PDA

View Full Version : If Fed wins because Nadal pulls out


richied
03-03-2009, 04:21 AM
If Fed wins the French because Nadal pulls out or retires because of injury (not out of the question) does it go down as a shallow victory? We all know slams are tough and whoever wins deserves all the credit they get, but because of Nadal's overwelming H2H record and favoritism to win the FO, surely everyone will remember this as the final without Nadal. Or, will it be remembered as Feds record equalling GS and career GS. I'd probably remember it as the Final without Nadal. I also wonder if a victory will elevate Feds position on the GOAT ladder. IMO, if this senario plays out the H2H record in slams still overules a Career Slam and most GS's record, but that's just me.

albino smurf
03-03-2009, 04:28 AM
If Federerr pulled out of the AO would it have marred the title for Nadal?

federerdomination
03-03-2009, 04:29 AM
Well even if Nadal played and was healthy, there's not guarantee that he would make the final either so you can't discount a victory because of that.

At Wimbledon (or the USO), if someone wins and did not play Fed, should that still count (with full credit given)? I think yes.

Giggs The Red Devil
03-03-2009, 04:47 AM
If Federer doesnít win at least 4 RG in a row, itís a shallow victory.

cknobman
03-03-2009, 05:22 AM
Look if Fed cant win a calendar GS beating Nadal in straight sets at each on then he gets no credit plain and simple.

Furthermore even if Fed did play Nadal and beat him in straight it would only count if Nadal was 100% healthy, not tired, and had no blisters on hands/feet.

NineMileSkid
03-03-2009, 05:28 AM
If Fed wins the French because Nadal pulls out or retires because of injury (not out of the question) does it go down as a shallow victory? We all know slams are tough and whoever wins deserves all the credit they get, but because of Nadal's overwelming H2H record and favoritism to win the FO, surely everyone will remember this as the final without Nadal. Or, will it be remembered as Feds record equalling GS and career GS. I'd probably remember it as the Final without Nadal. I also wonder if a victory will elevate Feds position on the GOAT ladder. IMO, if this senario plays out the H2H record in slams still overules a Career Slam and most GS's record, but that's just me.

Absolutely not.

Are Pardraig Harrington's victories with Woods out shallow?

shazbot
03-03-2009, 05:39 AM
Obvious troll is obvious

McLovin
03-03-2009, 06:32 AM
Is Agassi's FO a shallow victory because he only beat Medvedev in the final and not Guga?

Ans: No.

cucio
03-03-2009, 06:33 AM
Injuries and chance are parts of any sport, so darn yes, a victory by default of the opponent is completely legitimate.

That said, the legend of Federer would be notably larger if he manages to outplay a healthy Nadal in RG final, no question about that. A Nadal-less FO will be still as valid a FO as any, but a Nadal-ful FO would be a FO+.

Regarding GOATness, I already regard Fed higher than Sampras based on their respective performance on clay, so in my opinion an actual win at FO would change little in that respect.

Gorecki
03-03-2009, 06:36 AM
my grandma has 16 wheel chair... is she a freightliner?

raiden031
03-03-2009, 06:37 AM
It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately to many it will be a shallow victory. I don't think anyone has owned a slam like Nadal owns the French.

Its sad to say this, but if anybody wins it without beating Nadal they will not get the credit they deserve. Certainly not on this board.

alfa164164
03-03-2009, 06:42 AM
Troll indeed - it is like saying Wilander's 1st French Open doesn't count because Borg didn't play. Yes, Borg would have been the overwhelming favorite, but all that matters is who is the last man standing.

raiden031
03-03-2009, 06:56 AM
Troll indeed - it is like saying Wilander's 1st French Open doesn't count because Borg didn't play. Yes, Borg would have been the overwhelming favorite, but all that matters is who is the last man standing.

I guarantee at least half this board will say that the victory is meaningless because they will say that Nadal still owns him and its a fluke title.

drakulie
03-03-2009, 07:09 AM
If Federer doesnít win at least 4 RG in a row, itís a shallow victory.

I agree. Great post.

woodrow1029
03-03-2009, 07:32 AM
This thread is so stupid.

