Nadal isn't an "excuse" for Federer not to win Roland Garros in his career

[veroniquem]

I always find the "if only nadal weren't around" thoughts strange. What? Would people prefer that the federer's supertalented rival grew up playing on hard courts?

Lol, that's a good one!

 

[lonestar]

Federer most definitely should have already won at least one, and probably two French Opens in his career. Red clay was not a nearly alien surface to him like it was for other greats like Sampras and McEnroe. His first breakthrough in a grandslam tournament was the 2001 French where he made it to the quarters.

The post-Kuerten/pre-Nadal era therefore provided at least 4 decent chances for Federer to win it. He clearly wasn't prepared in 2002 and 2003, and he didn't show much fight in that 2004 loss to Kuerten. Kuerten was temporarily resurgent, but had Federer put up a better fight then perhaps Guga would have faltered. After that Federer's biggest challenge would have been Nalbandian in the quarters. Nalbandian dominated Federer then, so maybe it would have ended there, but if Federer had gotten by that he would have been a huge favorite to beat Gaudio and Coria, as he had just done so a few weeks earlier in Hamburg.

2005 was another huge lost opportunity. It was Nadal's first French, and his first time on the big stage of a grand slam seminfinal. Federer already had many big grandslam matches under his belt, yet it was Nadal who played like a champion. To say that Federer did not put forth a good effort that day is to run the risk of not giving Nadal his due credit. That Nadal has gone on to dominate Federer says there is more to it than Federer simply not bringing his A-game, but that day I do contend that Federer did not put forth a champions effort. The mental domination Nadal has over Federer did not yet exist, as they had only played twice, splitting those two matches. Nadal set the tone that day for the rivalry that was to come.

2006 was obviously a wasted opportunity since Nadal came out very nervous and gave Federer the first set. But how did Federer respond? Well, he turned around and gave away the second, and effectively started the match over. Early in that set when it was still on serve, Federer was up 40-0 in a game and dumped a relatively easy volley into the net. That was pretty much the end of the set, as Nadal came back to break and run away with the set. In fact, it turned out to be the end of the match as Federer never really recovered. He did show some fight by breaking late in the 4th to force tiebreak, but then he went away in the tiebreak much as he did in the 5th set of this year's AO open.

I'd rank 2007 as big a lost opportunity as 2006. I know most probably wouldn't agree since Nadal did not give away a set, but Federer had multiple break points in the first set and was (just like now) unable to convert. He then recovers to play a great second set, but then follows that with poor starts to both the 3rd and 4th that he never recovered from. Had he played those break points better in the first, then who knows what would have happened? Also, I think that Federer hit his backhand much better that year than in 2006. Whether it was the cross-court exchange to Nadal's forehand, or the down-the-line backhand to backhand exchange, I thought Federer's backhand was not nearly the liability it had been before. But in the end, all of the work that he had clearly put into shoring up the backhand was all for nothing.

2008 --- well, there was never any chance.

Going forward, it is almost inconceivable that Federer could beat a healthy, or near-healthy Nadal, so he'll need someone else to beat Nadal. But even if that happens, we have to expect that Federer's chances of dominating the rest of the field will begin to drastically decline as he is now 27 going on 28. And even if Federer does beat someone else to win the French, then would history judge a French title for Federer that does not go through Nadal to be somewhat hollow? I think I would because Nadal has now beaten Federer on his two best surfaces, so Federer needs to return the favor.

So basically, yes, Federer should have won the French by now. He probably should have won it before the rise of Nadal, and he should have managed to beat Nadal at least once in four tries.

Excellent post! My thoughts exactly.

@Zaragoza:
I got to agree with you too, good analysis.

 

[veroniquem]

OK I see you're referring to Nadal asking for more claycourt tournaments. On that particular issue I think it would be fair to have the same number on clay/ grass/ hard, not realistic at this point but fair. Does anybody know how many tournaments there are on each surface (only pro tour excluding challengers) at the moment?

I think the numbers are 37 on hard, 22 on clay and 6 on grass. I don't know about clay but we need more on grass asap!

 

[thalivest]

I think the numbers are 37 on hard, 22 on clay and 6 on grass. I don't know about clay but we need more on grass asap!

