Roger right now.

agreed...:-D

dh003i
06-10-2007, 12:48 PM
I agree too...

My point was only about the relative importance of everything else right now for Federer's place in history, vs. the importance of the FO.

ACE of Hearts
06-10-2007, 12:55 PM
Well, he still needs to win slams.Roger wont soak and cry because he is playing arguebly one of the best claycourters off our time.Believe me, Roger will be thinking about grass once he hits Halle.

slice bh compliment
06-10-2007, 12:57 PM
Wow, this is truly a harbinger of good things to come!
Kidding.

Tears? I love RF, and I had totally dry eyes. Deadpan. Disappointment.

Happy for Raf, though. He's a great kid.

psamp14
06-10-2007, 12:59 PM
Federer will most likely still have a great season, probably winning Wimbledon and the USO.

However, at this stage in his career, it'd almost be better to lose everything else and just win the FO, than to win everything else and just lose to FO.

this stage in his career would come when he passes 14 slams....right now i'm sure he'd still take winning the other 3 slams every year and losing in the final of the french

dh003i
06-10-2007, 01:04 PM
psamp14,

I guess that depends on whether you think Laver is the greatest, or Sampras. If you think winning all slams is more important than winning most slams, or that versatility is more important, you think Fed needs to get the clay thing first.

Then again, as Moose said, in the 70s and 80s, someone was only considered the GOAT if they won a boatload of Wimbledons, or won everything. So # Wimbledons one historic criteria.

Then again, no-one except Agassi has ever done what Federer's attempting to do: have won a GS on every surface. And Agassi never had a chance at the calendar year Grand Slam.

But if Fed retires without winning the FO, there's an argument that (say) Agassi was better than him overall; some make this argument for Agassi over Sampras, because he won on all surfaces.

TENNIS_99
06-10-2007, 01:05 PM
Roger also made 30+ million dollars last year. I mean, come on...he has absolutely -everything- but a French Open,

And that's why winning a FO is so important to him and to all his fans. Sometime it's not what you have counts the most. The missing part is more focused and evaluated and hoenestly, it's nothing wrong with it by humane nature. The more champs Fed won the more important the one he does not have has become.

psamp14
06-10-2007, 01:07 PM
agassi will never be thought of as a better player than federer, overall...federer dominated their head-to-head, although agassi was much older

i see sampras as the GOAT right now, and laver is second on my list

another thing is that the slams were almost all on grass back in laver's days, and we all know how dominant sampras was on grass....but thats another argument

federer will likely pass 14 slams, win over 70 titles, be #1 for 7 years or more, and eclipse many more records set by previous greats...at that point he'll be the GOAT in my mind

ACE of Hearts
06-10-2007, 01:09 PM
No wayyyyy, Agassi was great but just because he won a FO doesnt mean he is better then Pete and Roger.Agassi got consistent results on clay but he is not a better player then Pete and Roger.

ACE of Hearts
06-10-2007, 01:10 PM
Thats the argument against Laver that the slams where on grass.When Nadal won the french open today, i was marveled that a guy like Borg won this tournament 6 times and won wimbledon 5 times in the progress.Just incredible stuff.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 01:16 PM
Agassi? ROTFL! Agasssi does not even come into the equation of any GOAT discussions. Nadal will be greater then Agassi perhaps when he is career is over. I think Nadal will win atleast 1 Australian Open, and if that is all he does along with a bunch of Frenchs he probably wont be. However if Nadal can get 2 Australians, a bunch of Frenchs, and 1 of Wimbledon or the U.S Open( I doubt he could win both)then he probably would be thought of as greater then Agassi, despite Agassi having the career slam.

Agassi is a great player but he was always bridesmaid and overshadowed to a better player. Early in his career it was Lendl. Then it was Courier who owned his *** and kept him from winning hardly any slams or having a chance at #1. Then it was Sampras of course. Then Hewitt. Then it was Federer of course.

psamp14
06-10-2007, 01:17 PM
No wayyyyy, Agassi was great but just because he won a FO doesnt mean he is better then Pete and Roger.Agassi got consistent results on clay but he is not a better player then Pete and Roger.

Thats the argument against Laver that the slams where on grass.When Nadal won the french open today, i was marveled that a guy like Borg won this tournament 6 times and won wimbledon 5 times in the progress.Just incredible stuff.

ace of hearts is thinking with reason again........agassi was a great player, he won all 4 slams and its an remarkable achievement...but he wasnt better than sampras or federer

it is unbelievable that rafa has won 3 straight french opens and is 21-0 at roland garros, and 33-0 in best of 5 format clay court matches...

borg won 6 french opens, and shortly after each of those, he won 5 wimbledons....5 straight wimbledons....from the slowest to quickest surface...what an adaptation of skill

Swingin Richard
06-10-2007, 01:40 PM
Lets not cry for Fed. It seems like people here care more than the players. Pete, Roger and Andre-thats what-32 slams or something? Quite a threesome. Will Rafa join the ranks? He's on pace.

tlm
06-10-2007, 01:49 PM
Fed will win wimbly at least, but the window for the french is closing quickly.As long as the king of clay is around he will never win it.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-10-2007, 02:20 PM
Maybe I'm alone here (well, ok, there's also all the Nadal trolls), but it's hard for me to feel all that sorry for Roger right now.

Definitely not alone, I am neither a fan of Federer or Nadal, but it was a very entertaining match, though am sure I and anyone else wishes Federer could have played his very best tennis against Nadal, himself included. Yet today Nadal was too strong. Nadal played a great match, so I would not minimize his achievement by feeling sorry for Federer.

Federer already knew where he could have improved in that match post. All tennis players and sportsmen and women know that at some time they are going to lose a game/match/series etc. on some day, no matter how much they wanted it. Though I could feel his frustration vividly as well, that's just part of it.

I had not made a prediction before the match on who I thought would win, and overslept a bit, and didn't start watching until the fourth game in the 1st set, but watching Fed....immediately I thought, "It might go four, but Nadal is going to win this one." Fed just never seemed very comfortable on court today.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:32 PM
borg won 6 french opens, and shortly after each of those, he won 5 wimbledons....5 straight wimbledons....from the slowest to quickest surface...what an adaptation of skill

It was a greater adaptation than it is today. Red clay was painfully slow 30 years ago. Grass was incredibly fast.

Today there's a greater partity between surfaces. Clay looks too fast for my liking and grass has slowed down. Despite all of this the adustment is still too much for most players. Kind of puts Borg's accomplishments into perspective.

Roger definitely would have hated the old clay. The bounces were ridiculous. Everything was shoulder width. I remember when Agassi won the French thanks to the new racket technology and the faster surface. He flattened out every groundstroke and hit deep and with precision. Impressive but you couldn't do than 30 years ago.

ACE of Hearts
06-10-2007, 02:50 PM
Cybog u might have a point its hard comparing eras.Who knows what Fed would have doned back then, u still dont kno that, its just speculation by your part.I still regard Borg in the top 4 off all time.U can make a case for him being the Goat even though he didnt play australia as much and didnt win the U.S Open.