PDA

View Full Version : Federer's result at the French?


TennisLover17
04-16-2009, 05:06 PM
Today we witnessed Federer suffer an early 3rd round exit to his good friend, Stan. With this, I ask you, how will Federer do at this years French Open? Will his game keep him in through the Semis, and maybe even another final? Or will he fall earlier than planned?

Patrick_St
04-16-2009, 05:07 PM
I predict he will have a coach by the French Open, and I believe he will get to the finals. I will not make a prediction as to whether Nadal or Federer will win though.

Serendipitous
04-16-2009, 05:08 PM
If he doesn't meet Nadal, Murray, or Djokovic, he may win the whole thing. :)

TennisLover17
04-16-2009, 05:10 PM
If he doesn't meet Nadal, Murray, or Djokovic, he may win the whole thing. :)

Or Wawrinka for that matter. :p

Safinator_1
04-16-2009, 05:10 PM
predicting a SF showing, it was just one match im sure he will bounce and recover from this

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 05:22 PM
Quarters or semis. I dont think Fed makes the French Open final anymore.. I think those days are over. If Fed wants his final 2 slams I think the USO is his best chance

Bassus
04-16-2009, 05:32 PM
Yeah, it pains me to say it, but I think Federer is done at the French. I don't think he will be hapless there like Sampras became at the same age, but I don't think he'll ever get the chance to lose again to Nadal in the finals.

It's a shame, really because Federer should have won the FO at least once.

icedevil0289
04-16-2009, 05:33 PM
Quarters or semis. I dont think Fed makes the French Open final anymore.. I think those days are over. If Fed wants his final 2 slams I think the USO is his best chance

what about wimbledon? He plays some of his best tennis and even with his bad form last year he went on to the final not dropping a set and lost to nadal, who ofcourse is great grass court player. However, the final was really close.

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 05:35 PM
Yeah, it pains me to say it, but I think Federer is done at the French. I don't think he will be hapless there like Sampras became at the same age, but I don't think he'll ever get the chance to lose again to Nadal in the finals.

It's a shame, really because Federer should have won the FO at least once.


Well we Sampras fans think pete should have won one in 1996:). The bottom line is Sampras didnt and Fed hasnt either. Both blemishes to their resumes.

Serendipitous
04-16-2009, 05:35 PM
For the last 4 years no one has challenged Federer at the FO except Nadal.



This year there are more challengers......:twisted:

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 05:37 PM
what about wimbledon? He plays some of his best tennis and even with his bad form last year he went on to the final not dropping a set and lost to nadal, who ofcourse is great grass court player. However, the final was really close.

Yea maybe Wimbeldon. But I dunno since Nadal has came onto his own on that surface. I really feel had the rain not have fallen last year at wimbeldon, Fed may very well have been taken out in straight sets by Nadal or 4 sets at the very least. Fed was getting thumped by Nadal and was in a 2 set hole until the rain started.


I think Fed has shown to be at his best at the USO though. Its definitely his best surface IMO these days and where I think he does the most damage to other players. Not to mention Nadal cant reach the final there. I think for Fed to win his final 2 slams, it may have to be when Nadal is not who he meets in the final. I see a bigger chance of Fed getting upsetted at wimbeldon than I do seeing that happen at the USO at this point

icedevil0289
04-16-2009, 05:39 PM
Yea maybe Wimbeldon. But I dunno since Nadal has came onto his own on that surface. I really feel had the rain not have fallen last year at wimbeldon, Fed may very well have been taken out in straight sets by Nadal or 4 sets at the very least. Fed was getting thumped by Nadal and was in a 2 set hole until the rain started.


I think Fed has shown to be at his best at the USO though. Its definitely his best surface IMO these days and where I think he does the most damage to other players. Not to mention Nadal cant reach the final there. I think for Fed to win his final 2 slams, it may have to be when Nadal is not who he meets in the final

yeah you're right, fed has shown to be his best at the USO, but I don't think that will hold true if he meets nadal. I used to think surface had a factor, but nadal is just a horrible match up for fed regardless of surface.

VivalaVida
04-16-2009, 05:40 PM
Final. Once again Roger will step up his game for a Grand slam tournament. It wont be enough to beat Rafa IMO

Serendipitous
04-16-2009, 05:43 PM
Is it too late to add a poll? :cry:

Bassus
04-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Well we Sampras fans think pete should have won one in 1996:). The bottom line is Sampras didnt and Fed hasnt either. Both blemishes to their resumes.