They also need to bring carpet back towards the end of the year more. They really should have a variety of all surfaces more, not so much just hard courts, especialy since hard courts is the hardest on the body, so many players will get injured because of excissive tournaments on hard courts.

 

[icedevil0289]

I think the numbers are 37 on hard, 22 on clay and 6 on grass. I don't know about clay but we need more on grass asap!

wow, 22 hardcourts and only 6 grass?! We definitely need more grass courts and I also agree that we need bring back carpet as well.

 

[Morrissey]

In another sense Sampras couldn't have a big rival on clay because there wasn't a consistent opponent in the finals, as well as the small detail that Sampras didn't make very many clay finals, let alone a Roland Garros final.

If we take that logic it would have been more beneficial for Federer to lose before the finals every year since 2005 at Roland Garros and in Monte Carlo/Rome so that his head to head wouldn't be so bad against Nadal, 3 RG finals + 4 Hamburg titles outweigh Sampras not having been beaten 3 times a year by the same player in clay court matches because he couldn't reach the final.

No, Nadal's not an excuse, but to bring Sampras into the equation makes no sense because Federer is on a much higher level than Pete on clay, and even if he had made 3-4 clay finals a year in his prime years he wouldn't had a consistent rival to face every year and (potentially) ruin his head to head.

Even if Sampras were consistent enough to make finals on a few occasions he would never have faced the same guy more than twice. From 91-93 Courier was a finalist, from 93-94 it was Bruguera and then Muster had 1995, then Kafelnikov 96, Guga 97 and Moya 98. If Sampras had gone far enough he wouldn´t have faced one person enough to change the head to head record in their favor. It´s not Fed´s fault that he went far enough to face Nadal every time since 2005, but it may be his fault that he never beat him, especially that Rafa has entered his peak last spring/summer. It´s not like Fed didn´t play the FO before Nadal popped up in 2005. He had a window there in which he could´ve achieved it before Nadal showed up.

 

[veroniquem]

wow, 22 hardcourts and only 6 grass?! We definitely need more grass courts and I also agree that we need bring back carpet as well.

No 37 hard courts (22 on clay)

 

[icedevil0289]

No 37 hard courts (22 on clay)

oops, my bad. thanks.

 

[tennis_hand]

It is impossible for Federer to beat Nadal on clay, if he doesn't change the way he plays.

Well, let's see what he learnt from the AO loss, tactics, techniques, rackets, or whatever change.

 

[thalivest]

Even if Sampras were consistent enough to make finals on a few occasions he would never have faced the same guy more than twice. From 91-93 Courier was a finalist, from 93-94 it was Bruguera and then Muster had 1995, then Kafelnikov 96, Guga 97 and Moya 98. If Sampras had gone far enough he wouldn´t have faced one person enough to change the head to head record in their favor. It´s not Fed´s fault that he went far enough to face Nadal every time since 2005, but it may be his fault that he never beat him, especially that Rafa has entered his peak last spring/summer. It´s not like Fed didn´t play the FO before Nadal popped up in 2005. He had a window there in which he could´ve achieved it before Nadal showed up.

I also think if Sampras was somehow gauranteed to play in the French Open final every vs the same player, no matter who it was, even Nadal or Borg, and got that match 4 or 5 times he would find someway to win it once. I know that might sound crazy but through sheer mental toughness, champions will, refusal to be denied such a major piece of history, pride he would have done it somehow one of those times. Of course Pete isnt good enough on clay to even win 6 matches on clay to get to the final, let alone year after year, nor would the same opponent have been there each year back in those days anyway. Even if you think I am stretching on my first comments, I would at the very least put it another way, if Sampras had Federer's exact same abilities on clay (much higher than his own of course) he would find a way to win atleast once in the finals vs anyone, including Nadal which Federer seems very unlikely to ever manage at this point. I say this despite the fact Federer almost certainly wont with so many chances at the daunting task vs Nadal at the French, and that he is a much better clay courter in general than Sampras. He doesnt even scrape the surface in the mental toughness or champions utter defiance department compared to either Sampras or Nadal though IMO.