The-Champ
03-03-2009, 07:34 AM
a win is a win.

plain jane
03-03-2009, 07:42 AM
i agree a win is a win. Even if Fed does complete the career grand slam without playing Nadal at the french he still wont be the GOAT (there is not such thing). But he would have something Sampras could only dream of having. If Nadal was to win the US open and didn't have to play Federer for whatever reason would it still count? Of course! It doesn't matter who u have to play, just that u win 7 matches in a row over a two week period. Whoever does that deserves to win in my book.

tintin
03-03-2009, 08:13 AM
whether Nadal on this other side of the net from Federer;if Roger wins it;his name will be on the Coupe des Mousquetaires trophy and yes the media will ya about Nadal's absence but at the end of the day;it wouldn't be Federer fault who makes it and doesn't make it int the finals to face him
Sampras;if Federer every wins RG will kick himself until he dies for not doing anything to even make the finals in Paris;I don't think he would have cared who the opponent would be

now troll go back in your cave.NEXT!

tahiti
03-03-2009, 09:36 AM
Federer would win fair and square but it wouldn't carry the same weight like Rafa beating him on his home turf. (W)

We should draft a contract with terms and provisions stating who can win what and how they need to win and when and under which circumstances. :)

drakulie
03-03-2009, 09:39 AM
^^I agree. To add, anyone who has won a French Open without beating Nadal should be stricken from the record book. :roll:

babbette
03-03-2009, 09:40 AM
I don't think Federer or anybody would be satisfied with him winning when Rafa has pulled out. Great sporstmen like to earn their victory. Nobody would really consider Roger as the new king of clay until the next year, hoping Rafa could be healthy so it's a rematch.

jackson vile
03-03-2009, 09:47 AM
If Federerr pulled out of the AO would it have marred the title for Nadal?

Yep, sure would have. And we would not hear the end of it.

TMCW140
03-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Injuries and chance are parts of any sport, so darn yes, a victory by default of the opponent is completely legitimate.

That said, the legend of Federer would be notably larger if he manages to outplay a healthy Nadal in RG final, no question about that. A Nadal-less FO will be still as valid a FO as any, but a Nadal-ful FO would be a FO+.

Regarding GOATness, I already regard Fed higher than Sampras based on their respective performance on clay, so in my opinion an actual win at FO would change little in that respect.

My thoughts exactly, good call

federerdomination
03-03-2009, 10:29 AM
I don't think Federer or anybody would be satisfied with him winning when Rafa has pulled out. Great sporstmen like to earn their victory. Nobody would really consider Roger as the new king of clay until the next year, hoping Rafa could be healthy so it's a rematch.

Actually I think Fed would be more than satisfied (try elated) with tying at 14 GS's and completing the career slam!

Cyan
03-03-2009, 12:13 PM
If Nadal was to win the US open and didn't have to play Federer for whatever reason would it still count?

Good question.

Mick
03-03-2009, 12:24 PM
suppose nadal pulls out of the FO and federer fails to win. that would be shocking.

Nadal_Freak
03-03-2009, 12:40 PM
We all know Fed can't beat Nadal so it definitely does. But I'm not sure Fed can win it even if Nadal pulls out.

miyagi
03-03-2009, 12:50 PM
It still counts just like any other Slam....but there will be a million posters trying to make excuses.

Just like if Rafa had won his first Wimbledon and Roger had pulled out injured, there would be certain bitter posters who discounted it.

If Rafa didn't get to the final and Federer somehow didnt win it he would be devastated....I would be shocked quite frankly!

But I dont think that would happen

veroniquem
03-03-2009, 12:53 PM
suppose nadal pulls out of the FO and federer fails to win. that would be shocking.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that happened... (That's what happpened in Rome 2008 by the way)

thejoe
03-03-2009, 12:54 PM
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that happened... (That's what happpened in Rome 2008 by the way)

No, they were both beaten. Nadal did not pull out.

Cyan
03-03-2009, 01:25 PM
suppose nadal pulls out of the FO and federer fails to win. that would be shocking.

Oh but hello. It is pretty obvious that Nole would win then. Like Rome.... like TMC, like Dubai.

egn
03-03-2009, 01:26 PM
I don't think Federer or anybody would be satisfied with him winning when Rafa has pulled out. Great sporstmen like to earn their victory. Nobody would really consider Roger as the new king of clay until the next year, hoping Rafa could be healthy so it's a rematch.

So if Nadal wins the US Open this year not against federer? If he wins the french open and Nadal is not in the field he earned his victory. Does anyone discredit Mats Wilander after Bjorn Borg retired who had won it four times in a row. Should I descredit 2003 US open field for not having to play defending champion Pete Sampras. In 95 and 96 do we discredit all the female AO winners for not playing Steffi Graf who won the other three slams that year. Connors never could beat Borg in his prime but should we discredit the 82 Wimbledon because BOrg was gone. If Federer wins the French Open he wins it..so Rafa isn't there sure it does not look as good but you don't take away his French Open. Nobody would call him king of clay either that would be stupid, but he would definitely be looked upon as great. He would also have proven I can beat everyone but Rafa on clay.

