PDA

View Full Version : Theory on Federer and Roland Garros


Kim
07-12-2007, 08:07 AM
Many of us wonder how come Fed stubbornly sticks to his game which always results in him losing the FO to Nadal. I think he knows this, but the thing is his current game works perfectly on the other 3 grandslams...My idea is that he is just waiting to break into his 15th major...and if he still doesnt win the FO, my guess is that THAT is the point where we may begin to see Fed change his game entirely to perfectly suit clay and clay only because at this point he has no more worthy goals left but to win the FO..and that is the time he can may concentrate on that major, maybe even sacrificing his world ranking (and the other 3 slams) just to make his game perfect on clay. Maybe that is the time he will transform into a clay specialist out and out.

Just something that occurred to me.

David L
07-12-2007, 08:18 AM
Many of us wonder how come Fed stubbornly sticks to his game which always results in him losing the FO to Nadal. I think he knows this, but the thing is his current game works perfectly on the other 3 grandslams...My idea is that he is just waiting to break into his 15th major...and if he still doesnt win the FO, my guess is that THAT is the point where we may begin to see Fed change his game entirely to perfectly suit clay and clay only because at this point he has no more worthy goals left but to win the FO..and that is the time he can may concentrate on that major, maybe even sacrificing his world ranking (and the other 3 slams) just to make his game perfect on clay. Maybe that is the time he will transform into a clay specialist out and out.

Just something that occurred to me.No, I think Federer uses the game plan he believes has the best chance of succeeding against Nadal on clay and he feels he can best execute. He's had his opportunities against Nadal, but just has'nt taken them. It's easy to sit back and say he should do this or that, but some game plans are easier to execute than others and Federer is the one who has to do it. Nadal is also very tough on clay, he does'nt always allow you to play the way you would like to. Clay is his domain, so it stands to reason he's going to make it hard for Federer, whatever game plan he decides to employ. It's not in Federer's hands alone, he can't just flick a switch and have the outcome he wants.

Also, I don't think he wants it so bad he would sacrifice the other Slams or other goals in his career, especially not Wimbledon. He would take Wimbledon over the French any year.

sondraj
07-12-2007, 08:21 AM
No, I think Federer uses the game plan he believes has the best chance of succeeding against Nadal on clay and he feels he can best execute. He's had his opportunities against Nadal, but just has'nt taken them. It's easy to sit back and say he should do this or that, but some game plans are easier to execute than others and Federer is the one who has to do it. Nadal is also very tough on clay, he does'nt always allow you to play the way you would like to. Clay is his domain, so it stands to reason he's going to make it hard for Federer, whatever game plan he decides to employ. It's not in Federer's hands alone, he can't just flick a switch and have the outcome he wants.


It's like what Ali said about boxing, everyone has a game plane until they get knocked in the jaw

robin7
07-12-2007, 08:29 AM
My idea is that he is just waiting to break into his 15th major...and if he still doesnt win the FO, my guess is that THAT is the point where we may begin to see Fed change his game entirely to perfectly suit clay and clay only because at this point he has no more worthy goals left but to win the FO..and that is the time he can may concentrate on that major, maybe even sacrificing his world ranking (and the other 3 slams) just to make his game perfect on clay.

If not mistaken, I remember Fed saying this "Winning Wimbledon 10 times is more satisfying than winning 1 FO". So he won't sacrifice Wimbly for FO.

sureshs
07-12-2007, 08:46 AM
If not mistaken, I remember Fed saying this "Winning Wimbledon 10 times is more satisfying than winning 1 FO". So he won't sacrifice Wimbly for FO.

Sounds like sour grapes

Kim
07-12-2007, 09:10 AM
Sometimes we can say different from what we truly feel.... Its not a gameplan i'm talking about, its an entirely new style, a new training specifically fo the rigors of clay and Nadal.

The Gorilla
07-12-2007, 09:14 AM
If not mistaken, I remember Fed saying this "Winning Wimbledon 10 times is more satisfying than winning 1 FO". So he won't sacrifice Wimbly for FO.

haha,
how the hell would he know ;)

AAAA
07-12-2007, 09:23 AM
With over a dozen break points as this year's FO , the game plan was fine. The execution wasn't fine when he had those breakpoints. Many times on those break points he worked the opening for a relatively easy shot but dumped the shot into the net or hit long.

Nadal_Freak
07-12-2007, 09:24 AM
If Federer changes his game just for the finals, he would've lost in 3 sets instead of 4. Nothing works against Nadal on clay. Face it. Nadal has an answer for any type of game plan on clay.

Kim
07-12-2007, 09:27 AM
That's why he needs retraining for FO--- more patience and accuracy over long rallies, going with high percentage shots and just keeping the ball in play and not attempting outright winners, maybe more topspin? The point is to execute said gameplan he needs "retraining".

TheNatural
07-12-2007, 09:28 AM
Feds gameplan= hope his luck continues in tiebreakers. His tie breaker luck can't last forever. Davydenko will probably beat him next time.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:29 AM
With over a dozen break points as this year's FO , the game plan was fine. The execution wasn't fine when he had those breakpoints. Many times on those break points he worked the opening for a relatively easy shot but dumped the shot into the net or hit long.

Exactly...he has the game plan and the game...he just needs to execute it...the guy had 17 breakpoints....

Nadal_Freak
07-12-2007, 09:31 AM
Exactly...he has the game plan and the game...he just needs to execute it...the guy had 17 breakpoints....
He has the game to be the second best clay courter and possibly beat Nadal if he has a bad day.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:43 AM
I'd phrase it slightly differently but yeah I agree...he is the second best clay court player in the world...the margin of victory and loss at this level is very small...a couple of points go differently in each match and Feds our French Open Champion and Nadal is our Wimby champ...

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 09:49 AM
I don't think he'll ever win the French Open. Federer is a massively overrated player on clay - whatever formula one can think up that is condusive to preceding success in the history of the tournament Federer ignores in favour of stubbornly playing his style. And his style quite frankly does not work on clay.

The reason why Roger has made two French Open titles has more to do with the lack of depth in the clay court game today. This year's tournament was even more of an eye-opener, Roger couldn't locate neither his forehand nor his first serve and still somehow made it into the final. He wouldn't smell the semi if the likes of Corretja, Moya, Bruguera, Medvedev and Costa were floating around. But they are not.

I don't think he'll ever win the French. I used to believe he could, but he won't. Even if Nadal has a hiccup, another solid cay court talent will emerge and beat Roger.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:54 AM
I don't think he'll ever win the French Open. Federer is a massively overrated player on clay - whatever formula one can think up that is condusive to preceding success in the history of the tournament Federer ignores in favour of stubbornly playing his style. And his style quite frankly does not work on clay.