 

[Morrissey]

I also think if Sampras was somehow gauranteed to play in the French Open final every vs the same player, no matter who it was, even Nadal or Borg, and got that match 4 or 5 times he would find someway to win it once. I know that might sound crazy but through sheer mental toughness, champions will, refusal to be denied such a major piece of history, pride he would have done it somehow one of those times. Of course Pete isnt good enough on clay to even win 6 matches on clay to get to the final, let alone year after year, nor would the same opponent have been there each year back in those days anyway. Even if you think I am stretching on my first comments, I would at the very least put it another way, if Sampras had Federer's exact same abilities on clay (much higher than his own of course) he would find a way to win atleast once in the finals vs anyone, including Nadal which Federer seems very unlikely to ever manage at this point. I say this despite the fact Federer almost certainly wont with so many chances at the daunting task vs Nadal at the French, and that he is a much better clay courter in general than Sampras. He doesnt even scrape the surface in the mental toughness or champions utter defiance department compared to either Sampras or Nadal though IMO.

Yeah, if he were to have had as many chances I would think Pete´s mentally strong enough and determined to perhaps have gotten one. But his game was more high risk than Federer´s. Especially after 1996. He wasn´t an extended rally sort of player. Fed has the edge in that dept. over him. Fed can come up with quality groundstrokes on a regular basis with less unforced errors than Pete ever could. I agree about the mental toughness part. When Fed gets pushed and challenged I think he tends to back off more than Pete ever did. I do know that Fed´s 5 set record is 13-12 but I don´t know Pete´s. Anyone confirm this for me?

 

[saram]

^^What does Pete have to do with Roger and Rafa at RG? Why bring Pete into this equation?

 

[edberg505]

^^What does Pete have to do with Roger and Rafa at RG? Why bring Pete into this equation?

Oh come now, you have to know the answer to this. To make Federer look like a chump of course.

 

[saram]

Oh come now, you have to know the answer to this. To make Federer look like a chump of course.

Of course! Why did you have to call my bluff? I'm just so tired of Pete fans trying to make the Fed look bad....

 

[Morrissey]

Of course! Why did you have to call my bluff? I'm just so tired of Pete fans trying to make the Fed look bad....

Actually I don´t like either. Breaker brought Pete up in the discussion. We just went with it afterwards. Good enough?

 

[saram]

Actually I don´t like either. Breaker brought Pete up in the discussion. We just went with it afterwards. Good enough?

Fair enough. I was just trying to figure out how a retired Pete found his way into the equation of Rafa and Roger at RG....

Sorry, I was in "mod mode" as KK would put it.

 

[World Beater]

Federer most definitely should have already won at least one, and probably two French Opens in his career. Red clay was not a nearly alien surface to him like it was for other greats like Sampras and McEnroe. His first breakthrough in a grandslam tournament was the 2001 French where he made it to the quarters.

The post-Kuerten/pre-Nadal era therefore provided at least 4 decent chances for Federer to win it. He clearly wasn't prepared in 2002 and 2003, and he didn't show much fight in that 2004 loss to Kuerten. Kuerten was temporarily resurgent, but had Federer put up a better fight then perhaps Guga would have faltered. After that Federer's biggest challenge would have been Nalbandian in the quarters. Nalbandian dominated Federer then, so maybe it would have ended there, but if Federer had gotten by that he would have been a huge favorite to beat Gaudio and Coria, as he had just done so a few weeks earlier in Hamburg.

2005 was another huge lost opportunity. It was Nadal's first French, and his first time on the big stage of a grand slam seminfinal. Federer already had many big grandslam matches under his belt, yet it was Nadal who played like a champion. To say that Federer did not put forth a good effort that day is to run the risk of not giving Nadal his due credit. That Nadal has gone on to dominate Federer says there is more to it than Federer simply not bringing his A-game, but that day I do contend that Federer did not put forth a champions effort. The mental domination Nadal has over Federer did not yet exist, as they had only played twice, splitting those two matches. Nadal set the tone that day for the rivalry that was to come.

