If Fed wins because Nadal pulls out

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by richied, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. richied

    richied Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    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.
     
    #1
  2. albino smurf

    albino smurf Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Location:
    In a cloud of yellow fuzz
    If Federerr pulled out of the AO would it have marred the title for Nadal?
     
    #2
  3. federerdomination

    federerdomination Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    705
    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.
     
    #3
  4. Giggs The Red Devil

    Giggs The Red Devil Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    271
    If Federer doesn’t win at least 4 RG in a row, it’s a shallow victory.
     
    #4
  5. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,008
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    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.
     
    #5
  6. NineMileSkid

    NineMileSkid Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    355
    Absolutely not.

    Are Pardraig Harrington's victories with Woods out shallow?
     
    #6
  7. shazbot

    shazbot Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Obvious troll is obvious
     
    #7
  8. McLovin

    McLovin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,818
    Is Agassi's FO a shallow victory because he only beat Medvedev in the final and not Guga?

    Ans: No.
     
    #8
  9. cucio

    cucio Legend

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,923
    Location:
    Tonginchik
    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.
     
    #9
  10. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,632
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    my grandma has 16 wheel chair... is she a freightliner?
     
    #10
  11. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,995
    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.
     
    #11
  12. alfa164164

    alfa164164 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,164
    Location:
    ATL
    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.
     
    #12
  13. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,995
    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.
     
    #13
  14. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,482
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I agree. Great post.
     
    #14
  15. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Guest

    This thread is so stupid.
     
    #15
  16. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,517
    Location:
    Sweden
    a win is a win.
     
    #16
  17. plain jane

    plain jane Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    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.
     
    #17
  18. tintin

    tintin Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    none of your damn business
    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!
     
    #18
  19. tahiti

    tahiti Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    840
    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. :)
     
    #19
  20. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,482
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    ^^I agree. To add, anyone who has won a French Open without beating Nadal should be stricken from the record book. :roll:
     
    #20
  21. babbette

    babbette Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    5,965
    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.
     
    #21
  22. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,819
    Yep, sure would have. And we would not hear the end of it.
     
    #22
  23. TMCW140

    TMCW140 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,019
    My thoughts exactly, good call
     
    #23
  24. federerdomination

    federerdomination Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    705
    Actually I think Fed would be more than satisfied (try elated) with tying at 14 GS's and completing the career slam!
     
    #24
  25. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,369
    Good question.
     
    #25
  26. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,375
    suppose nadal pulls out of the FO and federer fails to win. that would be shocking.
     
    #26
  27. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,623
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    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.
     
    #27
  28. miyagi

    miyagi Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,261
    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
     
    #28
  29. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    34,985
    Location:
    New York
    I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that happened... (That's what happpened in Rome 2008 by the way)
     
    #29
  30. thejoe

    thejoe Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,711
    Location:
    England
    No, they were both beaten. Nadal did not pull out.
     
    #30
  31. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,369
    Oh but hello. It is pretty obvious that Nole would win then. Like Rome.... like TMC, like Dubai.
     
    #31
  32. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,968
    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.

    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.
     
    #32
  33. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,369
    Anything is possible...............
     
    #33
  34. vtmike

    vtmike Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,658
    Location:
    Texas
    Agree...Good post!
     
    #34
  35. DMan

    DMan Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    940
    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!
     
    #35
  36. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    34,985
    Location:
    New York
    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?
     
    #36
  37. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,968
    fine if fed pulls out of the US open and Nadal wins it? Is it a shallow victory?
     
    #37
  38. tintin

    tintin Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    none of your damn business
    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
    #38
  39. thalivest

    thalivest Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,484
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    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.
     
    #39
  40. THERAFA

    THERAFA Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    295
    Well it wasn't a shallow victory when Federer won all those slams in a weak era (pre-Nadal):
    Was
    It?
     
    #40
  41. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    34,985
    Location:
    New York
    Very true!
     
    #41
  42. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,369
    Not as awesome as when Nadal beat Fed in the finals of FO, Wimbledon and AO:cry:
     
    #42
  43. tintin

    tintin Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    none of your damn business
    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 ;)
     
    #43
  44. seffina

    seffina G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    11,695
    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.
     
    #44
  45. Radical10is

    Radical10is New User

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    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...
     
    #45
  46. THERAFA

    THERAFA Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    295
    Agassi beat Moya early in that 1999: French
    Open
     
    #46
  47. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,889
    Location:
    South
    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.
     
    #47
  48. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,968
    yay for your sarcasm and double standards.
     
    #48
  49. Djokovicfan4life

    Djokovicfan4life Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,484
    Location:
    Stillwater, OK
    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.
     
    #49
  50. THERAFA

    THERAFA Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    295
    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
     
    #50

Share This Page