Well, I'm a fan of both Sampras and Federer, so it was sad for me when both began their inevitable decline. I wish they had both won the French.

I agree that no French is a big blemish on both of their careers, but I think there is a big difference. Yes, Sampras was good enough to win the French. He definitely could have won it in 1996 (and he also looked good in 1994 going into the French after he won in Rome), but even so, the fact that he never did win it was not too surprising to me. Federer not winning it is. So the big difference is that Sampras could have won it, while Federer SHOULD have won it.

So I think it it is a bigger blemish on Federer's resume. He shouldn't have flamed out early in 2002 and 2003. He should have dug deeper in 2004 against Kuerten. And most importantly, he should have found a way to beat Nadal at least once in four tries.

egn
04-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Depends honestly I want to see how he does at Rome and Madrid. Lets see what level of clay court tennis is playing. I don't really hold this loss against Stan so hardly against him as this was his first clay court event of the year and he didn't even decide to play it until last minute. He did not get crushed either so I imagine with some warm up he will be better. So as of right now I am saying at least semifinals.

icedevil0289
04-16-2009, 05:49 PM
Depends honestly I want to see how he does at Rome and Madrid. Lets see what level of clay court tennis is playing. I don't really hold this loss against Stan so hardly against him as this was his first clay court event of the year and he didn't even decide to play it until last minute. He did not get crushed either so I imagine with some warm up he will be better. So as of right now I am saying at least semifinals.

he mentioned how he now knows where he stands and now can work on it. I mean he was fully aware that his serve and forehand competely abandoned him so that's the first step.

TennisLover17
04-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Is it too late to add a poll? :cry:

Sorry. I was in the middle of making one, but I decided to change the poll to make it have less options, but when I pressed back, I guess it already posted the thread :X

Cup8489
04-16-2009, 07:48 PM
he mentioned how he now knows where he stands and now can work on it. I mean he was fully aware that his serve and forehand competely abandoned him so that's the first step.

yeah. hopefully he can get those kinks ironed out.. i never thought i'd see a match where federer's backhand kept him competitive when his forehand and serve let him down..

what is the tennis world coming to lol.

edberg505
04-16-2009, 08:04 PM
Well, I'm a fan of both Sampras and Federer, so it was sad for me when both began their inevitable decline. I wish they had both won the French.

I agree that no French is a big blemish on both of their careers, but I think there is a big difference. Yes, Sampras was good enough to win the French. He definitely could have won it in 1996 (and he also looked good in 1994 going into the French after he won in Rome), but even so, the fact that he never did win it was not too surprising to me. Federer not winning it is. So the big difference is that Sampras could have won it, while Federer SHOULD have won it.

So I think it it is a bigger blemish on Federer's resume. He shouldn't have flamed out early in 2002 and 2003. He should have dug deeper in 2004 against Kuerten. And most importantly, he should have found a way to beat Nadal at least once in four tries.

What? A Federer and Sampras fan. That's blasphemous. I'm shocked to find a Sampras fan who isn't rooting for Nadal and Murray.

luckyboy1300
04-16-2009, 09:37 PM
What? A Federer and Sampras fan. That's blasphemous. I'm shocked to find a Sampras fan who isn't rooting for Nadal and Murray.

well a sampras FAN, maybe. but sampras TARDS? don't count on it.

iriraz
04-16-2009, 09:53 PM
It`s hard to say how Roland Garros goes for him at this point.Last year he didn`t have a good start to the claycourt season as well struggling to beat journeymen at estoril and had his troubles at Monte Carlo with Ramirez-Hidalgo.

P_Agony
04-16-2009, 10:12 PM
Or Wawrinka for that matter. :p

You really think Wawrinka can beat Federer in a slam? Berdych played his very best and couldn't. Neither did Andreev and Tipsy. Djoko and Murray couldn't at the US Open. Even if Federer plays as badly as yesterday, he'll probably outlast Wawrinka in a 5 set match.

herosol
04-16-2009, 10:12 PM
end of the federer era.
i love him. but it's slowly going to die out...

P_Agony
04-16-2009, 10:16 PM
Yea maybe Wimbeldon. But I dunno since Nadal has came onto his own on that surface. I really feel had the rain not have fallen last year at wimbeldon, Fed may very well have been taken out in straight sets by Nadal or 4 sets at the very least. Fed was getting thumped by Nadal and was in a 2 set hole until the rain started.