2006 was obviously a wasted opportunity since Nadal came out very nervous and gave Federer the first set. But how did Federer respond? Well, he turned around and gave away the second, and effectively started the match over. Early in that set when it was still on serve, Federer was up 40-0 in a game and dumped a relatively easy volley into the net. That was pretty much the end of the set, as Nadal came back to break and run away with the set. In fact, it turned out to be the end of the match as Federer never really recovered. He did show some fight by breaking late in the 4th to force tiebreak, but then he went away in the tiebreak much as he did in the 5th set of this year's AO open.

I'd rank 2007 as big a lost opportunity as 2006. I know most probably wouldn't agree since Nadal did not give away a set, but Federer had multiple break points in the first set and was (just like now) unable to convert. He then recovers to play a great second set, but then follows that with poor starts to both the 3rd and 4th that he never recovered from. Had he played those break points better in the first, then who knows what would have happened? Also, I think that Federer hit his backhand much better that year than in 2006. Whether it was the cross-court exchange to Nadal's forehand, or the down-the-line backhand to backhand exchange, I thought Federer's backhand was not nearly the liability it had been before. But in the end, all of the work that he had clearly put into shoring up the backhand was all for nothing.

2008 --- well, there was never any chance.

Going forward, it is almost inconceivable that Federer could beat a healthy, or near-healthy Nadal, so he'll need someone else to beat Nadal. But even if that happens, we have to expect that Federer's chances of dominating the rest of the field will begin to drastically decline as he is now 27 going on 28. And even if Federer does beat someone else to win the French, then would history judge a French title for Federer that does not go through Nadal to be somewhat hollow? I think I would because Nadal has now beaten Federer on his two best surfaces, so Federer needs to return the favor.

So basically, yes, Federer should have won the French by now. He probably should have won it before the rise of Nadal, and he should have managed to beat Nadal at least once in four tries.

good post.

federer would not have won in 2004...but he should have done better in 05,06,07...but maybe he shouldn't have....those were clearly not fluke matches.

although i think it would be a good achievement for federer to win an RG in the era of nadal, even if he doesnt have to beat nadal...you have to give credit there to fed's consistency and persenverance even if the matchup is not in his favor.

 

[World Beater]

I totally understood your logic. To me, Roger should hit the clay as soon as the AO is over every year until he wins the FO. It is the one thing he lacks in terms of being the GOAT and ending all discussions about it.

Rafa wanted Wimbledon since he was a kid--he went out and won it.

Rafa wanted a fast a hard court slam--he went out and got it.

Roger just doesn't seem to care about the FO--although he has been close so many times to attaining it. The only emotion I see from him at the FO is the 'deer in the headlights' look he gets when he hits the final and Rafa is on the other side of the net.

I'd like to see more emotion from Roger at the FO and more dedication to winning it--even if he meets Rafa on the final Sunday.

i agree federer doesnt deserve to win RG and it is his fault for not winning it...but you make no sense in this post.

federer wants RG badly. just because he doesnt shout vamos a million times doesnt mean he isnt passionate.

 

[P_Agony]

It is impossible for Federer to beat Nadal on clay, if he doesn't change the way he plays.

Well, let's see what he learnt from the AO loss, tactics, techniques, rackets, or whatever change.

I don't think he learned anything. I think that's Federer's main problem, he's way too stubborn. It's OK most of the time, because his game is just too good for everyone else he doesn't need big changes or a smart game plan. However, against Nadal (and Murray) it's not enough. What worries me the most is that it seems to me Federer isn't obssesed about improving like he was before he entered his prime. Take for example Nalbandian - a guy who owned Federer at first in the very same way Nadal and Murray do. Federer had to work hard to turn things around, and he did, and he even has a winning record over Nalbandian today, including winning their latest meeting in what I think was Federer's best match of 2008. He doesn't look like he has that anymore - the will to improve, to face his competition. He doesn't look like a big believer to me anymore, and that what scares me the most about Roger - he looks like he's given up. In the US Open I saw a glimpse of the old Roger, the one who can step it up when he needs to, he had that extra gear, but right after the final it disappeared again.

 

[Tempest344]

Federer playing Nadal at The FO
is basically like picking up the soap
not a lot he can do about it

 

[caulcano]

It's an overused argument that Federer hasn't won Roland Garros yet because he has faced Nadal, one of the best clay-courters of all time (who could end up being the best one) in the last 4 years. I think it's a convenient thing to say and it's not the right way to look at things.

