PDA

View Full Version : Ironically if Federer were a poorer clay court player his record would look better


timnz
05-09-2009, 10:40 PM
Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

danb
05-09-2009, 10:45 PM
If Pete was good enough to be #2 on clay he would have found a way to eventually win RG.
That would have made him even greater.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 10:46 PM
Yes so by being good on clay some automatically count him out of GOAT discussions :confused:. Just pathetic that people just point at the H2H against the greatest clay-courter of all time but they forget if you take away the clay, Fed leads.

danb
05-09-2009, 10:46 PM
Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

That would have not happened to Pete. He had balls and he would go the extra mile...

grafrules
05-09-2009, 10:47 PM
if you take away the clay, Fed leads.

If you take away clay Federer leads 5-4
If you take away indoor courts Nadal leads 13-4

See how it works when you go both ways. Lets say they never played a match on clay. Nadal fans could still rightly say (by this same logic that is) if you take away indoor courts Nadal leads 4-3. However they would probably be called whiners and excuse makers by the same Federer fanatics who try to use the non-clay head to head.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 10:49 PM
That would not have not happened to Pete. He had balls and he would go the extra mile... Not against Nadal. He doesn't have the game no matter how you improved it on clay.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 10:51 PM
That would have not happened to Pete. He had balls and he would go the extra mile...

Pete would never beat Nadal on clay. However he also would do better than the 3-4 Federer has amassed vs Nadal on outdoor non-clay courts, atleast half of those matches vs a pre-prime teenaged Nadal.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 10:52 PM
If you take away clay Federer leads 5-4
If you take away indoor courts Nadal leads 13-4

See how it works when you go both ways. Hmm they meet 2 times on indoors and 10 times on clay and you think that it is fair to take a surface away they have only met twice on. If they had met more times on it then perhaps you would have a relevent point. Hmm...

danb
05-09-2009, 10:53 PM
Not against Nadal. He doesn't have the game no matter how you improved it on clay.

Well, who really knows? Too many ifs...
Fed had his chances. I felt at some point it was a matter of balls not skills but I may be wrong. What I was trying to say is that IF Pete had Fed's skills on clay he would have had the balls to win.
Too many people make it sound like Fed lost (only) due to skills. It was a combination of skill/nerve. My 2c.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 10:54 PM
Hmm they meet 2 times on indoors and 10 times on clay and you think that it is fair to take a surface away they have only met twice on. If they had met more times on it then perhaps you would have a relevent point. Hmm...

There are not nearly as many indoor events as clay court events these days so of course they dont meet as often indoors. How is it not fair to remove Nadal's worst surface if we are removing Nadal's best surface though, regardless the # of matches played on it. You dont dispute indoors is by far Nadal's worst surface do you? Far worse than any type of outdoor hard court or the current grass.

danb
05-09-2009, 10:55 PM
Why do all the threads become FED vs NADAL after 10 postings? WTF???

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 10:55 PM
Well, who really knows? Too many ifs...
Fed had his chances. I felt at some point it was a matter of balls not skills but I may be wrong. What I was trying to say is that IF Pete had Fed's skills on clay he would have had the balls to win.
Too many people make it sound like Fed lost (only) due to skills. It was a combination of skill/nerve. My 2c. Too many ifs lol. What if Fed had Petes mental strength? He would of won a FO.

danb
05-09-2009, 10:56 PM
Too many ifs lol. What if Fed had Petes mental strength? He would of won a FO.

Exactly what I was trying to say, correct? It was mental to some (most) degree.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 10:58 PM
Well, who really knows? Too many ifs...
Fed had his chances. I felt at some point it was a matter of balls not skills but I may be wrong. What I was trying to say is that IF Pete had Fed's skills on clay he would have had the balls to win.
Too many people make it sound like Fed lost (only) due to skills. It was a combination of skill/nerve. My 2c.