I think Fed has shown to be at his best at the USO though. Its definitely his best surface IMO these days and where I think he does the most damage to other players. Not to mention Nadal cant reach the final there. I think for Fed to win his final 2 slams, it may have to be when Nadal is not who he meets in the final. I see a bigger chance of Fed getting upsetted at wimbeldon than I do seeing that happen at the USO at this point

That could have gone either way. The first rain delay may have killed Nadal's momentum, but the 2nd rain delay perhaps killed Fed's. Remember, the 2nd rain delay came just when Federer started playing with more confidence after winning 2 sets, and Nadal was looking depressed a bit. I guess we'll never know.

Nadal_Freak
04-16-2009, 10:32 PM
That could have gone either way. The first rain delay may have killed Nadal's momentum, but the 2nd rain delay perhaps killed Fed's. Remember, the 2nd rain delay came just when Federer started playing with more confidence after winning 2 sets, and Nadal was looking depressed a bit. I guess we'll never know.
No rain delays would benefit Nadal the most. Rain made the courts lower bouncing. Nadal was probably in the best shape of his life in this match. He was ready for any conditions but the rain made it so much harder.

380pistol
04-16-2009, 10:38 PM
That could have gone either way. The first rain delay may have killed Nadal's momentum, but the 2nd rain delay perhaps killed Fed's. Remember, the 2nd rain delay came just when Federer started playing with more confidence after winning 2 sets, and Nadal was looking depressed a bit. I guess we'll never know.

The point he was making was if the 1st rain delay never occurred Fed may not have been around long enough for the 2nd one to slow his momentum.

P_Agony
04-16-2009, 10:53 PM
The point he was making was if the 1st rain delay never occurred Fed may not have been around long enough for the 2nd one to slow his momentum.

And the point I was making is may have or may not have, we'll never know. Rain delays can help but they can also have no effect at all (as evident by yesterday's Federer/Wawrinka match).

EtePras
04-16-2009, 10:57 PM
No rain delays would benefit Nadal the most. Rain made the courts lower bouncing. Nadal was probably in the best shape of his life in this match. He was ready for any conditions but the rain made it so much harder.

Nadal must be a very one-dimensional player. According to you 90% of conditions help his opponent more.

maximo
04-16-2009, 11:12 PM
Federer's going down the drain real fast...

Nadal_Freak
04-16-2009, 11:40 PM
Nadal must be a very one-dimensional player. According to you 90% of conditions help his opponent more.
Uhh how did you come to that assumption? I always say warm and dry conditions suit Nadal most. To the point nauseum actually. lol

shadows
04-17-2009, 12:01 AM
I still find it very hard to think that Roger won't step up to the task at RG. His interview was positive after his loss @ MC in an actual going off to get things done sort of way, acknowledging that he knows what he needs to work on and so on and he still seems to be able to time his prep. so he's playing good tennis come grandslams.

I've been toying with the idea that Federer was trying to change up a few things in MC as well, I thought it was noticeable early against Seppi that he hit less block returns than usual and in fact actually went after a couple of serves, against Stan he seemed to be opting to play even more aggressively than normal on quite a few points.

*shrug*

we'll see, I fancy him to make the SF if not better I think, Rome will be a better indicator.

fps
04-17-2009, 02:26 AM
Nadal must be a very one-dimensional player. According to you 90% of conditions help his opponent more.

hahahahahaha

zagor
04-17-2009, 02:42 AM
Well we Sampras fans think pete should have won one in 1996:). The bottom line is Sampras didnt and Fed hasnt either. Both blemishes to their resumes.

Slight difference is that Fed has 3 FO finals and one FO semi while Sampras has a single FO semi in which he got bageled by Kafelnikov and had early losses to Delgado,Schaller,Scud and similar at the FO while it took the best claycourter since Borg to stop Fed at the FO the last 3 years.In no way are their results on clay equal.Sampras's blemish on clay is way bigger than Fed's,even as a Sampras fan you can admit that.

On topic,I think FO semis this year,maybe even an earlier upset but I don't see him reaching the final this year(hoping he proves me wrong though).

Josherer
04-17-2009, 02:44 AM
Dunno.

Fed played horrible against Wav.

Hopefully he picks up his form.

