2004 French Open proves how vastly overrated Federer is on clay

[dropshot winner]

I am a very good player and have known pro tennis for a long time. Of course I meant "final week", I mistyped with no edit option. Amazing hipless Kuerten made it to the second week. If you want to clutch at straws and dwell on typos, don't let me stop you.

Injured Kuerten dispatched Federer and Lopez with ease to progress to the quarters. That much is certain. And no, a player in severe pain cannot play a good match. Good enough to trump Federer or Lopez in straight sets maybe. Good enought to make the finals? Very doubtful.

Nalbandian outplayed Nadal from the baseline on a very slow hardcourt under severe pain for almost 2 sets.
Ivanisevic won Wimbledon with a shoulder that was far from uninjured and pain-free.

Russel was just a point away from beating Kuerten in the 2001 French Open. As the defending champion, Kuerten lost to baby-Safin in the 1998 Roland Garros tournament.
Do those things proof that Kuerten isn't that good on clay?

 

[eowyn]

i was thinking a lot about how to argue with Roger and all the trophys he won on clay and Pete with all the trophy he didn't won but than i decided

op is just ridiculous

arguing is not needed

 

[SerbWhoLovesDelPo]

Kuerten was awesome. I wish he lasted a few years more.

But before that FO04, Kuerten was badly beaten by Federer in some Masters final, Hamburg or Rome in 2002, I think.

 

[zagor]

Your angle here is really quite interesting and engaging. Sampras had to face some amazing claycourters at the French. It was not his best surface, I will give you that much. Still, Nadal is the sole shiny star in the claycourt vacuum that engulfed Federer's experience at the French.

Kuerten was way past his prime at the 2004 French. I was amazed he made it to the final with that badly injured hip. Kuerten was but a shadow of a man who once was, and he had to face fresh prime Federer who was playing out of his mind. Still Kuerten prevailed in straight sets. That one match really tells quite a story, doesn't it.

Welcome back

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

hahaha i call it right now that you're grafselesfan with a different account.

I don't think this is GSF, maybe a different troll returned.

 

[Dilettante]

How stupid is to call Federer "overrated on clay". It's beyond comprehension.

And saying that because one single match. It's like judging Muhammad Ali just watching one of his last fights: "man, this Ali guy is so overrated".

grafselesfan, you sound like one of those judges on the panel of the Spanish inquisition who kept insisting to Galileo that the earth does not move.. lol

It was the Italian Inquisition in this particular case.

 

[sp00q]

Troll thread. Any French Open champion is a great player on clay (not to mention 3 times finalist).

 

[sh@de]

Troll thread. Any French Open champion is a great player on clay (not to mention 3 times finalist).

Exactly. OP doesn't understand obviously.

 

[Mungo73]

don't give up grafselesfan, the best posters here need to stay strong against all these *******s

 

[Serve_Ace]

mmmm their only best posters if they agree with anything that you post, not bias whatsoever.

 

[Mungo73]

Gustavo Kuerten was the one to prove how vastly overrated a clay courter Federer is at the 2004 French Open. Kuerten was way past his prime, his career virtually ruined by a major hip injury late in 2001. He was no longer top 30 caliber and struggling to win matches consistently on tour. Yet a prime Federer allowed a hip crippled Kuerten way past his prime to destroy him in straight sets in the 3rd round of 2004 French Open. The same Kuerten who a year earlier couldnt even beat Tommy Robredo, and that very French Open couldnt beat David Nalbandian. That just shows how vastly overrated a clay courter Federer is. If he lost 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 to hip crippled Kuerten he would have no shot to win even a single match vs prime Kuerten on clay. That also proves he is even weaker on clay then even those players who had an outside shot of beating prime Kuerten on clay- Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Moya, Corretja, Rios, and many others. Heck I am not sure if he even better than Sampras on clay anymore.

Even Sampras would have won the FO with the draw Fed got this year, that was the biggest fluke ever. Gaudio was a more worthy FO champion than Fed.