We all know Fed can't beat Nadal so it definitely does. But I'm not sure Fed can win it even if Nadal pulls out.

So if we all know Fed can't beat Nadal and he wins a French Open without Nadal it just proves what we know. He can beat everyone else on clay..I don't think that should diminish anything. I agree on the second thing though it is not a given for him. Though it is not a given for anybody. Nadal still has to win 7 matches in a row.

Cyan
03-03-2009, 01:33 PM
So if Nadal wins the US Open this year not against federer?

Anything is possible...............

vtmike
03-03-2009, 01:40 PM
Injuries and chance are parts of any sport, so darn yes, a victory by default of the opponent is completely legitimate.

That said, the legend of Federer would be notably larger if he manages to outplay a healthy Nadal in RG final, no question about that. A Nadal-less FO will be still as valid a FO as any, but a Nadal-ful FO would be a FO+.

Regarding GOATness, I already regard Fed higher than Sampras based on their respective performance on clay, so in my opinion an actual win at FO would change little in that respect.

Agree...Good post!

DMan
03-03-2009, 01:58 PM
If Fed wins the French because Nadal pulls out or retires because of injury (not out of the question) does it go down as a shallow victory? We all know slams are tough and whoever wins deserves all the credit they get, but because of Nadal's overwelming H2H record and favoritism to win the FO, surely everyone will remember this as the final without Nadal. Or, will it be remembered as Feds record equalling GS and career GS. I'd probably remember it as the Final without Nadal. I also wonder if a victory will elevate Feds position on the GOAT ladder. IMO, if this senario plays out the H2H record in slams still overules a Career Slam and most GS's record, but that's just me.

What a wonderful question? I can see it now. Federer wins the French against someone other than Nadal. As he is handed the trophy, Christian Bimes takes a big old hammer to the Coupe de Musketeer and bangs it in several times on the bottom to make it shallower. And then announces on the public address system that Roger has won a "shallow" final. And his prize money gets shaved down 25%. So too for the computer points. And he isn't awarded a 'full Slam', it's only 3/4 of one. So he would 'only' have 13-3/4 majors won, not 14.

That makes total sense, now doesn't it ? ? ; - } (WTF@%!$?!?&%$!)

Also love how some folks would rate H2H in Slams over a career Slam or most GS won. That means Adriano Panatta (beat Borg 2x in the French Open no less) who won 1 French title is ahead of Borg. Again, makes perfect sense. Jim Courier (2 French, 2 Australian) is then definitely ahead of Andre Agassi (1 French, 1 Wimbledon, 2 US, 4 Australian) because he won 4 of 6 major encounters. Andres Gomez (1 French) title is ahead of Agassi too, since Gomez won their only encounter in a major. And Roddick (1 US Open) is ahead of Nadal, since Andy won their only meeting in a major. Am I making sense?

Things that maker you go hmmm......

Perhaps we should just inscribe Nadal's name n the Coupe de Musketeer now, and for the next, what, 10 years?! No need to even bother playing it, right ?!

In fact, if an earth shattering event such as Nadal losing before the finals, they should just cancel the tournament then and there. It would "only be the finals without Nadal" and certainly nothing to consider complete or earned. It would of course be a "shallow" victory!

veroniquem
03-03-2009, 02:03 PM
No, they were both beaten. Nadal did not pull out.
I meant Nadal wasn't in Roger's way and he still didn't win it, what's the difference from Federer's point of view whether that happened because of a pull out or a loss that is injury related?

egn
03-03-2009, 02:05 PM
Anything is possible...............

fine if fed pulls out of the US open and Nadal wins it? Is it a shallow victory?

tintin
03-03-2009, 02:05 PM
I don't think Roddick would feel bad if he were to win a major without Federer,Murray(who both have his #),Nadal and Djokovic.As a matter of fact I bet he'd give his right nut just for 1 ;)

I don't think Nadal would be too happy going 5 sets with Federer on grass again either to possibly try to defend again this year

thalivest
03-03-2009, 02:08 PM
Any win is legitimate. If Agassi's majorly lucky 1999 French Open title which gave him his "career slam" is fully credited, if Agassi's 1999 U.S Open 99% likely won only due to Sampras's absence is fully credited, if Kafelnikov's 2 majors are fully credited with the absolute JOKE draws he had to win both, and Korda's lone major with his joke draw at the 1998 Australian Open, then of course Federer's would be however he won it.

