PDA

View Full Version : Will Fed ever win the French?


The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 08:58 AM
I had to repost because the censors moved the original. Anyway, I think this was Rogers best chance ever. Roger really blew it, he will never win the French. What do you think?

HyperHorse
06-12-2006, 09:03 AM
and i hope its deleted again.

malakas
06-12-2006, 09:08 AM
Oh..You mean they deleted the thread " Has this board changed its mind,Federer will never win the French" ???

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 09:09 AM
I am a big Federer fan but no, he wont ever win the French. Just like Rafael will never win Wimbledon. It will take awhile before another man wins the career Grand Slam, since it wont come from the current crop.

norcal
06-12-2006, 09:12 AM
Not if Nadal is in top form, no. If Nadal is out injured then yes, he can definitely win it.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2006, 09:20 AM
I'm sure there will be a better group of claycourters in the future so it won't be any easier next year, regardless of Nadal.
The depth of claycourt tennis was pretty weak this year. I don't think Fed could have reached the finals in years past. Guga, Muster, Bruguera had to play a lot more dangerous claycourters to get to the finals than Fed(or Nadal for that matter) did this year. I mean, Ancic was his QF opponent?

David L
06-12-2006, 09:44 AM
I had to repost because the censors moved the original. Anyway, I think this was Rogers best chance ever. Roger really blew it, he will never win the French. What do you think?

I don't tend to use the word never, unless something is logically impossible. If something is not likely, I will say that it is not likely. If it is 50/50, I will say so. In the case of Federer winning the French, I would have to be clairvoyant to say never. Federer has been the second best clay court player this season, only losing to Nadal, most recently in the final of the French. In the history of the French Open, there have been less illustrious candidates who have succeeded, as well as favourites who have failed. Only the future will tell if Federer succeeds at the French, but if he remains motivated and harbours the ambition to win in Paris, then I think there is a real possibility he could do it. He got so close this time, he is 24(Agassi won the French at 29), there will be many opportunities for him to make the career Grand Slam, provided he is healthy and motivated. He can continue to improve and get stronger mentally, technically and physically. He definitely has the capacity to do it and I would pick him as second favourite to do it next year, which are quite good odds.

Check out my post on this page. I think it has some relevance regarding what people consider to be certainties.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=104166&page=2

highsierra
06-12-2006, 09:56 AM
He has a better chance winning FO than Nadal winning Wimbledon, as it stands NOW. He has 6 more real chances (until he's 30), and Nadal has 10 tries (again till he's 30). Right now Fed is further ahead on clay than Nadal on grass. The problem is, it's gonna get harder for Fed as more players start figuring him out, and there are other pormising young clay courters on the horizon, like Almagro, Djokovic, whereas these past two years it's pretty much just Nadal (as the older champs Gaudio, Coria, etc faded quickly).

I think Nadal is going to improve rapidly on grass too (just like Fed did on clay). Whoever were doing the game on NBC commented that Nadal flatted out some of his shots (which he almost never did before). Given that most players today are baseliners, Nadal is not at a clear disadvantage anyway. He went out in the 2nd round at Wimby last year, let's see if he can improve to, say, reach the 4th round this year.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 09:58 AM
I'm sure there will be a better group of claycourters in the future so it won't be any easier next year, regardless of Nadal.
The depth of claycourt tennis was pretty weak this year. I don't think Fed could have reached the finals in years past. Guga, Muster, Bruguera had to play a lot more dangerous claycourters to get to the finals than Fed(or Nadal for that matter) did this year. I mean, Ancic was his QF opponent?

I dont agree at all. If Medvedev could reach a French Open final, if a clearly-past-his-prime Costa could win a French Open, if Norman could reach a French Open final, if Verkerk could be runner up in a French Open, if Kafelnikov could win a French Open, if Stich could reach a French Open final, then Federer could certainly be in a French Open final during that period of time, possably even winning it. All of that happened between 96-2003He is every bit as good, or better then any of those players on clay.

Tchocky
06-12-2006, 10:04 AM
I think everyone would agree that Fed will never win as long as he has to face Nadal.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 10:04 AM
He has a better chance winning FO than Nadal winning Wimbledon, as it stands NOW. He has 6 more real chances (until he's 30), and Nadal has 10 tries (again till he's 30). Right now Fed is further ahead on clay than Nadal on grass. The problem is, it's gonna get harder for Fed as more players start figuring him out, and there are other pormising young clay courters on the horizon, like Almagro, Djokovic, whereas these past two years it's pretty much just Nadal (as the older champs Gaudio, Coria, etc faded quickly).