 

[mandy01]

Even Sampras would have won the FO with the draw Fed got this year, that was the biggest fluke ever. Gaudio was a more worthy FO champion than Fed.

Looks like Mungo is back :lol:
Where's the thread you said you'd start?

 

[Mungo73]

Looks like Mungo is back :lol:
Where's the thread you said you'd start?

Thanks for the interest. I am working on it, brilliant threads take some time.

 

[dropshot winner]

Even Sampras would have won the FO with the draw Fed got this year, that was the biggest fluke ever. Gaudio was a more worthy FO champion than Fed.

Sampras playing like he did on clay in 99 would probably have lost against Acasuso.

 

[drakulie]

Even Sampras would have won the FO with the draw Fed got this year, that was the biggest fluke ever. Gaudio was a more worthy FO champion than Fed.

 

[joeri888]

Even Sampras would have won the FO with the draw Fed got this year, that was the biggest fluke ever. Gaudio was a more worthy FO champion than Fed.

Fed's draw this year was far from the toughest ever, and who knows what Sampras would have done with this draw. He made 4 finals as well though, and I would say it's pretty ridiculous to call a four-time finalist winning, a fluke. Heck, I wouldn't call it a fluke if Nadal won the US Open without facing top 4 opposition and he's a no-time finalist.

Would you consider that a fluke as well? If, say.. He faced Tsonga in the quarters, Del Potro in the semis and Roddick/Soderling/Gonzales/Davydenko in the final?

 

[joeri888]

Sampras playing like he did on clay in 99 would probably have lost against Acasuso.

I'd say Alberto Martin

 

[federerGOAT]

Whoa whoa whoa... Who's the first and who's the third then?

Nadal is No.1 obviously. Borg is a close 3rd to Federer but Fed is a superior player to Borg. If Fed was playing in the 80s, he would have crushed all those clowns. If he were playing in the 90s, he would have won at least 6 French Opens. I don't think the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov,Moya, or Kuerten are a match for Fed.

 

[dropshot winner]

Nadal is No.1 obviously. Borg is a close 3rd to Federer but Fed is a superior player to Borg. If Fed was playing in the 80s, he would have crushed all those clowns. If he were playing in the 90s, he would have won at least 6 French Opens. I don't think the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov,Moya, or Kuerten are a match for Fed.

Are you serious?

 

[federerGOAT]

Are you serious?

Yes. Do you honestly think Bruguera, Muster, or Courier would have beaten Fed on clay in his 2005-2007 form?

 

[mandy01]

Thanks for the interest. I am working on it, brilliant threads take some time.

Can't wait :mrgreen:

 

[mandy01]

Are you serious?

It seems so..While we're at it-Pigs can fly too :lol:

 

[dropshot winner]

Yes. Do you honestly think Bruguera, Muster, or Courier would have beaten Fed on clay in his 2005-2007 form?

It depends. Federer's best on clay is better than the best of those three, but Federer had also some very bad days on clay (like when he lost to Volandri).

But especially Kuerten is a clearly better clay courter than Federer. Of course Federer would get wins against him, but it would be tough.

You're also selling Borg a short, it's pretty much impossible to play better clay court tennis with a wooden racquet than Borg's top-level.

 

[zagor]

Nadal is No.1 obviously. Borg is a close 3rd to Federer but Fed is a superior player to Borg. If Fed was playing in the 80s, he would have crushed all those clowns. If he were playing in the 90s, he would have won at least 6 French Opens. I don't think the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov,Moya, or Kuerten are a match for Fed.

LOL,hilarious stuff

 

[abmk]

LOL,hilarious stuff

I think it nicely counterbalances the points put forward by grafselesfan and co

 

[cknobman]

I love watching Borg play clay court tennis and felt sorry for the guys playing against him. Most consistent ball striker I ever saw with a wooden racquet. Borg would just break a guy down stroke by stroke.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

grafselesfan--You stated that Federer did not play poorly in this match, Kuerten just played incredibly well.