First, while it's true that Nadal is one of the greatest clay-courters of all time, an all-time great like Federer should live up to the challenge and not lose to Nadal every year at Roland Garros.

Look at it from the other side. Nadal was naturally a clay-courter and Federer is one of the greatest grass-courters and hard-courters of all time (probably the greatest on hardcourts). Nadal stepped his game. He lost 2 Wimbledon finals to Federer but he kept improving his game and he didn't give up.
Nadal lost the '06 Wimbledon final with relative ease, he gave Federer a really tough time in '07 and he won Wimbledon last year. I know some people will say that the grass at Wimbledon has changed since 2002-03 but it's still a fast surface (stats prove it) and it's the same grass where Federer beat Nadal in '06 with relative ease, including a bagel in the 1st set.

The same could be said about hardcourts. It was the hardest surface for Nadal to win a major because, in comparison with grass, his footwork and movement is not so superior to others and there are so many contenders. Nadal also improved his game on hardcourts and beat Federer (possibly the greatest hardcourter of all time) in the final. In other words, Nadal beat adversity and that's what an all time great like Federer should do on clay.

The counterargument could be that Federer wasn't at his best in 2008 and 2009 when Nadal won those finals. I would comment a few things on this:

-Other than Nadal, Federer only lost one match in a major in the last 4 years (Djokovic AO '08 ).

-Apart from Federer, Nadal had also to beat the "very good in a hot streak" type of player that used to beat him in previous years (Tsonga, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Youzhny...) to win those majors. The Verdasco match was a good example, he's exactly the kind of player that would have beaten Nadal in previous years. So Nadal definitely stepped up his game, it wasn't just about Federer.

-Federer was 26-27 when he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon and the AO. For someone who didn't reach his prime until 22 that's not old.


If you still think that Federer's age (5 years older than Nadal) and relative decline was the main reason why Nadal won majors on grass and hardcourts, then my question would be: what did Federer do at Roland Garros when Nadal wasn't at his best or didn't play?

2006 Federer lost the Rome final to Nadal in the 5th set tie-break wasting 2 match points. He lost the Roland Garros final in the 4th set tie-break after winning the first set 6-1. He wasn't far from Nadal that year.

2005 Nadal had a great season on clay but he wasn't as dominant as he's now. He played a marathon 5 setter against Coria in the Rome final and he almost went to a 5th set against Puerta in the R.Garros final (saved set point in the 4th). It was his first year playing R.Garros. Federer played Nadal on clay for the first time and he lost in 4 sets.

2004 Federer (22) lost to Kuerten in 3rd round in straight sets (not a prime Kuerten, who lost to Nalbandian in the quarters).

2003 Federer (21) lost to Horna in 1st round in straight sets.

2002 Federer (20) lost to Arazi in 1st round in straight sets.

2001 Federer (19) lost to Corretja in the quarters in straight sets.


So if Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career (I'm not saying he won't because he stands a chance) it will be because:

-He didn't live up to the challenge that Nadal represented on clay like an all-time great should do and other all-time greats did.

-He didn't step up his game earlier in his career when Nadal didn't play and there wasn't a dominant player on clay. Federer was already 22 (almost 23) when Gaudio won Roland Garros.

If Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career it will be his fault.

Firstly, Federer best chance of beating Nadal on clay at RG has probably gone (which was probably at the 2006 final). Since then, Federer has probably not progressed or maybe declined on clay whilst Nadal has.

 

[Bassus]

good post.

federer would not have won in 2004...but he should have done better in 05,06,07...but maybe he shouldn't have....those were clearly not fluke matches.

although i think it would be a good achievement for federer to win an RG in the era of nadal, even if he doesnt have to beat nadal...you have to give credit there to fed's consistency and persenverance even if the matchup is not in his favor.

In 2004, had he gotten by Kuerten, then I think he would have had a good chance. The match against Nalbandian would have basically been for the title in my opinion, as I don't think either Gaudio or Coria could have beaten Federer in a five set match.

The losses to Nadal were, as you say, clearly not flukes. But a player of Federer's prodigious skill and talent should have found a way to win at least one of those first three showdowns.