All-rounder
04-17-2009, 04:36 AM
No rain delays would benefit Nadal the most. Rain made the courts lower bouncing. Nadal was probably in the best shape of his life in this match. He was ready for any conditions but the rain made it so much harder.
ummmm no the rain delay against gulbis on the 2nd round remember he was down a set then the rain delay came then he won it in 4 sets in the interview he even admitted that it benefited him

Underhand
04-17-2009, 04:54 AM
Donald Young will triple bagel Federer in the 1st round at RG.

Nadalfan89
04-17-2009, 05:34 AM
I don't think Federer cares about masters series events that much anymore. I wouldn't be surprised to see Federer's old self at FO this year despite his recent upsets. Don't forget that he's been to the final of the only GS this year...

veroniquem
04-17-2009, 05:37 AM
It`s hard to say how Roland Garros goes for him at this point.Last year he didn`t have a good start to the claycourt season as well struggling to beat journeymen at estoril and had his troubles at Monte Carlo with Ramirez-Hidalgo.
He wasn't struggling that much last year: he won Estoril and made the final of Monte-Carlo, big difference I would say.

cknobman
04-17-2009, 05:46 AM
I want Fed to do well but Im not counting on it.

Seriously he looks like he just dosnt really want it anymore.

deltox
04-17-2009, 05:47 AM
well, i personally dislike Roger, but i know deep down that a champion like roger federer, will step up bigger at bigger events like slams. i expect him to be in the semis at the very least

90% chance to make semis
50% chance to make finals
10% chance to win

matchmaker
04-17-2009, 08:11 AM
I really start to believe Roger should take some time off. Enjoy the birth of his son, his honeymoon, etc.

He doesn't believe himself he can win the FO, so why should anyone else...

I actually feel he is relieved sometimes when going out before he meets Nadal. He must be thinking: that avoids me another spanking.

ksbh
04-17-2009, 08:27 AM
Roger Federer will yet again reach the final of the French Open this year.

TennisLover17
04-17-2009, 12:14 PM
You really think Wawrinka can beat Federer in a slam? Berdych played his very best and couldn't. Neither did Andreev and Tipsy. Djoko and Murray couldn't at the US Open. Even if Federer plays as badly as yesterday, he'll probably outlast Wawrinka in a 5 set match.

Ehh. If Federer is going to have one of those days when his forehand is going all over the place, like against Novak, I don't see how he's going to last 5 sets against any player. Yeah Novak had to take 3 sets to beat him, but that last set was just horrendous. Keep that up and if that was to be a best of 5, Novak probably would've closed out the next set easily.

jman
04-17-2009, 02:41 PM
Similar situation when he lost 2nd and 3rd round last year at Toronto & Cincy, then he rolled on through to the U.S title. As others have said, he steps it up big time at the slams.
On another note, I actually think it would be wise of Federer to avoid Nadal until the French Open. Last year he lost to him in Monte Carlo 5-7, 5-7, then he lost to him in Hamburg in a tight 3 setter. In both these matches, he was in the lead, and had a chance to win. Then at the french he was whipped so badly, it was embarrasing. I just think if Federer concentrates on getting solid results at the clay masters and avoids Nadal until the French, he will have a big chance winning it. He would've won it if he avoided Nadal in 06' and 07' clay masters. Hopefully he can get some solid results in Rome and Madrid.

Bassus
04-17-2009, 06:40 PM
What? A Federer and Sampras fan. That's blasphemous. I'm shocked to find a Sampras fan who isn't rooting for Nadal and Murray.


Sampras was my favorite when he played. Once he left the stage, Federer became my favorite. Even though I was pulling for Sampras in their one and only match against each other, I became something of a Federer fan watching that match...even though it would be a couple of years after that before Federer learned how to use his prodigious talent to actually win.

The best tennis I've ever seen has come from these two players. When they had their A+ game, it was on a different level than anyone else.

Bassus
04-17-2009, 06:58 PM
Slight difference is that Fed has 3 FO finals and one FO semi while Sampras has a single FO semi in which he got bageled by Kafelnikov and had early losses to Delgado,Schaller,Scud and similar at the FO while it took the best claycourter since Borg to stop Fed at the FO the last 3 years.In no way are their results on clay equal.Sampras's blemish on clay is way bigger than Fed's,even as a Sampras fan you can admit that.