This is true. Nadal is better than Federer on clay game-wise but from 2005-2007 he actually wasnt that much better, not nearly as much as people are making it out to be. Federer was a darn good clay courter those years, and Nadal has taken off to another level both on clay and overall since mid 2007 of course. Looking at some of the matches Federer definitely had his chances of winning, including their French Open matches. Blown break chances, losing his confidence and throwing in duck serve games after failures to break, leads in sets. It is not just Nadal's greatness on clay which is indisputable but Federer's weak mental game vs a tough rival like Nadal as well which determined the outcomes. Federer has to take certain blame for that. Even last years Hamburg and Monte Carlo matches some of this took place. The French Open of course he was just slammed, you just say Nadal was way too good there. However there are many times Federer has failed mentally in the big moment vs Nadal on clay.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 10:58 PM
There are not nearly as many indoor events as clay court events these days so of course they dont meet as often indoors. How is it not fair to remove Nadal's worst surface if we are removing Nadal's best surface though, regardless the # of matches played on it. You dont dispute indoors is by far Nadal's worst surface do you? Far worse than any type of outdoor hard court or the current grass. Your logic is very poor. There is not as many grass events as there is clay events either so there H2H would look alot different if there was. Fed would lead or it would at the very least be very close.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 10:59 PM
Too many ifs lol. What if Fed had Petes mental strength? He would of won a FO.

You are right. This is a knock against Federer in GOAT discussions though more than something in his favor. He doesnt have the mental game to stand up to tough rivals in the big moments neeeded to be the all time GOAT.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:00 PM
Exactly what I was trying to say, correct? It was mental to some (most) degree. Yeah of course but my point was you are saying what if Pete had Fed's skills and so I said what if Fed had Pete's mental skills.

danb
05-09-2009, 11:00 PM
This is true. Nadal is better than Federer on clay game-wise but from 2005-2007 he actually wasnt that much better, not nearly as much as people are making it out to be. Federer was a darn good clay courter those years, and Nadal has taken off to another level both on clay and overall since mid 2007 of course. Looking at some of the matches Federer definitely had his chances of winning, including their French Open matches. Blown break chances, losing his confidence and throwing in duck serve games after failures to break, leads in sets. It is not just Nadal's greatness on clay which is indisputable but Federer's weak mental game vs a tough rival like Nadal as well which determined the outcomes. Federer has to take certain blame for that. Even last years Hamburg and Monte Carlo matches some of this took place. The French Open of course he was just slammed, you just say Nadal was way too good there. However there are many times Federer has failed mentally in the big moment vs Nadal on clay.


I buy most of this. So - you agree that Fed had his chances in 2005 and 2006.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 11:01 PM
Your logic is very poor. There is not as many grass events as there is clay events either so there H2H would look alot different if there was. Fed would lead or it would at the very least be very close.

I disagree. Nadal wasnt good enough on grass to be making finals regularly until 2007, despite his surprise 2006 final of Wimbledon. In 2007 Federer barely got past Nadal at Wimbledon. In 2008 Nadal barely got past Federer. However the 2008 match could have been over for Nadal alot sooner. Nadal probably would have atleast half their meetings on grass and atleast mantained the head to head edge.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:01 PM
You are right. This is a knock against Federer in GOAT discussions though more than something in his favor. He doesnt have the mental game to stand up to tough rivals in the big moments neeeded to be the all time GOAT. Well he might not have the mental talent but no one else has the same skill talent as him.

danb
05-09-2009, 11:02 PM
---------------------------------------

grafrules
05-09-2009, 11:03 PM
I buy most of this. So - you agree that Fed had his chances in 2005 and 2006.

Yes, I would agree with that completely.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:04 PM
I disagree. Nadal wasnt good enough on grass to be making finals regularly until 2007, despite his surprise 2006 final of Wimbledon. In 2007 Federer barely got past Nadal at Wimbledon. In 2008 Nadal barely got past Federer. However the 2008 match could have been over for Nadal alot sooner. Nadal probably would have atleast half their meetings on grass and atleast mantained the head to head edge. So you agree that Fed's good play on clay has actually harmed him as he has met Nadal too many times on clay and not enough times on hard, indoor and grass because Nadal was not good enough to reach finals there?

danb
05-09-2009, 11:05 PM
You are right. This is a knock against Federer in GOAT discussions though more than something in his favor. He doesnt have the mental game to stand up to tough rivals in the big moments neeeded to be the all time GOAT.