It is a great credit to Federer that he has played so well on clay over the last 4 years. Four straight semis and three straight finals is impressive. He has been the second best player on clay, behind only the guy who will go down as the greatest clay courters of all time.

But Federer is vying to be the GOAT. He has the talent to be the GOAT, but this one huge whole in his resume will prevent him from being universally regarded as such. And unlike Sampras, Federer SHOULD have won a French. As great as he is, Federer should have found a way to beat Nadal at least once.

 

[127mph]

won't be his own fault, this forum is blastphamy. You have to remember that federer was an underachiever back in 01, 02, and 03, and was certainly not close to being the second best clay court player in the world which he has been the least 4 years. 06' was his best chance when he went up a set, but other than that, nadal has impeded his chances.

 

[Zaragoza]

won't be his own fault, this forum is blastphamy. You have to remember that federer was an underachiever back in 01, 02, and 03, and was certainly not close to being the second best clay court player in the world which he has been the least 4 years. 06' was his best chance when he went up a set, but other than that, nadal has impeded his chances.

So it wasn't his fault to underachieve until 22? Whose fault was then?
And as good as Nadal is on clay, Federer should step up to the challenge like Nadal did on grass and hardcourts (Federer is great on those surfaces too) and win R.Garros, at least once. That's what great champions do, they overcome adversities. It's all detailed on the original post.

 

[zagor]

If Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career it will be his fault.

The whole post is a good read but as far as I'm concerned it can be summed up just by this part.Obviously if he doesn't win FO it's his fault,just like it was Lendl's that he didn't win Wimbledon and Borg's that he didn't win USO,I would add Sampras but he wasn't even a contender at his weakest slam unlike those 3 guys I mentioned before.

Nadal is not an "excuse",he was the opposition Fed had to beat to get FO,he couldn't overcome it so he doesn't deserve the FO title,it is very simple.However this logic also applies to some other things,mainly so called "weak" competiton shouldn't be used by the opposite side as an "excuse" for Fed winning 13 slams and dominating tennis during his prime(having some amazing winning percentages in those years),he beat the best opposition that was available,so if we're gonna play fair,let's play it completely fair.

Actually he didn't say that at all. He's saying that Fed should step up to the challenge like Nadal stood up to Fed on grass and hardcourt. Especially since Fed is an all time great. Nadal is one of the best clay courters of all time. But Fed is an all time great, a GOAT. Shouldn't he step up and take Nadal on clay like Nadal stepped up and took him out on grass and hardcourt? If he can't do it, maybe he's not the GOAT. That was what he was trying to relay to everyone. I don't know where you got that other stuff you came up with other than you're still p1ssed off from 2 weeks ago. Just my opinion.

So there's your answer,maybe he isn't the GOAT,never was and never will be.An all-time great player,one of the best ever but not the GOAT.

In another sense Sampras couldn't have a big rival on clay because there wasn't a consistent opponent in the finals, as well as the small detail that Sampras didn't make very many clay finals, let alone a Roland Garros final.

If we take that logic it would have been more beneficial for Federer to lose before the finals every year since 2005 at Roland Garros and in Monte Carlo/Rome so that his head to head wouldn't be so bad against Nadal, 3 RG finals + 4 Hamburg titles outweigh Sampras not having been beaten 3 times a year by the same player in clay court matches because he couldn't reach the final.

No, Nadal's not an excuse, but to bring Sampras into the equation makes no sense because Federer is on a much higher level than Pete on clay, and even if he had made 3-4 clay finals a year in his prime years he wouldn't had a consistent rival to face every year and (potentially) ruin his head to head.

A very sensible post,put's things into perspective a little.

I also think if Sampras was somehow gauranteed to play in the French Open final every vs the same player, no matter who it was, even Nadal or Borg, and got that match 4 or 5 times he would find someway to win it once. I know that might sound crazy but through sheer mental toughness, champions will, refusal to be denied such a major piece of history, pride he would have done it somehow one of those times. Of course Pete isnt good enough on clay to even win 6 matches on clay to get to the final, let alone year after year, nor would the same opponent have been there each year back in those days anyway.