The reason why Roger has made two French Open titles has more to do with the lack of depth in the clay court game today. This year's tournament was even more of an eye-opener, Roger couldn't locate neither his forehand nor his first serve and still somehow made it into the final. He wouldn't smell the semi if the likes of Corretja, Moya, Bruguera, Medvedev and Costa were floating around. But they are not.

I don't think he'll ever win the French. I used to believe he could, but he won't. Even if Nadal has a hiccup, another solid cay court talent will emerge and beat Roger.

The guy is the second best clay court player right now...losing tight matches to a guy that might go down as the greatest clay court player of all time...what are you talking about? The guy is a beast on clay, he just didn't execute in Paris

Eviscerator
07-12-2007, 10:02 AM
Many of us wonder how come Fed stubbornly sticks to his game which always results in him losing the FO to Nadal. I think he knows this, but the thing is his current game works perfectly on the other 3 grandslams...My idea is that he is just waiting to break into his 15th major...and if he still doesnt win the FO, my guess is that THAT is the point where we may begin to see Fed change his game entirely to perfectly suit clay and clay only because at this point he has no more worthy goals left but to win the FO..and that is the time he can may concentrate on that major, maybe even sacrificing his world ranking (and the other 3 slams) just to make his game perfect on clay. Maybe that is the time he will transform into a clay specialist out and out.

Just something that occurred to me.

If he is smart he will come to this forum to get advice on how to change his game to win the FO. Such gems like switching to a two handed backhand are suggestions he can benefit from. :mrgreen:
In reality, subtle changes can make a difference, but Nadal will still be the man to beat for a few more years barring injury.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:08 AM
The guy is the second best clay court player right now...losing tight matches to a guy that might go down as the greatest clay court player of all time...what are you talking about? The guy is a beast on clay, he just didn't execute in Paris

There are only two red clay surfaces that matter: Roland Garros and Monte Carlo.

Rome plays like a hardcourt. Hamburg is also not comparable to RG (especially in terms of weather conditions).

Federer has never given Nadal trouble at Roland Garros nor Monte Carlo. One's the ultimate accomplishment for clay court specialists - the other is the best prognosticator.

As for Federer being the #2 to Nadal on clay - this means a lot to you but significantly less to me, because we're playing in a very poor era of clay court tennis, maximized by the downfall of JC Ferrero and the injuries of Guillermo Coria. This is a pretty big black hole occupied by the likes of Tommy Robredo and David Ferrer - mediocre players at best.

And that's why Federer is #2 on clay.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 10:17 AM
Federer has never given Nadal trouble at Roland Garros nor Monte Carlo. One's the ultimate accomplishment for clay court specialists - the other is the best prognosticator.

As for Federer being the #2 to Nadal on clay - this means a lot to you but significantly less to me, because we're playing in a very poor era of clay court tennis, maximized by the downfall of JC Ferrero and the injuries of Guillermo Coria. This is a pretty big black hole occupied by the likes of Tommy Robredo and David Ferrer - mediocre players at best.

And that's why Federer is #2 on clay.


I disagree with your assesment of the French this year. In the same way that Nadal had Wimbledon on his racket with 4 breakpoints in the swing games of the fifth, Fed had 17 breakpoints against Nadal only converting 1. In my estimation that is giving someone trouble...that is being close...that is being within striking distance of victory. No one is going to say that Fed is better then Nadal on clay, but 1) I cant see an intelligent argument made that Fed isn't the second best clay courter, and 2) The guy is close on clay...it comes down to a few points...

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 10:17 AM
If not mistaken, I remember Fed saying this "Winning Wimbledon 10 times is more satisfying than winning 1 FO". So he won't sacrifice Wimbly for FO.


But he should if he won that many Wimbys. Heck, he should trade in 2 Wimbys for 2 FO. 8 Wimbys is pretty good my friend. ;)

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:22 AM
I disagree with your assesment of the French this year. In the same way that Nadal had Wimbledon on his racket with 4 breakpoints in the swing games of the fifth, Fed had 17 breakpoints against Nadal only converting 1. In my estimation that is giving someone trouble...that is being close...that is being within striking distance of victory. No one is going to say that Fed is better then Nadal on clay, but 1) I cant see an intelligent argument made that Fed isn't the second best clay courter, and 2) The guy is close on clay...it comes down to a few points...

1) Converting one of 17 break points is not an indication of a good clay courter

2) I didn't argue that Federer isn't the second best clay courter .. he is one in a very poor era of clay court tennis

3) He's not close to Nadal on clay

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 10:32 AM
Obviously the 17 break points dont show that he's a good clay court player...what they do show though is how close Fed really was...

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:33 AM
Obviously the 17 break points dont show that he's a good clay court player...what they do show though is how close Fed really was...

Close to what? Breaking Nadal and then getting broken back thanks to his atrocious first serve percentage?

Nadal wins all of the tight points on clay - every time, all the time. And not just against Federer. Converting a break point against him is like catching a mosquito with your middle and index finger.

RoddickAce
07-12-2007, 10:49 AM
Has anyone on the ATP tried out topspinning nadal? Cuz i wanna see what happens when nadal faces his own weapon...

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 10:51 AM
When you go 1-17 in a 4 set match...that match is really really close. Fed played the right game plan and had his chances...he just didn't convert them. Put Nadal in that position enough times and he wont convert 94% of his break points...not gonna happen.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:57 AM
When you go 1-17 in a 4 set match...that match is really really close.

It wasn't close. It wasn't lopsided, but it wasn't close.

BiGGieStuFF
07-12-2007, 11:03 AM
Close to what? Breaking Nadal and then getting broken back thanks to his atrocious first serve percentage?

Nadal wins all of the tight points on clay - every time, all the time. And not just against Federer. Converting a break point against him is like catching a mosquito with your middle and index finger.

In that case I could beat Nadal. Now how am I gonna get through the 1st 6 matches though? Hmmmm

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 11:05 AM
In that case I could beat Nadal. Now how am I gonna get through the 1st 6 matches though? Hmmmm

I meant blindfolded.;)

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 11:09 AM
It wasn't close. It wasn't lopsided, but it wasn't close.

I disagree. In my estimation it was a really really close match, that came down to a few points. Federer is right there...though it also seems like Nadal is right there on grass...

Nadal_Freak
07-12-2007, 11:30 AM
I disagree. In my estimation it was a really really close match, that came down to a few points. Federer is right there...though it also seems like Nadal is right there on grass...
Federer was 2 sets away from beating Nadal. Not a few points.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 11:33 AM
Those 2 sets were decided by a few points...you obbviousaly aren't the most objective of people to enter into this debate so I wont take it any further with you, but realistically it was a mere couple of points...

anointedone
07-12-2007, 11:34 AM
I actually agree with CyBorg. Going 1 for 17 on break points vs anyone, even Nadal, is a sign of not being that good a clay court, not being a really formidable one.