Um...doesn't that disprove the entire point you're trying to make, which was that Federer lost to some washed up, broken-hipped Kuerten?

He couldn't have been too broken-hipped if he played brilliant tennis and outclassed Federer when he was playing well.

For the Federphobes, it seems they believe that the world just stopped producing quality tennis players 10 years ago.

 

[フェデラー]

GSF cant make an argument for why the sky is blue. Stop feeding the trolls and shut this crap down.

 

[grafselesfan]

grafselesfan--You stated that Federer did not play poorly in this match, Kuerten just played incredibly well.

Um...doesn't that disprove the entire point you're trying to make, which was that Federer lost to some washed up, broken-hipped Kuerten?

He couldn't have been too broken-hipped if he played brilliant tennis and outclassed Federer when he was playing well.

For the Federphobes, it seems they believe that the world just stopped producing quality tennis players 10 years ago.

No it just shows Federer in his prime and playing great can still lose to a broken hipped Kuerten a shadow of what he used to be on clay, hence how overrated he is on clay.

 

[icazares]

OP only demonstrates the problems of free speech

 

[akv89]

No it just shows Federer in his prime and playing great can still lose to a broken hipped Kuerten a shadow of what he used to be on clay, hence how overrated he is on clay.

The fact that you're willing to look at Federer's only early round loss in a major over the last six years is a testament to Federer's consistency at majors. I doubt that you'd make as big a deal about Sampras' early round exits at the French or even at the AO or USO.

 

[フェデラー]

No it just shows Federer in his prime and playing great can still lose to a broken hipped Kuerten a shadow of what he used to be on clay, hence how overrated he is on clay.

why do you try to devalue everything? YOu cant make a goddamn case for why sampras is the goat, so you just try to devalue everything federer has done to make federer look bad.

 

[JustBob]

Here's a hint, one match doesn't PROVE anything.

 

[lessthanjake]

Prime Sampras lost to worse people than "broken-hipped Kuerten" at the Australian Open, the US Open, and the French Open at least once each.

 

[theroleoftheunderdog]

this thread is so dumb, if kuerten was truly hip broken, he wouldn't have even reached the third round

 

[grafselesfan]

Prime Sampras lost to worse people than "broken-hipped Kuerten" at the Australian Open, the US Open, and the French Open at least once each.

Not when he played very well though. The key isnt just the loss, but the fact Federer played very well and still lost to a broken hipped Kuerten. Actually other than the French Open I am not sure if you are even correct there. Was broken hipped Kuerten who was barely ranked in the top 30 and winning only about half his matches on clay by then better than Philipoussis, Kucera, Korda, or even Yzaga (ranked top 20 then, higher than broken hipped Kuerten was ranked at the time in the weak 2004 field) on hard courts. Heck how are you sure broken hipped Kuerten was even better than Schaller in 1995 who was a top 20 player and a clay court specialist. Of course prime Kuerten is a whole other league than Schaller but this was so far from prime Kuerten.

 

[abmk]

Not when he played very well though. The key isnt just the loss, but the fact Federer played very well and still lost to a broken hipped Kuerten. Actually other than the French Open I am not sure if you are even correct there. Was broken hipped Kuerten who was barely ranked in the top 30 and winning only about half his matches on clay by then better than Philipoussis, Kucera, Korda, or even Yzaga (ranked top 20 then, higher than broken hipped Kuerten was ranked at the time in the weak 2004 field) on hard courts. Heck how are you sure broken hipped Kuerten was even better than Schaller in 1995 who was a top 20 player and a clay court specialist. Of course prime Kuerten is a whole other league than Schaller but this was so far from prime Kuerten.

uh, federer did not play well in that match and kuerten played very well .

Your post shows you didn't even watch the match

Here for your help:

A sore right hip that required arthroscopic surgery in 2002 has slowed Kuerten lately. But Guga, his nickname, played like the Kuerten of old, breaking serve twice for an early 2-1 lead and holding his final 14 service games without facing a break point.

.........