THERAFA
03-03-2009, 02:09 PM
Well it wasn't a shallow victory when Federer won all those slams in a weak era (pre-Nadal):
Was
It?

veroniquem
03-03-2009, 02:09 PM
Any win is legitimate. If Agassi's majorly lucky 1999 French Open title which gave him his "career slam" is fully credited, if Agassi's 1999 U.S Open 99% likely won only due to Sampras's absence is fully credited, if Kafelnikov's 2 majors are fully credited with the absolute JOKE draws he had to win both, and Korda's lone major with his joke draw at the 1998 Australian Open, then of course Federer's would be however he won it.
Very true!

Cyan
03-03-2009, 02:12 PM
fine if fed pulls out of the US open and Nadal wins it? Is it a shallow victory?

Not as awesome as when Nadal beat Fed in the finals of FO, Wimbledon and AO:cry:

tintin
03-03-2009, 02:13 PM
Well it wasn't a shallow victory when Federer won all those slams in a weak era (pre-Nadal):
Was
It?

remember not that long ago,as a matter of fact not until last year,James Blake,out of all people who can't even make a slam semis;even on hard court was crushing your guy so take it easy on the kool-aid ;)

seffina
03-03-2009, 02:13 PM
my grandma has 16 wheel chair... is she a freightliner?

I'm sorry, I'm still giggling over this one.

On the topic, I don't think the win will be tainted in any way in the long run. In the short run people will say this and that, but not later in his life.

Radical10is
03-03-2009, 02:13 PM
Are Pardraig Harrington's victories with Woods out shallow?[/QUOTE]

With woods out no victory is a 100% victory. Given it is still an achievement, you would have to think Tiger, if not winning, would have at least phsyched him out...

THERAFA
03-03-2009, 02:15 PM
Agassi beat Moya early in that 1999: French
Open

OddJack
03-03-2009, 02:17 PM
If you agree that fitness is a part of tennis then how can you argue that the guy who wins because he stayed fit deserves less credit?

If it's fair for Nadal fans to point out that Roger's one handed BH is his "weakness" (which I do not agree with) and Nadal uses it at %100 to win, then it's also fair to say that his game style is his weakness since it prevented him from staying fit.
Nothing comes free. You win on your knees you come down on your knees.

egn
03-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Not as awesome as when Nadal beat Fed in the finals of FO, Wimbledon and AO:cry:

yay for your sarcasm and double standards.

Djokovicfan4life
03-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Nadal pulling out of the FO would be a sign of the apocalypse, so I wouldn't exactly be focused on tennis at the time.

THERAFA
03-03-2009, 02:30 PM
If you are of the belief that Federer winning the French will be shallow (if Rafa pulls out with injury) then you also make shallow all Federer's slam victories (before Rafa established himself), it depends on your perspective and whether you value a win over someone not named:
Rafa

sureshs
03-03-2009, 02:45 PM
I just want Fed to win this FO as his 14th Slam and complete a Career Slam, so he can relax. If that happens with Nadal out of the picture, so what? It would be a testimony to Fed's longevity that he hang in there while younger players did not even play.

Skywalker91
03-03-2009, 05:33 PM
Feds my favorite player, but he's gotta beat Nadal. Nadal's hit him hard on grass and hardcourt. Federer has to show Nadal that he's still got it.

JeMar
03-03-2009, 06:27 PM
If Federer doesnít win at least 4 RG in a row, itís a shallow victory.

This.

(10 char)

Noveson
03-03-2009, 06:56 PM
Well even if Nadal played and was healthy, there's not guarantee that he would make the final either so you can't discount a victory because of that.

At Wimbledon (or the USO), if someone wins and did not play Fed, should that still count (with full credit given)? I think yes.

That's a good one. A healthy Nadal fresh off winning the Aussie Open not making the french open final? Psh.

Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, so no on that one. If Nadal won the US Open without Federer being in it(not merely not having to play him) I think it would definitely not count for as much.

Safinator_1
03-03-2009, 06:56 PM
Feds my favorite player, but he's gotta beat Nadal. Nadal's hit him hard on grass and hardcourt. Federer has to show Nadal that he's still got it.

Nadal didnt Fed but that much if anything it is right down the middle with Nadal just a little bit ahead in the long run of their 5 set matches except for FO (Thats obviously his clutch). If Fed does beat Nadal in the Final at the FO, i believe everyone will recongnise Fed as immortal probably GOAT.

But beating Nadal at FO is near impossible

Joseph L. Barrow
03-03-2009, 07:05 PM
Of course it would be used against Federer when discussing the accomplishment, but it isn't as though it's historically been a prerequisite to beat a prime Nadal in order to win a French Open or else it's worthless. Certainly it's well within the normal operation of tennis for the top guy at a tournament to end up pulling out or being upset or something at some stage in a five-year period, and if the next best guy can maintain his level of play so long and so consistently that he ensures himself the ability to seize the day when that happens, he deserves his prize.