Also the present clay court field is pretty weak like CyBorg said. That is not the fault of Federer, or even the fault of Nadal. You play who is across the net. However there is a lack of true quality clay courters in the game today, making it easier for those who are truly great on clay (Nadal) or fairly good on it (Federer).

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Going 1-17 on break points is a combination of bad luck, nerves and a tough opponent. I'm not using the 1-17 stat as a barometer of Federer being a good clay court player, I'm using it as an example of how close the match really was. A few of those go a different direction and we have a different FO champion (in much the same way that one of those breakpoints in the fifth at Wimbledon go Nadal's way and we have a different Wimbledon champ).

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 11:48 AM
I disagree. In my estimation it was a really really close match, that came down to a few points. Federer is right there...though it also seems like Nadal is right there on grass...

I really wanted to believe this after the 2006 French Open, because I wanted Federer to win it. But this year's RG really changed my mind about him in terms of his chances on clay.

Roger's style is just not a good fit - just watch how his backhand struggles against the topspin and the high bounces and the way his forehand becomes affected. He can't beat Nadal's groundies on clay, because he loves the ball to come in on him quickly - the clay bounces throw off his timing completely and this is despite the fact that the man clearly works his butt off in the spring to adjust to the surface.

You're in the denial stage. I was there a year ago.

P.S. I wouldn't bring up Nadal and grass and the counterpoint on Federer .. Nadal is a better grass courter than Federer is a clay courter .. where Nadal will have his great challenge is on fast hardcourts and carpet .. if he dominates those in two-three years he's the God almighty.

tricky
07-12-2007, 11:54 AM
Roger's style is just not a good fit - just watch how his backhand struggles against the topspin and the high bounces and the way his forehand becomes affected.

You know, the thing is, the BH held up pretty well for about 2-3 sets there. (Until he started standing straight up and kinda hip-arming all his BHs. I have to think he started doing that as a concession to conditioning.) His FH never escaped wonkville, and his 1st serve was almost atrocious.

I'm halfway in agreement with Cyborg on this. I don't say this often, but I don't think Federer was fit and strong enough to play he wants to against Nadal on clay. He looked exhausted out there by the 3rd set. Sure he cruised through the FO , but the way his service percentage was all tournament, I was surprised he even took one set off Nadal.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 11:59 AM
You know, the thing is, the BH held up pretty well for about 2-3 sets there. (Until he started standing straight up and kinda hip-arming all his BHs. I have to think he started doing that as a concession to conditioning.) His FH never escaped wonkville, and his 1st serve was almost atrocious.

I'm halfway in agreement with Cyborg on this. I don't say this often, but I don't think Federer was fit and strong enough to play he wants to against Nadal on clay. He looked exhausted out there by the 3rd set. Sure he cruised through the FO , but the way his service percentage was all tournament, I was surprised he even took one set off Nadal.

I think Roger was fit enough. What was affected to a great extent was his mind, his confidence. By that virtue, his body was affected as well - you can see it in his face, the way he gets down on himself. Eventually he stops moving his feet, doesn't attack the second serve and you can see a certain fatigue there.

Confidence is what gives players a second wind. Roger never gets a second wind against Nadal on clay, because he doesn't believe in himself. And I don't blame him - he has no reason whatsoever to believe in himself when Nadal is hitting precise groundstrokes with immense topspin to his backhand and then pesters him continuously when Roger is serving (badly).

Halfway through the match Federer knew it was over and the entire tennis playing population did as well. Whatever break points came from there were simply a distraction from the inevitable.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 12:11 PM
I still disagree, and I'm not even a Federer fan (though I do prefer to see him win over Nadal). Fed's serve let him down and his forehand was finding the net on everything...I think he lost his confidence in the semi's and it never came back (thus the atrocious serving and break point conversion totals). I aslo dont think Nadal is a better grass courter then Fed is a clay courter. Nadal was down 2-0 twice and got bounced in the warm-up tourney. Fed has multiple clay titles to go along with his tight losses to Nadal. I think people are too critical of individual losses that are really tight, not understanding that a few points and shots decided that match. Fed played the right match against Nadal, he just didnt execute in any capacity when it mattered.

tricky
07-12-2007, 12:14 PM
I think Roger was fit enough. What was affected to a great extent was his mind, his confidence. By that virtue, his body was affected as well - you can see it in his face, the way he gets down on himself. Eventually he stops moving his feet and you can see a certain fatigue there.

Nah, the thing with Roger is that he used to be really bad about using his legs consistently. And you can still pick it up, when he's fatigued, he like most players starts to stand up real straight and arm shots. His BH pretty much died after his legs tired out there. No depth, no pace. Granted, Nadal does this to the majority of players out there.

I'm sure I'll get flack for questioning Roger's movement or his conditioning. But he didn't play a lot of match-play tennis leading up to the French Open. In my mind, even after winning in Hamburg, he was in no position to seriously challenge a well rested Nadal at the FO this year.

In terms of mental makeup, I just feel Roger's been stubborn with his play this year. Like with Canas, he wanted to shoot him off the court. Against Nadal on grass, he played too much of the match from far back, whereas Nadal was forcing Federer into a north-south game.

And I don't blame him - he has no reason whatsoever to believe in himself when Nadal is hitting precise groundstrokes with immense topspin to his backhand and then pesters him continuously when Roger is serving (badly).

Yeah, one thing that people missed was how much out of his comfort space Federer was, in trying to force inside-out shots again and again. It worked for him at Hamburg, but here he was often trying to slide his way into inside-out FHs, which led to a high UE count.

I agree with Drak's assessment of Federer's current game against Nadal. He's reasonably improved his BH vs. FH matchup against Nadal. It's really the FH vs. FH match up which causes Federer to not sustain any momentum or generate breaks.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 12:20 PM
Nah, the thing with Roger is that he used to be really bad about using his legs consistently. And you can still pick it up, when he's fatigued, he like most players starts to stand up real straight and arm shots. His BH pretty much died after his legs tired out there. No depth, no pace. Granted, Nadal does this to the majority of players out there.

I'm sure I'll get flack for questioning Roger's movement or his conditioning. But he didn't play a lot of match-play tennis leading up to the French Open. In my mind, even after winning in Hamburg, he was in no position to seriously challenge a well rested Nadal at the FO this year.

In terms of mental makeup, I just feel Roger's been stubborn with his play this year. Like with Canas, he wanted to shoot him off the court. Against Nadal on grass, he played too much of the match from far back, whereas Nadal was forcing Federer into a north-south game.

I'll put it this way: if Roger works his *** off on his conditioning in time for next year's French Open he will still lose. The conditioning will help him, but it won't solve his mental aspect with Nadal nor will it fix his backhand.

Yeah, one thing that people missed was how much out of his comfort space Federer was, in trying to force inside-out shots again and again. It worked for him at Hamburg, but here he was often trying to slide his way into inside-out FHs, which led to a high UE count.