I think Nadal is going to improve rapidly on grass too (just like Fed did on clay). Whoever were doing the game on NBC commented that Nadal flatted out some of his shots (which he almost never did before). Given that most players today are baseliners, Nadal is not at a clear disadvantage anyway. He went out in the 2nd round at Wimby last year, let's see if he can improve to, say, reach the 4th round this year.

Fors starters there is no way Nadal will be a contender on the mens tour until he is 30, no chance that happens with his game style, and playing so many matches since he was 18. Until he is 25 or 26, so probably 6 more chances, the same as Federer at the French. I would bet $100 that Nadal will be out of the top 6 in the rankings by the end of the year he turns 26(2012).

I also disagree about you on Nadal improving rapidly on the grass. His game is just not grass friendly at all. He would have to change the whole structure of his game. His backswings are too long, he is comfortable playing too far behind the baseline, his serve does not win enough free points, and he isnt able to be finishing enough points at the net, and he isnt even comfortable with the footing on the grass. The whole structure of his game would have to change on grass, just improving some parts of his game would not be enough. There are players Nadal's own age who would beat him on grass if he played them today-Murray, Berdych, Gasquet, would probably all have beaten Nadal at Wimbledon if they played him last year. As you can tell by where Nadal is on clay and hard courts now compared to those guys, those guys have matured their games far less and have more improvement ahead of them then Nadal does, since even if Nadal is always favored over them on non-grass surfaces there is no way the gap would still as big as it is now. Yet even with more improvement left they are all already better then him on grass slightly.


So as hard as it will be for Federer to win the French, Federer will still always have a better chance of winning the French, then Nadal at Wimbledon, not just right now, but in their entire careers. It would take a miracle for Nadal to ever win Wimbledon.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2006, 10:39 AM
I dont agree at all. If Medvedev could reach a French Open final, if a clearly-past-his-prime Costa could win a French Open, if Norman could reach a French Open final, if Verkerk could be runner up in a French Open, if Kafelnikov could win a French Open, if Stich could reach a French Open final, then Federer could certainly be in a French Open final during that period of time, possably even winning it. All of that happened between 96-2003He is every bit as good, or better then any of those players on clay.

In your recent posts, you said that you thought that this was a weaker FO field than in past. Did you change your mind?

Also you should compare draws, not players. Medvedev beat Kuerten to get to his '99 final, Costa beat Kuerten, Corretja, Ferrero to get to win in '02. Stich had to beat Muster to get to the final. Was a bit tougher than beating Berdych, Ancic, & a retirement from Nalbandian, IMO.

jstr
06-12-2006, 10:41 AM
Time is on his side ... He's got a few years left to try. Borg attempted and lost the finals in the US Open 4 times over 5 years and retired. Agassi attemped the French 3 times and won the 3rd time .. There's no way of telling, alot of it is probably perserverance and luck for these "greats"...

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-12-2006, 10:50 AM
he'll win the french, next year

David L
06-12-2006, 10:55 AM
I think everyone would agree that Fed will never win as long as he has to face Nadal.

No, you see, I don't believe this. Nadal has to be the favourite on clay, but it is still possible for Federer and many others to beat him. Who knows what might have happened had Federer not netted the easy forehand volley at 0-1 in the 2nd set.

When it comes to human beings and all the frailties that come with that, nothing is certain. Football teams win against the run of play all the time.

127mph
06-12-2006, 11:05 AM
there is no justice in this world. first phoenix lost to dallas then nadal beats federer. there is no justice.

David L
06-12-2006, 11:30 AM
In your recent posts, you said that you thought that this was a weaker FO field than in past. Did you change your mind?

Also you should compare draws, not players. Medvedev beat Kuerten to get to his '99 final, Costa beat Kuerten, Corretja, Ferrero to get to win in '02. Stich had to beat Muster to get to the final. Was a bit tougher than beating Berdych, Ancic, & a retirement from Nalbandian, IMO.

Yes, but Federer has beaten Kuerten, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Gaudio(has never beaten Federer on clay or any other surface), Coria(the same), Robredo(the same), Chela(the same), Ferrer(the same), Gonzalez(the same), Moya(the same) Verdasco(the same), Almagro(the same) on clay. The list goes on. He did not have to deal with any seasoned claycourters in this years French, but his past record demonstrates that he is capable of dispatching them quite comfortably. His record against claycourters, on clay, is oustanding. Having said this, Ancic was no picnic on clay this year either, he beat Robredo.