Personally I agree with this BUT you will get flamed for this statement.:twisted::twisted::twisted:

380pistol
05-09-2009, 11:07 PM
Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

And the insecurites become more and more apparent. First it was Nadal can only beat Fed on clay. The he beat him at Wimbledon and in Australia, and leads their outdoor HC 3-1. But I guess Federphiles must grasp onto what ever they can.

What if in Sampras' best runs at Rg he got Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez in QF (who Roger got in his 4 best years at RG), instead of Agassi, Bruguera and Courier (twice)??? All of a sudden Pete's clay record looks a whole lot better. But why don't we take it a step further.....

What if Sampras got Monfils in SF (like Federer) instead of Kafelnikov??? And while were at it......

What if Sampras got to play his 1994 French Open in Roger's 2004 French Open... you know the one where Federer was destructed 4,4 and 4 by Bo Jackson hipped Guga?? I mean Tim Henman who had 5-6 record at RG up to 2003 was in the SF, where other SFists were Coria and Gaudio???? Hhhhhhmmmmmm......................

danb
05-09-2009, 11:07 PM
So you agree that Fed's good play on clay has actually harmed him as he has met Nadal too many times on clay and not enough times on hard, indoor and grass because Nadal was not good enough to reach finals there?

What heart him were the loses on clay - he should have won some more of those and keep it close on clay. He should have won RG 2005 - that started it all. Fed was proven as (mentally) weak against Nadal.

JoshDragon
05-09-2009, 11:09 PM
Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

But this also prevents Pete from being the GOAT. Because he was so bad on clay.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:10 PM
What heart him were the loses on clay - he should have won some more of those and keep it close on clay. He should have won RG 2005 - that started it all. Fed was proven as (mentally) weak against Nadal. So you agree Fed being a good clay-courter has hurt him?

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:12 PM
And the insecurites become more and more apparent. First it was Nadal can only beat Fed on clay. The he beat him at Wimbledon and in Australia, and leads their outdoor HC 3-1. But I guess Federphiles must grasp onto what ever they can.

What if in Sampras' best runs at Rg he got Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez in QF (who Roger got in his 4 best years at RG), instead of Agassi, Bruguera and Courier (twice)??? All of a sudden Pete's clay record looks a whole lot better. But why don't we take it a step further.....

What if Sampras got Monfils in SF (like Federer) instead of Kafelnikov??? And while were at it......

What if Sampras got to play his 1994 French Open in Roger's 2004 French Open... you know the one where Federer was destructed 4,4 and 4 by Bo Jackson hipped Guga?? I mean Tim Henman who had 5-6 record at RG up to 2003 was in the SF, where other SFists were Coria and Gaudio???? Hhhhhhmmmmmm...................... This is a discussion about players who were good on clay not players who made a circus out of their clay court play.

danb
05-09-2009, 11:12 PM
So you agree Fed being a good clay-courter has hurt him?

Fed wasn't a good clay court player - he was excellent.
What hurt him was his inability to step it 1 inch higher - that step that makes the difference between GOAT and #2.
And the problem was in his head - not exactly an excuse for somebody trying to be GOAT.

Nadal_Freak
05-09-2009, 11:14 PM
If Fed wasn't as good on clay, he would be even worse at handling high balls. A big thing on clay is handling the higher bounce. This signifies a weakness that Nadal could take advantage of on hard courts even more than he does now.

LurkingGod
05-09-2009, 11:19 PM
If Pete was good enough to be #2 on clay he would have found a way to eventually win RG.
That would have made him even greater.

True. I can't imagine someone like Pete would reach 3 finals without winning one. But he wasn't so it didn't happen and I can live with that.

But since the OP seems so keen on the 'IF' game I'll just play along. If Pete hadn't had back injury right before USO '99 he'd have won that tournament and had 15 slams and extended his year-end no.1 to 7 years in a row and Fed'd have no reason to cry at this year AO.:oops:

Not to mention Nadal was yet to hit his prime until 2008 so it's understandable that he didn't reach that many HC finals before then.