I agree with Drak's assessment of Federer's current game against Nadal. He's reasonably improved his BH vs. FH matchup against Nadal. It's really the FH vs. FH match up which causes Federer to not sustain any momentum or generate breaks.

I think that Roger worked so much on his backhand he simply neglected his forehand. His forehand is still by far the better shot of the two.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 12:21 PM
The game and game plan is there...I will concede that Nadal has the obvious mental edge at this point, it will be interesting to see how Federer responds next year as he is right there physically...Nadal just has the huge mental edge...

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 12:24 PM
The game and game plan is there...I will concede that Nadal has the obvious mental edge at this point, it will be interesting to see how Federer responds next year as he is right there physically...Nadal just has the huge mental edge...

If Roger doesn't lose to Nadal he will lose to someone else.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 12:29 PM
What is that based on? His finaling last year? His breaking nadal's streak at Hamburg? What could possibly give any indication that Fed is anything less then the 2nd best clay court player in the world...anything?

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 12:30 PM
What could possibly give any indication that Fed is anything less then the 2nd best clay court player in the world...anything?

Who says this?

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 12:33 PM
If Roger doesn't lose to Nadal he will lose to someone else.

Not sure where your going with this one. Nadal's got him mentally on clay, but I don't see Fed losing in the FO finals to anyone else...

tricky
07-12-2007, 12:37 PM
I'll put it this way: if Roger works his *** off on his conditioning in time for next year's French Open he will still lose. The conditioning will help him, but it won't solve his mental aspect with Nadal nor will it fix his backhand.

That may be true, but it's progress nonetheless. Again Roger's legs were not there for his BH -- by the 3rd set, he wasn't really driving the high balls with his legs.

Not sure where your going with this one. Nadal's got him mentally on clay, but I don't see Fed losing in the FO finals to anyone else...

Perhaps against a true grinder like Canas.

I think that Roger worked so much on his backhand he simply neglected his forehand. His forehand is still by far the better shot of the two.

It's an interesting matchup partially because their FH mechanics mirror each other. So, in a way, it's like Roger is facing a clay court version of his own FH, and it drives me crazy. But, it also drives Rafa crazy because the balls zip back lower he'd like them to be.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 12:50 PM
Not sure where your going with this one. Nadal's got him mentally on clay, but I don't see Fed losing in the FO finals to anyone else...

I can see it happening with certain young guns establishing themselves. I think it's only a matter of time before we'll be seeing a greater depth of clay court talent on the scene.

All it may take is a persistent, strong moonballing baseliner who can frustrate Roger just enough. Of course, it will all depend on how prepared Roger will be next year and whether his game regresses at all. If he doesn't have a coach by that time and goes at it alone he'll be too stubborn to make appropriate adjustments.

Of course, I won't be betting on him not making the final.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 01:03 PM
What does having a coach have anything to do with it...most of the coaches out there really dont bring much to the table. I agree that its going to get tougher and tougher as the young guys progress but If I were a betting man (and I certainly am), if Fed finds himself at even odds in the finals with anyone not named Nadal im betting big on Fed...

MasturB
07-12-2007, 01:24 PM
If Serve and Volley didn't work for Sampras at Roland Garros, then not sure how it's going to assure Roger wins a French.

Dolphina
07-12-2007, 01:36 PM
Has anyone on the ATP tried out topspinning nadal? Cuz i wanna see what happens when nadal faces his own weapon...


And I would like to see someone try and overpower him on clay, coz getting in topspin rallies with him, happens to almost any player he plays on clay, and thatīs why they have no chance. Rafa is the king of topspin, and no one can top him on that department, besides getting into this physical battle with him, is also not a good option.
Overpowering works on hard fine (not so much on the slow Wimbly anymore), if itīs really consistent, Nadal has huge problems. But on clay, itīs much more difficult, to play that game against him, and nobody is able to do it. Fed has the weapons, but his backhand is too harmless.

tricky
07-12-2007, 03:00 PM
Rafa is the king of topspin, and no one can top him on that department, besides getting into this physical battle with him, is also not a good option.

And he's now learned to use that topspin to create angles and then finish near the net. Basically, what Roddick does but with more lateral choices. Nadal may have the best inside-out shot in the game now.

TENNIS_99
07-12-2007, 04:58 PM
I think people under estimate the difficulties for pros to change strategy at will against tough opponents. It's easier to "practice" different strategies when there is a distance between playing levels - you can see Fed do that all the time in early round. Top pros have everthing in their arsenal but they get to their status by playing their own style. That's why Fed is such a great player that he can play differently against different players except for Nadal on clay. He wants to as he said in pre-match that he needs to play more aggresively and attack more but the same time Nadal is thinking too. I'm sure he tried but Nadal still has the upper hand. Can't wait to see the next time they are on clay.

herosol
07-12-2007, 05:34 PM
his new gameplan should be:

1. convert the break points
2. step into the court like he does with everyone else

i have no idea why he has to be afraid of nadal, jesus christ i don't think federer understands that more then 50% of the world believes he is the best player to ever play.

Chang
07-12-2007, 06:51 PM
I think Nadal is just too good for Federer on clay at the moment.

Hot Sauce
07-12-2007, 06:53 PM
his new gameplan should be:

1. convert the break points
2. step into the court like he does with everyone else

i have no idea why he has to be afraid of nadal, jesus christ i don't think federer understands that more then 50% of the world believes he is the best player to ever play.

Definitely agree with #2, but #1 is easier said than done.

David L
07-12-2007, 08:37 PM
Would'nt surprise me at all if Federer beat Nadal in a French final. That's the kind of talent we are talking about. Federer has made people eat crow time and time again. In each of their encounters at the French, he has been so close to taking two sets, after which anything can happen. I think Federer has a lot in reserve, stuff he does in practice we don't even see. As his confidence continues to grow on the surface, I think his chances will increase. Once he gets over the clay hurdle, the dam will probably burst. He could very well end up with more than one French title. The guy has so much ability, as well as being smart. Would'nt be surprised if he found a way.

drakulie
07-12-2007, 08:40 PM
Many of us wonder how come Fed stubbornly sticks to his game which always results in him losing the FO to Nadal.

That "stubborness" you speak of has yielded him 2 consecutive finals, and a semi final appearance in the last 3 years. Oh, and by the way, he lost to the eventual champ all 3 years.

His clay court game is fine, and much better than the 1000 plus pros who have not done as well as him.

drakulie
07-12-2007, 08:50 PM
I'd phrase it slightly differently but yeah I agree...he is the second best clay court player in the world...the margin of victory and loss at this level is very small...a couple of points go differently in each match and Feds our French Open Champion and Nadal is our Wimby champ...