If he's that bad on clay then how did he beat Bruguera and Courier at the FO? Or win a Rome masters? When people say that Sampras was bad on clay,the rebuttal is that he won Rome and beat FO champions Bruguera and Courier.And when people say then why didn't he win FO or atleast make one final in his whole career then it had nothing to do with mental tougness it was simply because he wasn't good enough on clay.

I assure you that Sampras knew perfectly well how much a FO title would boost his legacy,his idol was Laver,I'm sure that he wanted to win on all surfaces and achieve atleast a career slam.So given that if his champions will and refusal to to be denied such a major piece of history was so strong then why didn't he "will" himself to the FO final atleast once then? Not winning the whole thing but getting to the final and getting a shot for the title.Players like Delgado,Schaller,Scud etc. had no business beating Sampras on any surface,he should have found a way to scrape past them,period.

Mental toughness is not just hitting an ace on a big point,it's also finding a way to succed or atleast contend on a surface which reduces the effect of your biggest weapons and makes you fight for every point.Strong will is an integral part of the success on clay,it's a war of attrition,that's a big part of why Nadal is so dominant on that surface.

Sampras was mentally tough and a great champion(mentally tougher than Fed)but this hypothetical refusal to lose to Nadal at the FO finals had he met him there 4 times is a bit silly since Sampras never even got to one single FO final,he doesn't deserve to be in that conversation given his results on clay.

 

[flyer]

if loosing 4 times (and counting) to the greatest clay courter of all time is not an excuse idk what is

 

[veroniquem]

if loosing 4 times (and counting) to the greatest clay courter of all time is not an excuse idk what is

Nothing is! I think that was the point of Zaragoza's post.

 

[luckyboy1300]

So it wasn't his fault to underachieve until 22? Whose fault was then?
And as good as Nadal is on clay, Federer should step up to the challenge like Nadal did on grass and hardcourts (Federer is great on those surfaces too) and win R.Garros, at least once. That's what great champions do, they overcome adversities. It's all detailed on the original post.

great champions like pete sampras who can't overcome clay itself?

 

[ksbh]

Some people are wondering why Federer & Sampras are being judged using different criteria and I think the answer is fairly simple.

Pete Sampras isn't in contention for GOAT. Most people agree with that except his rabid fanboys on this forum. Federer on the other hand is firmly in contention for GOAT and rightfully so considering his enormous achievements, which means he'll be under greater scrutiny.

Though not a Federer fan, I hope he goes on to break most of Sampras' records. It'll settle once & for all the debate as to who is better amongst them both. To me it's clear that Federer is a greater player but some people will not be convinced until he actually breaks those records.

great champions like pete sampras who can't overcome clay itself?

 

[roysid]

Fed was never a grinder, but he was always comfortable on clay.

He himself said that he didn't believe (didn't try hard) that he could win French before 2005.

That's why all the loses to Horna, Querten, Arazi etc.

But by 2005 he had already won the other 3 slams so attention turned to French.

He could have defeated Nadal in 2005, that was his best chance. But he made a lot of unforced errors and that's it.

He tried hard in 2006 and 2007 but Nadal was always better.

So it's unfortunate for him.

 

[ruerooo]

He himself said that he didn't believe (didn't try hard) that he could win French before 2005.

That's why all the loses to Horna, Querten, Arazi etc.

I'd always wondered about that.

 

[Hot Sauce]

I agree with op, my own feeling is that even if Nadal hadn't won RG one of the last years, there's no guarantee Fed would have won it (against someone else). Look at Rome last year, Nadal lost in 1st round, he wasn't in anybody's way. Did Fed win the tournament? No, Djoko did. That's why I'm ready to praise Fed's RG finals, that's a great achievement but I completely disagree with people claiming that Fed is the second best clay player of all time (or 3rd or 4th for that matter). That is plain preposterous, you cannot be one of the best without WINNING a lot of important tournaments on a surface and you can't use Nadal or any other player as an excuse for not doing so. Otherwise Nadal could have just said he would never win Wimbledon because Federer was unbeatable on grass. Precisely, if you're a champion, you find a way, that's what my definition of a champion is. Until Federer finds a way to win RG, he has everything to prove on clay and finals will not make him one of the best, just one who would always fail at the finish line.
That being said, Federer is only 27 (and that is not old for a player his fans refer to as a "late" achiever), so he has several years left to prove me wrong and demonstrate his greatness on clay.