380pistol
05-09-2009, 11:22 PM
This is a discussion about players who were good on clay not players who made a circus out of their clay court play.

Well on player played French Open champs (Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Kafelnikov), and the other played those circus clowns (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo, Gonzalez etc.).

I'll let you figure out who's who.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:24 PM
True. I can't imagine someone like Pete would reach 3 finals without winning one. But he wasn't so it didn't happen and I can live with that.

But since the OP seems so keen on the 'IF' game I'll just play along. If Pete hadn't had back injury right before USO '99 he'd have won that tournament and had 15 slams and extended his year-end no.1 to 7 years in a row and Fed'd have no reason to cry at this year AO.:oops: Well if Fed didn't have mono....

Fed wasn't a good clay court player - he was excellent.
What hurt him was his inability to step it 1 inch higher - that step that makes the difference between GOAT and #2.
And the problem was in his head - not exactly an excuse for somebody trying to be GOAT.

Fed wasn't always a headcase infact against every other player except Nadal he is mentally fine. (Historically) Also you don't get to 13 GS and be poor mentally.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 11:26 PM
Well on player played French Open champs (Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Kafelnikov), and the other played those circus clowns (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo, Gonzalez etc.).

I'll let you figure out who's who. You forgot to put Sampras in the second bracket of circus clowns. Considering Nadal would destory all the French Open champs you named how does that make Fed's job of winning the FO easier? :-?

380pistol
05-09-2009, 11:33 PM
You forgot to put Sampras in the second bracket of circus clowns. Considering Nadal would destory all the French Open champs you named how does that make Fed's job of winning the FO easier? :-?

We are talking about Federer so you hide up under Nadal, Typical. Do you want the list of all the players Fed has beaten to see Nadal at RG??

In their best 4 runs at Roland Garros Sampras would get to the QF and see Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, then Courier (the Kafelnikov in SF's). Roger saw Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez (then Monfils in SF). Considering Bo Jackson hipped Guga, Nalbandian (down 6-3,3-0 before David got hurt) and his struggles with Monfils what do you think happens if he has to walk in Pete's shoes.

And seeing that Pete has beaten Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov and Courier on clay, and Henman at 30 with his 5-6 record in Paris coming in got to the SF, what do you think Pete could do walking in Roger's shoes???

And please, remove your head from Roger's *** before answering.

dtrain
05-09-2009, 11:37 PM
Yes so by being good on clay some automatically count him out of GOAT discussions :confused:. Just pathetic that people just point at the H2H against the greatest clay-courter of all time but they forget if you take away the clay, Fed leads.

Nadal was able to dethrone Federer on his best surface. I do believe his H2H vs Nadal does count, no matter how skewed it is on clay. If you have a discussion about GOAT you have to count H2H. I don't believe there is such a thing as GOAT, Rod Laver even said he doesn't believe in a GOAT, but there is a greatest of your era and for 4 1/2 years Roger was the best.

Josherer
05-09-2009, 11:40 PM
Agree with OP

LurkingGod
05-09-2009, 11:47 PM
Well if Fed didn't have mono....

If Pete didn't have that blood condition that ruined his stamina...

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 11:57 PM
You forgot to put Sampras in the second bracket of circus clowns. Considering Nadal would destory all the French Open champs you named how does that make Fed's job of winning the FO easier? :-?

LOL good point. who's to say that agassi, bruguera, kafelnikov, etc could win RGs when nadal is around. for all we know federer could have made them look like clowns on clay too.

***********s are really experts of the weak era theory, since it's all they have, and they'll defend that to the death to make their hero look good. pathetic.

face it. pete's record on clay is pathetic no matter how one flowers it with the players he beat.

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 12:12 AM
No no no, that's too simplistic. His record would look just as Bad.

If Fed was worse on clay in this era it would mean he'd also be a considerably worse player in general on hard courtsso Fed's h2h would be worse on HC and the overall h2h would still be dismal v Rafa(and others). This is because a very similar style is required to win on clay and hard courts today with the equipment used and the less polarized playing conditions compared to that of Sampras' era.