Absolutely true. People just don't realize how close both of those matches were. A couple points here and there and the FO champ is Fed, and W champ is Nadal.

caulcano
07-13-2007, 12:29 AM
I think Nadal is just too good for Federer on clay at the moment.

On the slow clay yes.

Also, most of the ATP players can't deal with Nadal's excessive top-spin over 5 sets.

Povl Carstensen
07-13-2007, 05:10 AM
Federers play is all about timing, when he is "in the zone", he produces these amazing bagels, like against Nadal in Hamburg. At the Wimbledon final a lot of the time he wasn't there, said it himself: "I wasn't able to be as agressive as i wanted." This is also due to Nadal offcourse. But maybe he will be able to produce at FO sometime..

AAAA
07-13-2007, 05:22 AM
If Federer has no break points against Nadal and lost easily in 3 sets say 2,3, and 4 then the I'd say Federer had no chance. However he won 1 set and lost another set despite having over a dozen break points. You don't get over a dozen break points unless you are playing better than the server and over turning the servers serve advantage. Federer will rarely have 12+ breakpoints against Nadal in 1 set on clay also Federer will rarely squander 12+ breakpoints in a set. Realistically I still think Federer can beat Nadal at the FO.

Kim
07-13-2007, 07:37 AM
Cyborg, at first you seem to be a good poster, and not another Nadal troll....but when you wrote this non-factual, non sensical statement "If Roger doesn't lose to Nadal he will lose to someone else" you just turned into one of those Nadal trolls. You sure fooled me at first.

Ignore list you go, troll.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 09:10 AM
Cyborg, at first you seem to be a good poster, and not another Nadal troll....but when you wrote this non-factual, non sensical statement "If Roger doesn't lose to Nadal he will lose to someone else" you just turned into one of those Nadal trolls. You sure fooled me at first.

Ignore list you go, troll.

No one wants Roger to win RG more than me, but folks here are quick to forget Roger's pathetic performances in RG semis against Nalbandian and Davydenko. All it may take is a solid performance from a true clay court player to knock Roger out of the tournament.

Next year might be Roger's last chance, but he better hope Nadal sprains an ankle and that no quirky Latino with nasty topspin emerges to play the tennis of his life.

The Nadal troll accusation is pretty funny.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 09:12 AM
On the slow clay yes.

Did they bring back green clay?

dukemunson
07-13-2007, 09:51 AM
No one wants Roger to win RG more than me, but folks here are quick to forget Roger's pathetic performances in RG semis against Nalbandian and Davydenko. All it may take is a solid performance from a true clay court player to knock Roger out of the tournament.

Next year might be Roger's last chance, but he better hope Nadal sprains an ankle and that no quirky Latino with nasty topspin emerges to play the tennis of his life.

The Nadal troll accusation is pretty funny.

Why would it be his last chance...I've enjoyed the comments but still find myself in disagreement, the thought continuing to be that Fed is right there on clay with nadal physically...he just needs to find a way to get over the hump mentally. Breaking Nadals streak was a start...

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Why would it be his last chance...I've enjoyed the comments but still find myself in disagreement, the thought continuing to be that Fed is right there on clay with nadal physically...he just needs to find a way to get over the hump mentally. Breaking Nadals streak was a start...

Clay is a young man's surface. Roger has to work overtime to win matches in Roland Garros. As he ages he will find the hill steeper and steeper to climb.

Again, I'm a realist and I don't like his chances. I'd be very happy if he won it.

Nadal_Freak
07-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Why would it be his last chance...I've enjoyed the comments but still find myself in disagreement, the thought continuing to be that Fed is right there on clay with nadal physically...he just needs to find a way to get over the hump mentally. Breaking Nadals streak was a start...
You are in a denial. Federer's best chance was the last 2 years. He couldn't do it either year. He will start to decline now.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 10:47 AM
You are in a denial. Federer's best chance was the last 2 years. He couldn't do it either year. He will start to decline now.

He will start to decline now??? Really? You don't say. What gave it away? The fact he won the AO without dropping a set? or was it that fact he made it to the FO finals for the second straight year? Or perhaps it was the fact he broke an 81 win streak and won a clay court event off of perhaps one of the greatest clay courters? Maybe it's the fact he just won his 5th consecutive Wimbledon title? Or is it he is the number one player in the world and the guy closest to him is still 2000?? points behind him?

I hadn't noticed which one of these gave you the impression he is on the decline.

As always, thanks for being a troll and clarifying this for me.

dukemunson
07-13-2007, 11:11 AM
You are in a denial. Federer's best chance was the last 2 years. He couldn't do it either year. He will start to decline now.

worthless post. Go away. It's true that somebody will come around to challenge both Fed and Nadal on clay and grass but I don't see any reason to believe that Fed's declining or that he won't put himself in position again to grab a FO in the next few years...

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 11:21 AM
worthless post. Go away. It's true that somebody will come around to challenge both Fed and Nadal on clay and grass but I don't see any reason to believe that Fed's declining or that he won't put himself in position again to grab a FO in the next few years...

Laver won the French when he was around 30 if memory serves. Of course, the guy he beat in the final, Rosewall, was a bit past his prime. Even the great Laver had some things go just right along the way. Federer will need some good fortune to grab that trophy.

This is why I don't give much credence to the claim that the greatest player ever must win all four majors. There is a lot of luck involved and if you happen to be playing in an era where you greatest competitor is a clay king and at 21 isn't close to a decline you are in a tough spot.

dukemunson
07-13-2007, 11:28 AM
Laver won the French when he was around 30 if memory serves. Of course, the guy he beat in the final, Rosewall, was a bit past his prime. Even the great Laver had some things go just right along the way. Federer will need some good fortune to grab that trophy.

This is why I don't give much credence to the claim that the greatest player ever must win all four majors. There is a lot of luck involved and if you happen to be playing in an era where you greatest competitor is a clay king and at 21 isn't close to a decline you are in a tough spot.

Not to mention that undoubtedly someone will emerge in the next 2-3 years that will be giving both players fits on clay. I agree with you on the value of winning all the majors. I think that it's an incredible achievement (obviousaly) but the greater value or merit of a players career is total slams and weeks at #1 (I put weeks at #1 above year end #1).

Nadal_Freak
07-13-2007, 11:50 AM
worthless post. Go away. It's true that somebody will come around to challenge both Fed and Nadal on clay and grass but I don't see any reason to believe that Fed's declining or that he won't put himself in position again to grab a FO in the next few years...
Fed might have one more chance at taking out Nadal. After that he is done.

sondraj
07-13-2007, 12:54 PM
He will start to decline now??? Really? You don't say. What gave it away? The fact he won the AO without dropping a set? or was it that fact he made it to the FO finals for the second straight year? Or perhaps it was the fact he broke an 81 win streak and won a clay court event off of perhaps one of the greatest clay courters? Maybe it's the fact he just won his 5th consecutive Wimbledon title? Or is it he is the number one player in the world and the guy closest to him is still 2000?? points behind him?