THERAFA
03-03-2009, 07:27 PM
That's a good one. A healthy Nadal fresh off winning the Aussie Open not making the french open final? Psh.

Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, so no on that one. If Nadal won the US Open without Federer being in it(not merely not having to play him) I think it would definitely not count for as much.

I think if Rafa won US Open without Federer playing most of the public would say "he would have beaten Federer anyway cos he always does" whether that is true or:
Not

matchmaker
03-03-2009, 07:32 PM
Well, it would be a most embarrassing case, even for Fed. I think he would prefer to win it in a French Nadal participates to, but maybe without playing the final against Nadal. Nadal could be taken out by someone else.

If Nadal does not participate at all, it would cast a really big shadow on Fed's title, certainly now Nadal has been beating him even on other surfaces in GS finals and the H2H is looking more lopsided than ever.

Mkie7
03-03-2009, 07:48 PM
my grandma has 16 wheel chair... is she a freightliner?

You are too funny... I Like :)

Mkie7
03-03-2009, 07:52 PM
Well, it would be a most embarrassing case, even for Fed. I think he would prefer to win it in a French Nadal participates to, but maybe without playing the final against Nadal. Nadal could be taken out by someone else.

If Nadal does not participate at all, it would cast a really big shadow on Fed's title, certainly now Nadal has been beating him even on other surfaces in GS finals and the H2H is looking more lopsided than ever.

I don't think it matters... a win is a win. Why is Nadal the borometer for his achievements. All this analysis is only applicable to those people who don't like him anyway. So who cares.

Noveson
03-03-2009, 08:33 PM
I think if Rafa won US Open without Federer playing most of the public would say "he would have beaten Federer anyway cos he always does" whether that is true or:
Not

I don't think so. The US Open is a totally different story SO FAR. So far Nadal hasn't been near as good there as he has on other surfaces, even other hardcourts.

Noveson
03-03-2009, 08:35 PM
I don't think it matters... a win is a win. Why is Nadal the borometer for his achievements. All this analysis is only applicable to those people who don't like him anyway. So who cares.

Lots of people. I like Federer, quite a bit. Nadal is the barometer because he is the reason Federer doesn't have 3(4?) french open titles. I can't remember how many.

Mkie7
03-03-2009, 08:45 PM
Lots of people. I like Federer, quite a bit. Nadal is the barometer because he is the reason Federer doesn't have 3(4?) french open titles. I can't remember how many.

Thanks for stating the obvious., I would still argue that "lots of people" may feel that a win is still a win with or without Nadal in the picture. If Nadal does not make it to the finals or due to injury it would not be Fed's fault.

Winning a GS is about the whole field., and fitness. Not about if player A meets or beats player B. The one who survives deserve ALL the credit.

Blinkism
03-04-2009, 02:51 AM
It's a shallow victory to those the same people that would make up other excuses if Fed won the FO, even with Nadal in it (even in the final!)

However, if Federer's draw is weak, then it'll be fair to call it a shallow win.

I mean, if he's meeting Mardy Fish in the final, you might as well cancel the rest of the season!

Gorecki
03-04-2009, 03:07 AM
If Sport Billy win the FO because Nadal has Blisters? or is Tired? or has Mono? or is tired of having mono-blisters in his index and thumb fingers?

and if the Monkey wins the Eurovision Song Contest because Djokovic choked in his "I Will Survive Cover" and Fed is acused of having a copyed song of Jonny Logan! what would it be like?

ksbh
03-04-2009, 08:40 AM
It won't matter. Federer is too great a player to have an asterisk by his name simply because his chief rival didn't play. He's a 13-time slam champion, not some wild card that got lucky.

It'll be just as good a victory as one with Nadal in the draw.

Noveson
03-04-2009, 01:56 PM
Thanks for stating the obvious., I would still argue that "lots of people" may feel that a win is still a win with or without Nadal in the picture. If Nadal does not make it to the finals or due to injury it would not be Fed's fault.

Winning a GS is about the whole field., and fitness. Not about if player A meets or beats player B. The one who survives deserve ALL the credit.

I answered your question, which should have been obvious because lots of people are responding, therefore people care. Cool, make that argument. I am sure quite a few people feel that way.

Surviving the field is not the same when the player that is clearly dominant is not there. If Jordan wouldn't have been able to play in Game 6 of the 98 finals and the Jazz won would you still consider it a as much of an accomplishment?

Rickson
03-05-2009, 07:08 AM
A slam victory is a victory, regardless of who was on the other side of the net.