Notice how the top 4 hard court players on the atp and the top 4 clay court players are almost the same today?

Fed blew his clay chances in his First 5 or 6 Roland Garros attempts when Rafa wasn't around .:shock:






Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

Blinkism
05-10-2009, 12:54 AM
Federer only leads their H2H on grass, 2-1.

Otherwise their hard-court h2h is tied at 3-3.

So Federer would lead 5-4, but we'd have to consider the fact that they'd probably play at least ONCE on clay. And if Federer was a poorer clay courter, he'd lose that match for sure and the h2h would be 5-5.

So even in a hypothetical world, Federer could only be better than Nadal if they NEVER met on clay. And even then he is only slightly better than Nadal.

And people would still say things like "Federer's record is only so even because he never had to play the king of clay on clay, otherwise his record would be something like 13-6!!!!"

Also, Federer's push into the limelight and the kick that started his career was his first Master's shield in Hamburg, on CLAY, and his first big run in a Grand Slam was the Quarter-finals at Roland Garros, on CLAY.

If he wasn't a good clay courter, who knows what his career would have been? He might have not been so dominant and achieved as much, and then who knows where Nadal would have been? Maybe he'd have 2 more Wimbledon titles under his belt. And another Hamburg titles + a Miami title. And maybe 2 Master's Cups.

Speculation gets you nowhere in debate, really.

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 03:19 AM
This is because a[B] very similar style is required to win on clay and hard courts today with the equipment used and the less polarized playing conditions compared to that of Sampras' era.

Notice how the top 4 hard court players on the atp and the top 4 clay court players are almost the same today?



http://www.tennisgear.ws/wp-cache/Andy-Roddick-2003-US-Open.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42940000/jpg/_42940803_roddick_getty_416.jpg

:confused:

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 03:22 AM
When Fed was prime, he owned Nadal on non clay surfaces

5-2

in 2008 he dropped off

the H2H means nothing, because Nadal has only made strong runs at the US open and the AO AFTER Roger has declined

If Nadal had got to the AO or US OPEN final in 2004-2006 then Federer (and Safin) would have owned him

Nadal's game on non clay surfaces isn't that good

LurkingGod
05-10-2009, 03:37 AM
When Fed was prime, he owned Nadal on non clay surfaces

5-2

in 2008 he dropped off

the H2H means nothing, because Nadal has only made strong runs at the US open and the AO AFTER Roger has declined

If Nadal had got to the AO or US OPEN final in 2004-2006 then Federer (and Safin) would have owned him

Nadal's game on non clay surfaces isn't that good

The same arguement can go both way.

I can also say when Nadal is in his prime (2008 - present) he's beaten Fed on every surface and never lost to Fed even once. Fed couldn't do the same to Nadal when Fed was in his prime and Nadal wasn't. In fact prime Fed lost to Nadal when he was nobody the first time they met on HC and almost lost the second time in a row a year later.

aphex
05-10-2009, 04:00 AM
And the insecurites become more and more apparent. First it was Nadal can only beat Fed on clay. The he beat him at Wimbledon and in Australia, and leads their outdoor HC 3-1. But I guess Federphiles must grasp onto what ever they can.

What if in Sampras' best runs at Rg he got Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez in QF (who Roger got in his 4 best years at RG), instead of Agassi, Bruguera and Courier (twice)??? All of a sudden Pete's clay record looks a whole lot better. But why don't we take it a step further.....

What if Sampras got Monfils in SF (like Federer) instead of Kafelnikov??? And while were at it......

What if Sampras got to play his 1994 French Open in Roger's 2004 French Open... you know the one where Federer was destructed 4,4 and 4 by Bo Jackson hipped Guga?? I mean Tim Henman who had 5-6 record at RG up to 2003 was in the SF, where other SFists were Coria and Gaudio???? Hhhhhhmmmmmm......................

this stopped being funny about the 3000th time you wrote it...come up with something new.

aphex
05-10-2009, 04:12 AM
its not federer's fault sampras was a joke on clay--he had a very specific skill set.
(as toni nadal said he is 2nd tier goat status).

conversely, federer is such a complete talent, he does well on any surface.