I hadn't noticed which one of these gave you the impression he is on the decline.

As always, thanks for being a troll and clarifying this for me.

I do thinks that people don't want to see that Fed is not as dominate on any surface as he was last year, it's only natural that he wouldn't stay that way forever.

I think people think he is going to go on winning as easily through his whole career. You all are not too logical in that aspect. Decline in a sense that he is not going to win 3 out of 4 grand slams for too much longer in fact this might be the last year for him in that aspect.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 01:46 PM
Laver won the French when he was around 30 if memory serves. Of course, the guy he beat in the final, Rosewall, was a bit past his prime. Even the great Laver had some things go just right along the way. Federer will need some good fortune to grab that trophy.

You mean kind of like Borg when he won the French in 74 & 75? Years the French did not allow WTC or WCT players to enter that tournament, which included nearly 32 of the top players in tennis including world # 1 Jimmy Connors? Or 78 when the # 1 player in the world Jimmy Connors, who up to that point had a winning record against Borg, including winning record on clay did not play??

fastdunn
07-13-2007, 01:56 PM
I think Federer is great clay courter.
And that's the gist of this issue, IMHO.

If there was no Nadal, he would have reproduced
Borg's record on both clay and grass.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 02:01 PM
You mean kind of like Borg when he won the French in 74 & 75? Years the French did not allow WTC or WCT players to enter that tournament, which included nearly 32 of the top players in tennis including world # 1 Jimmy Connors? Or 78 when the # 1 player in the world Jimmy Connors, who up to that point had a winning record against Borg, including winning record on clay did not play??

As I've already mention in another thread, you clearly do not know the difference between green clay and red clay.

If you did, you would have known that Connors was excellent on the fast green clay, but inept on red. Jimmy worked tirelessly to master red clay in the later 70s and got pretty good at it, but still never got past the semis.

The 1974 French Open had all the best clay courters and, no, Connors doesn't count. It had Nastase, Kodes, Panatta, Ramirez, Bertolucci, Dibbs, Orantes, Fillol. It also had other stars like Ashe, Gorman, Smith and Metreveli.

So, thanks for the nice and short debate but at least make it interesting next time.

aramis
07-13-2007, 02:10 PM
Maybe Roger's best chance was in 2004. There was no one who could stop him that year. He has proven he is a good match up even for a prime Coria and Ferrero was hurt. If it weren't for the magic of Guga Kuerten, I don't see who could have beaten him that year.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 02:27 PM
Maybe Roger's best chance was in 2004. There was no one who could stop him that year. He has proven he is a good match up even for a prime Coria and Ferrero was hurt. If it weren't for the magic of Guga Kuerten, I don't see who could have beaten him that year.

Here's the where the good luck/bad luck factor comes in. Roger perhaps would have swept through the 04 RG if he had been in current form (although I think a good argument could be made that Coria would have beaten him). Nadal, of course, did not play in 04.

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 02:37 PM
You mean kind of like Borg when he won the French in 74 & 75? Years the French did not allow WTC or WCT players to enter that tournament, which included nearly 32 of the top players in tennis including world # 1 Jimmy Connors?

Ok, it getting almost comical how off you are on some of the 'facts' you are providing. Please just quit now, its embarassing.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 02:41 PM
Ok, it getting almost comical how off you are on some of the 'facts' you are providing. Please just quit now, its embarassing.

Debating with this guy reminds me of the time I tried to convince a religious neoconservative 'pal' that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Needless to say it was a fruitless exercise.

aramis
07-13-2007, 02:43 PM
Here's the where the good luck/bad luck factor comes in. Roger perhaps would have swept through the 04 RG if he had been in current form (although I think a good argument could be made that Coria would have beaten him). Nadal, of course, did not play in 04.

Well, judging by the way Coria 'handled' the final that year, I'm positive Fed would have won somehow, even if Coria had the better form coming in. Eh, oh well.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 02:58 PM
As I've already mention in another thread, you clearly do not know the difference between green clay and red clay.

One is "red" and one is "green", and the red one being slower than the green one. You feel like "You pointed this out". LMAO

If you did, you would have known that Connors was excellent on the fast green clay, but inept on red.

Connors was "inept on the red clay"?? How the hell would you know??

Here is what we **DO** know:

1. Between 74-78 Connors was the number one player in the world.
2. During that time he had winning record (8-4) against Borg, and
3. a winning record against against Borg on clay (3-2)
4. Connors along with nearly 32 top players were not allowed to play the French Open (red clay).

So how would you know if he was "inept" on a surface he was not allowed to play for nearly 5 of his most dominant years??


The 1974 French Open had all the best clay courters and, no, Connors doesn't count.

How convenient. The number # 1 player in the world IN 1974, and winner of countless clay court titles "DOES NOT COUNT". lmao!

drakulie
07-13-2007, 03:00 PM
Ok, it getting almost comical how off you are on some of the 'facts' you are providing. Please just quit now, its embarassing.

The only thing comical is you stating "Im off" with out proving me wrong.

Bottom line is >> you can't. facts are facts , and not the rhetoric you and Cyclopse are posting.

Or are you in all your infinite wisdom (cough) stating Connors did play those years I cited, or that nearly 32 top players were banned from playing the French???

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 03:04 PM
One is "red" and one is "green", and the red one being slower than the green one. You feel like "You pointed this out". LMAO



Connors was "inept on the red clay"?? How the hell would you know??

Here is what we **DO** know:

1. Between 74-78 Connors was the number one player in the world.
2. During that time he had winning record (8-4) against Borg, and
3. a winning record against against Borg on clay (3-2)
4. Connors along with nearly 32 top players were not allowed to play the French Open (red clay).

So how would you know if he was "inept" on a surface he was not allowed to play for nearly 5 of his most dominant years??




How convenient. The number # 1 player in the world IN 1974, and winner of countless clay court titles "DOES NOT COUNT". lmao!

You're not very good at this.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 03:08 PM
Btw, Jimmy's amazing run at the 1973 French Open: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Look hard and you may be able to spot him. :)

Jimmy liked to talk tough and he would argue endlessly as to how skipping the French was politics. It's pretty obvious, however, that Jimmy knew that he had no chance in hell of winning Roland Garros.

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 03:16 PM
Or are you in all your infinite wisdom (cough) stating Connors did play those years I cited, or that nearly 32 top players were banned from playing the French???


ok, I'll give you a hint. The number 32 is correct, but everything else you cited is wrong. Keep trying, you'll get there.

And Connors was not one of the '32.'

drakulie
07-13-2007, 03:35 PM
You're not very good at this.