The point is, if Stich and Kafelnikov were capable of getting to the final or even winning the French, players that did not typically beat claycourters on clay with any regualrity, then what more Federer. He is over qualified, more than capable. Whether he will win the French or not, is another matter.

bennieboi
06-12-2006, 12:16 PM
NEVER SAY NEVER! ANYTHINGS POSSIBLE! you kids are really full of it...

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 12:19 PM
Hey Andfor....i'm Up To 52% ......just Like I Predicted. How The Tables Have Turned!!!!!!!!!!!!

urban
06-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Wimbledon could be a crucial test. This year Federer has much invested in clay court tennis, building up to RG. If this will hamper his Wimbledon performance, he could suffer the same fate as Sampras after 1996. When he lost Wimbledon after going deep at RG, he gave up RG. If Federer thinks, that he will better go for imo easier Wimbledon titles and major numbers, then he could give up proper clay preparation.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 01:31 PM
In your recent posts, you said that you thought that this was a weaker FO field than in past. Did you change your mind?

Also you should compare draws, not players. Medvedev beat Kuerten to get to his '99 final, Costa beat Kuerten, Corretja, Ferrero to get to win in '02. Stich had to beat Muster to get to the final. Was a bit tougher than beating Berdych, Ancic, & a retirement from Nalbandian, IMO.

I agree todays clay court field is weaker overall as far as depth, I just dont agree that Federer could not have made a final or even won a French Open in the years you are speaking of. If Medvedev, a past-his-prime Costa, and Stitch, could go through the draws those years to the final day, Federer most certainly would have had a chance to do so atleast once, possably more then once.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 01:34 PM
Yes, but Federer has beaten Kuerten, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Gaudio(has never beaten Federer on clay or any other surface), Coria(the same), Robredo(the same), Chela(the same), Ferrer(the same), Gonzalez(the same), Moya(the same) Verdasco(the same), Almagro(the same) on clay. The list goes on. He did not have to deal with any seasoned claycourters in this years French, but his past record demonstrates that he is capable of dispatching them quite comfortably. His record against claycourters, on clay, is oustanding. Having said this, Ancic was no picnic on clay this year either, he beat Robredo.

The point is, if Stich and Kafelnikov were capable of getting to the final or even winning the French, players that did not typically beat claycourters on clay with any regualrity, then what more Federer. He is over qualified, more than capable. Whether he will win the French or not, is another matter.

I agree, I certainly think Federer would have had a real shot at winning the French Open in years like 1996, 1998, and 2002, the way it all played out, if he were the player he is now.

dh003i
06-12-2006, 01:46 PM
Pusher,

Actually, 52% of people think he will win the French some day.

You seem to have some difficulty understanding tennis and probability. Federer is a better clay-court tennis player than Agassi ever was, and Agassi won the French -- so what does that tell you?

Also, Federer is currently the 2nd best clay-courter in the world, and he's beaten many very good clay-courters, this year and past years -- for a non clay-court specialist, he has an excellent record against clay-courters.

Given that probability is additive, even if he only has a small chance of winning the French next year, he has quite a good chance of winning it at least once in his career, at least until he turns 29, when Agassi won his FO. He has 5 more shots at it from now until then. I predict that by the time he's taking his last shots at the FO (if he hasn't won it by then), when he's 29 or 30, Nadal will probably be retired.

sliceroni
06-12-2006, 01:53 PM
Fed plenty of time, he's only 24 and it's ridiculous to say that he's too old or this is his best shot. He's got at least 4-5 yrs before he slows down as he does rely on his speed.. Anything can happen, he's the 2nd best claycourter in the world. If he's closing in on 30 yrs old and you ask this question then you legitimately can say he does not have a chance.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-12-2006, 02:03 PM
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS, he must win.

dh003i
06-12-2006, 02:29 PM
there is no justice in this world. first phoenix lost to dallas then nadal beats federer. there is no justice.

Actually, I disagree with that. In sports -- unless there is cheating, as is the case when Vilas quit against some nobody using a hacked racquet -- it's always fair that the winner won, because the winner played better (by definition). This is a tautological truth.

127mph
06-12-2006, 02:50 PM
that does not explain why dallas had to beat phoenix.