Federer's downcast demeanour during the match was reminiscent of Pete Sampras on a bad day. Federer said he struggled with his footing on the clay and with lively balls on the warmest afternoon of the tournament — 78 degrees and sunny.

He won his second Hamburg title on clay this month but said he needs more experience at Roland Garros, where the size of centre court bothers him.

Kuerten was also a factor, Federer said. "He served good today, and he was better," Federer said. "He deserves everything the fans give him here."


http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/30/stories/2004053002681900.htm


And yeah, just a remainder, federer >>>>>>>>> sampras on clay

 

[Polvorin]

Heck I am not sure if he even better than Sampras on clay anymore.

Remind me, how many French Opens did Pete win again? How many times did he make it to the finals? Semis?

 

[lessthanjake]

Not when he played very well though. The key isnt just the loss, but the fact Federer played very well and still lost to a broken hipped Kuerten. Actually other than the French Open I am not sure if you are even correct there. Was broken hipped Kuerten who was barely ranked in the top 30 and winning only about half his matches on clay by then better than Philipoussis, Kucera, Korda, or even Yzaga (ranked top 20 then, higher than broken hipped Kuerten was ranked at the time in the weak 2004 field) on hard courts. Heck how are you sure broken hipped Kuerten was even better than Schaller in 1995 who was a top 20 player and a clay court specialist. Of course prime Kuerten is a whole other league than Schaller but this was so far from prime Kuerten.

First off, I take issue with you saying "not when he played well" about Sampras. This was a big issue with Sampras that you can't just throw away. HE PLAYED BADLY SOMETIMES AND ENDED UP LOSING TO 2ND TIER PLAYERS IN BIG MATCHES! On the other hand, this Kuerten match 5 years ago was the last time that happened to Federer. This is a major difference between the two players, and a major reason why Federer is better.

Anyways, you admitted yourself that Kuerten was probably one of the top 10-15 clay court players that year. He was far more dangerous on clay that year than Yzaga or Schaller were on the surfaces that Sampras lost to them on. Face it. Prime Sampras has multiple losses that were WORSE than the Kuerten loss.

Lastly, Federer didn't play well. He played badly; he looked bad; and he lost. You can't act like Federer played his best and lost because he just couldnt beat Kuerten, especially when he DID beat Kuerten in their other clay match.

 

[Michael Bluth]

Everyone has a bad day. Many people here have repeated that Guga in his prime was a point away from losing to Michael Russell of all people.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Heck I am not sure if he even better than Sampras on clay anymore.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[sh@de]

Obvious troll is obvious.

ROFL. What a joke of a statement about Sampras being better than Fed. Anybody with a reasonable amount of logic can see what's wrong with what she said.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

No it just shows Federer in his prime and playing great can still lose to a broken hipped Kuerten a shadow of what he used to be on clay, hence how overrated he is on clay.

So let me get this straight:

*Federer played WELL in that match.

*Kuerten played even better than Federer...enough to beat him in straight setes when he played "well."

Therefore Federer is "overrated" on clay?

Huh? Why doesn't this instead suggest that Kuerten was just absolutely PHENOMENAL on clay to the point where he was still able to beat a guy playing well even when he was past his prime?

Course, Federer beat (and bageled) 2002 non-broken hipped Kuerten at Hamburg...but who needs pesky details like that?

 

[lessthanjake]

So let me get this straight:

*Federer played WELL in that match.

*Kuerten played even better than Federer...enough to beat him in straight setes when he played "well."

Therefore Federer is "overrated" on clay?

Huh? Why doesn't this instead suggest that Kuerten was just absolutely PHENOMENAL on clay to the point where he was still able to beat a guy playing well even when he was past his prime?

Course, Federer beat (and bageled) 2002 non-broken hipped Kuerten at Hamburg...but who needs pesky details like that?

Are you sure Kuerten hadn't already been injured by their 2002 match? I think he had. Even if he was injured, that match shows that Federer clearly COULD have beaten Kuerten in the 2004 match as Federer had only gotten better by then and Kuerten had gotten worse than 2002.