Great comeback. LMAO I love it when I thump trolls like you. Face it, your precious Borg was the benefactor of 3 FO titles because of a weak field.

ok, I'll give you a hint. The number 32 is correct, but everything else you cited is wrong. Keep trying, you'll get there.

And Connors was not one of the '32.'

You are going to have to do better than that. Go ahead and provide me a link that backs up your claim>>> that Jimmy Connors played at the French 74-78.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 03:43 PM
ok, I'll give you a hint. The number 32 is correct, but everything else you cited is wrong. Keep trying, you'll get there.

And Connors was not one of the '32.'

Yeah, Jimmy signed up to play WTT that year.

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 03:47 PM
You are going to have to do better than that. Go ahead and provide me a link that backs up your claim>>> that Jimmy Connors played at the French 74-78.


re-read my post, I said the #32 was correct but everything else was incorrect. I'm fascinated that you seem so adamant that all this happened the way you think it did. I'm guessing you heard the correct story years ago, & somehow got events, dates, etc mixed up. No biggie, but not sure why you seem so confident, surely there is some doubt in your mind that this happened?

Eventually you'll figure it out(or maybe not, since you've gone out on a limb here without fact-checking first), but I feel a little embarassed for you. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but the fact that you are wrong & being so loud about it is rather annoying.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 03:48 PM
Great comeback. LMAO I love it when I thump trolls like you. Face it, your precious Borg was the benefactor of 3 FO titles because of a weak field.

Jimmy, is that you?

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 03:51 PM
Yeah, Jimmy signed up to play WTT that year.

I know, but the rest of his post is false, and I have no idea where he's getting it from. But the number 32 has a certain relevance to another slam, so he probably got a little mixed up.

You mean kind of like Borg when he won the French in 74 & 75? Years the French did not allow WTC or WCT players to enter that tournament, which included nearly 32 of the top players in tennis including world # 1 Jimmy Connors?

drakulie
07-13-2007, 03:53 PM
re-read my post, I said the #32 was correct but everything else was incorrect. I'm fascinated that you seem so adamant that all this happened the way you think it did. I'm guessing you heard the correct story years ago, & somehow got events, dates, etc mixed up. No biggie, but not sure why you seem so confident, surely there is some doubt in your mind that this happened?

Eventually you'll figure it out(or maybe not, since you've gone out on a limb here without fact-checking first), but I feel a little embarassed for you. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but the fact that you are wrong & being so loud about it is rather annoying.

I am well aware of the WTT and WTC players being banned not only by the French but also Wimbledon.

Again Your Majesty, rather than avoiding what you stated when you said I was wrong>>> prove that Connors played at the French between 74-78.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 03:56 PM
I know, but the rest of his post is false, and I have no idea where he's getting it from. But the number 32 has a certain relevance to another slam, so he probably got a little mixed up.

No I didn't mix anything up. In 1972 more than 32 WCT players were banned from the French and Wimbledon.

Between 74-76 all WTT players were banned from the French.

In addition to all this, Connors refused to play in 77 and 78, which is what I stated in the other thread where YOU and several others stated the AO had a weak draw in the 70's.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 04:05 PM
No I didn't mix anything up. In 1972 more than 32 WCT players were banned from the French and Wimbledon.

What does this have to do with Connors again?

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 04:07 PM
I am well aware of the WTT and WTC players being banned not only by the French but also Wimbledon

This is probably the least important part of what you've gotten wrong(& you still haven't completely figured it out), but you constantly calling it 'WTC' is pretty funny, like calling the ITF the IFT or something.

No I didn't mix anything up. In 1972 more than 32 WCT players were banned from the French and Wimbledon.

Between 74-76 all WTT players were banned from the French.


ah, you're starting to get warmer. are you going to still stand by '32' top players being banned from the French from '74-'76? The number was considerably smaller, like single digits. You can find the year end atp rankings for '73 & compare to the '74 FO field. The only top player missing is Connors. And '74 was the only year Connors was banned from the French(for WTT, not WCT), he chose not to return until '79 on his own. Also, banning WCT players from slams ended in '72 or '73.
The number '32' was significant as you said for '72 Wimbledon only(that was the exact # of players banned that year) It has no relevance to the FO from '74 to '76, so obviously you got a little confused, & went a little overboard in belittling the French those years. Feel free to backtrack.

also Connors was not even a WCT player in '74 or '75, so your argument was wrong on many levels(there have been many threads talking about the weak fields Connors played in '74/'75 while most of the top guys were on the stronger WCT circuit)

drakulie
07-13-2007, 04:52 PM
but you constantly calling it 'WTC' is pretty funny, like calling the ITF the IFT or something.

Oh I'm sorry your higness for mis-typing "WCT". My deepest apologies. In the furture, when addressing you I'll make sure to use spell check in order to help you comprehend better.

I guess that proves you correct>>> that connors never missed the French between the dates I cited, and the French federation has never banned top players during the 70's.

Bassus
07-13-2007, 06:53 PM
Here's the where the good luck/bad luck factor comes in. Roger perhaps would have swept through the 04 RG if he had been in current form (although I think a good argument could be made that Coria would have beaten him). Nadal, of course, did not play in 04.


Federer's biggest obstacle that year had he managed to beat a temporarily resurgent Kuerten would have been Nalbandian in the quarterfinals. I think Federer would have then beaten Gaudio in the semifinals, and then Coria in the finals had he got there. A final with Coria would have probably been a straight or 4 set victory for Federer.

Remember, Federer beat both Gaudio and Coria a few weeks earlier in Hamburg. Yes, the conditions are different, but neither Coria or Gaudio could have exploited Federer's weakness like Nadal can.

What is hard to explain is Federer's first round, straight set flame outs at the French in 2002 and 2003 after good showings in 2000 and 2001.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 07:46 PM
Federer's biggest obstacle that year had he managed to beat a temporarily resurgent Kuerten would have been Nalbandian in the quarterfinals. I think Federer would have then beaten Gaudio in the semifinals, and then Coria in the finals had he got there. A final with Coria would have probably been a straight or 4 set victory for Federer.

Remember, Federer beat both Gaudio and Coria a few weeks earlier in Hamburg. Yes, the conditions are different, but neither Coria or Gaudio could have exploited Federer's weakness like Nadal can.

What is hard to explain is Federer's first round, straight set flame outs at the French in 2002 and 2003 after good showings in 2000 and 2001.

Roger didn't have the kind of testicular fortitude that he shows today and his backhand was much worse on clay (I underscore clay). I don't think he had a prayer of winning in 2004, even if he had beaten Kuerten. There were no indicators of a breakthrough in the tourneys leading up to RG and Hamburg doesn't count. He won there in 2002 and then fell out in round one of RG. Not much of a prognosticator - an altogether different surface with altogether different weather conditions.