On topic,I think FO semis this year,maybe even an earlier upset but I don't see him reaching the final this year(hoping he proves me wrong though).

No, no, no. You've got the points right, but the conclusion is all wrong.

Sampras was good on clay, but not great. Clay definitely knocked Sampras down a level vs the field and made him vulnerable to guys who were not a threat to him on other surfaces. He only had one serious run at a FO title. With a little luck he might have won it, but that he didn't win it was not all that surprising.

Federer has been great on clay. He grew up on it, and has no issues moving on it like so many American players. His first big title came on clay in Hamburg, and his first break through at a major was the 2001 French when he made the quarterfinals. He has been the second-best player on clay for the past four or five years. The only thing has kept Federer from completely dominating tennis has been Nadal. If not for Nadal, Federer would likely have 4 FO titles, a Rome title, 3 Monte Carlo and 4 Hamburg titles.

And while there is no shame in losing to who will go down as the greatest ever on clay, the shame is that Federer could have beaten him in several of those matches. A player of Federer's awesome, unparalled talent and ability SHOULD have found a way to beat Nadal at least once in four tries at the FO.

Sampras not winning the French was disappointing but not surprising. Federer not winning it is a failure to achieve his full potential and a failure to capitalize on many opportunities. So yeah, you're right in saying that Federer's achievement and results on clay dwarf those of Sampras, but the blemish of no FO is greater for Federer because he SHOULD have won it at least once, if not more.

World Beater
04-17-2009, 11:37 PM
federer may not make the final this year.

his results at rg are closely correlate with his MC results.

miyagi
04-18-2009, 12:55 AM
No, no, no. You've got the points right, but the conclusion is all wrong.

Sampras was good on clay, but not great. Clay definitely knocked Sampras down a level vs the field and made him vulnerable to guys who were not a threat to him on other surfaces. He only had one serious run at a FO title. With a little luck he might have won it, but that he didn't win it was not all that surprising.

Federer has been great on clay. He grew up on it, and has no issues moving on it like so many American players. His first big title came on clay in Hamburg, and his first break through at a major was the 2001 French when he made the quarterfinals. He has been the second-best player on clay for the past four or five years. The only thing has kept Federer from completely dominating tennis has been Nadal. If not for Nadal, Federer would likely have 4 FO titles, a Rome title, 3 Monte Carlo and 4 Hamburg titles.

And while there is no shame in losing to who will go down as the greatest ever on clay, the shame is that Federer could have beaten him in several of those matches. A player of Federer's awesome, unparalled talent and ability SHOULD have found a way to beat Nadal at least once in four tries at the FO.

Sampras not winning the French was disappointing but not surprising. Federer not winning it is a failure to achieve his full potential and a failure to capitalize on many opportunities. So yeah, you're right in saying that Federer's achievement and results on clay dwarf those of Sampras, but the blemish of no FO is greater for Federer because he SHOULD have won it at least once, if not more.

Agreed. 10 chars

World Beater
04-18-2009, 09:57 AM
No, no, no. You've got the points right, but the conclusion is all wrong.

Sampras was good on clay, but not great. Clay definitely knocked Sampras down a level vs the field and made him vulnerable to guys who were not a threat to him on other surfaces. He only had one serious run at a FO title. With a little luck he might have won it, but that he didn't win it was not all that surprising.

Federer has been great on clay. He grew up on it, and has no issues moving on it like so many American players. His first big title came on clay in Hamburg, and his first break through at a major was the 2001 French when he made the quarterfinals. He has been the second-best player on clay for the past four or five years. The only thing has kept Federer from completely dominating tennis has been Nadal. If not for Nadal, Federer would likely have 4 FO titles, a Rome title, 3 Monte Carlo and 4 Hamburg titles.

And while there is no shame in losing to who will go down as the greatest ever on clay, the shame is that Federer could have beaten him in several of those matches. A player of Federer's awesome, unparalled talent and ability SHOULD have found a way to beat Nadal at least once in four tries at the FO.

Sampras not winning the French was disappointing but not surprising. Federer not winning it is a failure to achieve his full potential and a failure to capitalize on many opportunities. So yeah, you're right in saying that Federer's achievement and results on clay dwarf those of Sampras, but the blemish of no FO is greater for Federer because he SHOULD have won it at least once, if not more.

yeah...federer should have at least notched a couple of more wins on clay...i agree. RG 06, 07 he had a few chances.