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 02:53 PM
Federer is too good a clay courter not to win FO someday.
Federer's 1st Master's title was on slow clay of Hamburg
his game is fine on clay.

Federer is just not lucky to have Nadal. It's like Ivanesvic
who had to compete with Sampras for almost a decade.

Viper
06-12-2006, 02:56 PM
I don't know, I think if he was to win it, this would be his year. But you never know, he might surprise me.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 03:08 PM
Federer is too good a clay courter not to win FO someday.
Federer's 1st Master's title was on slow clay of Hamburg
his game is fine on clay.

Federer is just not lucky to have Nadal. It's like Ivanesvic
who had to compete with Sampras for almost a decade.

While I disagree with you, and believe Federer will never win the French, I would not feel confident enough to beat money on it the way I would with Nadal winning Wimbledon.

He has improved alot as a player since 2002, but whereas clay he is pretty much the same as 2002, other surfaces he is alot better, so now clay is by far his worst.

superman1
06-12-2006, 03:13 PM
He's the 2nd best claycourter in the world and almost as good as Nadal. He has head-to-head troubles against Nadal, but if he had to play Mathieu and Hewitt in the FO, I'm sure he would have rolled them. He certainly wouldn't have been out there for 5 hours.

So yes, I think he will win the French Open. It would be a shame if he didn't. He proved in Rome that he has what it takes to beat Nadal and a few other players have also shown that they can beat Nadal on a good day. No one has shown that they can beat Federer, except Nadal. So Federer is really a bigger lock for the French Open finals than Nadal is, because he's much less likely to be upset.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 03:16 PM
Normaly I would say a player getting to 2 match points in a match, even if they lost, has shown they can beat somebody on that surface, almost every other case I would say that. However given the obviousness phychological problems Federer has playing Nadal though, losing a match where he botched 2 match points does not convince me can beat Nadal on clay, since it does nothing to prove if he has to belief to even finish a match like that if he gets to that point. Just my opinion.

127mph
06-12-2006, 05:45 PM
I would not feel confident enough to bet money on it the way I would with Nadal winning Wimbledon.

this has to be the stupidest thing i have ever heard. i hope you realize federer has been the finalist at french and nadal a second rounder at wimbledon.

mJeez4293
06-12-2006, 05:49 PM
he will win it one day . . . nadal isnt going to win 6 more straight, coria and ferero arnt gonna be back for a while...so roger will have his turn

127mph
06-12-2006, 05:52 PM
for right now nadal beats federer consistantly. but i have this perspective. all federer needs to do is win one match against nadal and he will have figured him out. he did the same with nalbandian, and since nadal plays the same way every time he steps out on the court, once fed figures him out, he will have a better shot at Roland Garros.

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 05:59 PM
for right now nadal beats federer consistantly. but i have this perspective. all federer needs to do is win one match against nadal and he will have figured him out. he did the same with nalbandian, and since nadal plays the same way every time he steps out on the court, once fed figures him out, he will have a better shot at Roland Garros.

But there are a host of up and coming youngsters and Fed is just getting older. Take for example Monfils & Gasquet who are both French to top it off! Not only will they improve but the French crowd will be solidly behind them!

mileslong
06-12-2006, 09:15 PM
not every tennis players improves with age, especially with nadals style. he wont be playing that style in his late 20's. he will have injury problems way before that. if he loses one step off of his impressive speed and quickness he will become average. and guess what, everyone loses step its just when that happens that no one knows for sure.

sampras, agassi and fed doesnt need that incredible court coverage that nadal does, they do most of it with their rackets, easier on the body. tennis is a young mans game and nadals game needs a very young man to be able to play like that an recover for the next tourney and the next one after that then year after year.

i dont like nadal or his game but i admire his athleticism and grit. but for those of you who think he will just get better every year because he will be older must not know much about tennis...

federerhoogenbandfan
06-12-2006, 09:53 PM
this has to be the stupidest thing i have ever heard. i hope you realize federer has been the finalist at french and nadal a second rounder at wimbledon.

What I meant by that was I would not feel confident enough to beat on Federer not ever doing it, as I would betting on Nadal never winning Wimbledon.

sandiegotennisboy
06-12-2006, 10:00 PM
fed will win the french the year nadal doesnt play it. nuff said.

The Pusher Terminator
06-13-2006, 02:04 PM
fed will win the french the year nadal doesnt play it. nuff said.

Except Fed will be 43 by that time.