Bassus
07-13-2007, 08:17 PM
Roger didn't have the kind of testicular fortitude that he shows today and his backhand was much worse on clay (I underscore clay). I don't think he had a prayer of winning in 2004, even if he had beaten Kuerten. There were no indicators of a breakthrough in the tourneys leading up to RG and Hamburg doesn't count. He won there in 2002 and then fell out in round one of RG. Not much of a prognosticator - an altogether different surface with altogether different weather conditions.


Yes, but even then there weren't that many guys who could decisively exploit Federer's backhand. I might agree with you that Nalbandian would have beaten him, but I think Federer would have definitely beaten Coria had they met in the final.

In light of the emergence of Nadal, I wonder if Federer wishes he had put as much effort into his clay court game before 05 as he has done since?

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 08:22 PM
Yes, but even then there weren't that many guys who could decisively exploit Federer's backhand. I might agree with you that Nalbandian would have beaten him, but I think Federer would have definitely beaten Coria had they met in the final.

I doubt it, but it's certainly possible. Coria was the clay boy wonder of the year. He was picked by pretty much every expert with a brain to rule RG. His loss to Gaudio was perplexing, but it was a bizarre combination of injuries, bad luck and dreadful decision making. Federer could have beaten him if Coria let down as much as he did against Gaudio. But Gaudio was a better clay courter than Federer. Just watch the sweet backhand - just lovely and still there.

In light of the emergence of Nadal, I wonder if Federer wishes he had put as much effort into his clay court game before 05 as he has done since?

I think Federer was too busy perfecting his art on grass and hardcourts. He developed rapidly enough in a matter of a year. Dominating clay right away would have been unrealistic, I think.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-13-2007, 08:26 PM
Just a very simple idea and answer when I read this question having read so many other responses elsewhere that said the French Open is the hardest tournament to win: Maybe Federer is less willing to work hard to win it, combination of shot, movement, determination, and strength, plus other variables. He has the goods to win everything else, but on that surface, that tournament, it seems differently..someone else has the greater abilities.

Bassus
07-13-2007, 08:41 PM
I doubt it, but it's certainly possible. Coria was the clay boy wonder of the year. He was picked by pretty much every expert with a brain to rule RG. His loss to Gaudio was perplexing, but it was a bizarre combination of injuries, bad luck and dreadful decision making. Federer could have beaten him if Coria let down as much as he did against Gaudio. But Gaudio was a better clay courter than Federer. Just watch the sweet backhand - just lovely and still there.



I think Federer was too busy perfecting his art on grass and hardcourts. He developed rapidly enough in a matter of a year. Dominating clay right away would have been unrealistic, I think.


He didn't have to dominate on clay. He would have just had to play well enough to win it once, and his future status as GOAT would almost be assured. I also believe that had he won a French Open earlier in his career, then he would stand a much better chance to win it again, even against Nadal, because there would be much less pressure. Similarly, if Federer had managed to beat Nadal in 05, 06, or 07 at the French, then I'd bet he'd go on and win the French again. Now, however, I don't think his chances are that good unless Nadal is not in the picture. I believe he is capable of beating an in-form Nadal at the French, but based on how he has played those three matches, I don't think he will. If he can avoid injury and not lose much of a step, then I think he has maybe two good shots left, and I hope he proves me wrong.

As to Coria; again, for Federer to have met him that year, he would have had to beat Nalbandian. To me, that would have spoken volumes about his mental strength. I don't mean to diss Coria, but considering how he fell apart against Gaudio, I just think Federer would have taken a match between them. Other than hit drop shots, there was just nothing Coria could do better than Federer. I think Federer could have used his forehand and serve to overcome any trouble with his backhand against Coria.

I don't think Federer would have needed Coria to 'let down' in order to win. Instead, I think Coria would have needed Federer to revert to his older inconsistent self to win.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 08:49 PM
I don't think Federer would have needed Coria to 'let down' in order to win. Instead, I think Coria would have needed Federer to revert to his older inconsistent self to win.

I was a big fan of Coria's. I think he was downright awesome and the guy who was supposed to be the clay king for a few years. Tennis misses him - he should be challenging for the biggest titles on clay today, right there with Fed and Nadal. But he was never completely all right in the head. People complain about Safin - this guy was much worse.

For a while he was amazing on clay. 03-04 - he gave Ferrero fits and JC, in his prime, was top-10 all time on clay. He was that good.

People are starting to forget about Coria now. He's almost as forgotten as Victor Pecci.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-13-2007, 08:58 PM
People are starting to forget about Coria now. He's almost as forgotten as Victor Pecci.


Victor Pecci, way cool guy with the curly mullet, was absolutely exhilarating and eerie watching USA play against the Paraguayans in Davis Cup on his home turf. So I guess not quite forgotten, sorry for interrupting.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 09:12 PM
Victor Pecci, way cool guy with the curly mullet, was absolutely exhilarating and eerie watching USA play against the Paraguayans in Davis Cup on his home turf. So I guess not quite forgotten, sorry for interrupting.

Well, I couldn't think of anyone completely forgotten. Whoever's completely forgotten I will never be able to remember.;)

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-13-2007, 09:21 PM
Well, I couldn't think of anyone completely forgotten. Whoever's completely forgotten I will never be able to remember.;)

LOL well, your comment made me want to try to think up some ones who are likely very widely forgotten. Need to pull those totes full of VHS tapes from 70s-80s out of the garage and see whose showing.

Wawa
07-13-2007, 09:58 PM
Now many players have been forgotten , but some of them will never come back like GUGA.
He was #001 in the past but now he is #1000!

aramis
07-14-2007, 07:50 AM
I was a big fan of Coria's. I think he was downright awesome and the guy who was supposed to be the clay king for a few years. Tennis misses him - he should be challenging for the biggest titles on clay today, right there with Fed and Nadal. But he was never completely all right in the head. People complain about Safin - this guy was much worse.

For a while he was amazing on clay. 03-04 - he gave Ferrero fits and JC, in his prime, was top-10 all time on clay. He was that good.

People are starting to forget about Coria now. He's almost as forgotten as Victor Pecci.

Man, imagine how exciting the clay court season would be if we had a healthy Coria and Ferrero challenging for the big titles. I think Coria could give Nadal problems, while Ferrero might be able to out-slug Federer from the baseline.

Nadal_Freak
07-14-2007, 08:35 AM
Man, imagine how exciting the clay court season would be if we had a healthy Coria and Ferrero challenging for the big titles. I think Coria could give Nadal problems, while Ferrero might be able to out-slug Federer from the baseline.
Nadal would beat Coria. Coria doesn't have the firepower or the style of game to bother Nadal. Nadal likes long points.

Wawa
07-14-2007, 09:49 AM
But he should if he won that many Wimbys. Heck, he should trade in 2 Wimbys for 2 FO. 8 Wimbys is pretty good my friend. ;)

but is not only Wimbys!he needs a rolland garros to have one of all:-|