People say that Fed is the second best clay courter of all time? I've never heard that in the media or even on this board. He's the second best clay courter of TODAY.

 

[cork_screw]

Look, nadal is just way too dominant on clay. He doesn't even drop sets let alone lose a match. For fed to take that set away from him in '06 was a pretty good effort, i believe he won that set 6-0. To do that to the all time best clay courter is admirable. He was also the only one to beat him and snap his clay court winning streak in Hamburg. So give the man some credit. He also reached the finals at Roland Garros 3 consecutive years. And to go against fed, it's just naturally a bad match up against nadal. Sports is all about match ups. How is it that agassi one of the legends has gone to dominate him 8-3 (winning the last 8). He's also dominated blake, roddick. And blake had a winning record against nadal before the start of last season; but fed dominates blake. It's all about matchups. Fed's game doesn't match up well against nadal. To be honest, i think nadal would rather play fed than murray or verdasco. Nadal secretly enjoys fed, he's easy pickings.

 

[P_Agony]

Look, nadal is just way too dominant on clay. He doesn't even drop sets let alone lose a match. For fed to take that set away from him in '06 was a pretty good effort, i believe he won that set 6-0. To do that to the all time best clay courter is admirable. He was also the only one to beat him and snap his clay court winning streak in Hamburg. So give the man some credit. He also reached the finals at Roland Garros 3 consecutive years. And to go against fed, it's just naturally a bad match up against nadal. Sports is all about match ups. How is it that agassi one of the legends has gone to dominate him 8-3 (winning the last 8). He's also dominated blake, roddick. And blake had a winning record against nadal before the start of last season; but fed dominates blake. It's all about matchups. Fed's game doesn't match up well against nadal. To be honest, i think nadal would rather play fed than murray or verdasco. Nadal secretly enjoys fed, he's easy pickings.

Exactly, and that's what people don't understand when they say "How can Federer be GOAT if he isn't the best in his own time?". The answer is Fed indeed was the best in his time, as he was #1 in the world for a record consecutive weeks, and he won 13 slams in the process. Nadal had no slams other than clay at the time, and only now is entering his prime while Federer is past his. Each player has his worst matchup, and Nadal has losing streaks too. That's why I claim the GOAT thing is as silly as they come. You can't say Nadal is better than Federer or Federer is better than Smapras or Borg is better than Nadal or any of that stuff. It's all about the matchups.

 

[tennis_hand]

I agree with this: nadal improved on grass to win wimbledon, but fed didn't improve on clay to win FO.

this is really a pity.

 

[urban]

No, Nadal is no excuse, he is simply the better clay courter. What is easier: To get to the final of RG with the one and only really good clay courter in the other half? Or to get through a deep field of grinders with people like Muster, Bruguera, Rios, Kuerten or Moya all looming in the draw. And it was no excuse for Agassi, to win or not to win Wimbledon with better grass courters like Sampras, Becker or Goran playing at the same time.

 

[zagor]

No, Nadal is no excuse, he is simply the better clay courter. What is easier: To get to the final of RG with the one and only really good clay courter in the other half? Or to get through a deep field of grinders with people like Muster, Bruguera, Rios, Kuerten or Moya all looming in the draw. And it was no excuse for Agassi, to win or not to win Wimbledon with better grass courters like Sampras, Becker or Goran playing at the same time.

Rios never got past at the FO and I sincerely doubt he'd ever score a win against a player of Fed's caliber in any major,the guy's just plainly overrated on this forum,Federer is a horrible match-up for Moya on top of being a better player(Fed first beat Moya when he was ranked 300 or something and Moya was #1)and Muster while undoubtedly a great clay claycourter had only one truly great year on clay(1995)so he had a very,very short prime.

Definitely agree with Bruguera and Kuerten,would add Courier as well.

 

[flyer]

Nothing is! I think that was the point of Zaragoza's post.

True and my point is that it is a he11 of an excuse and if people don't think so ask that nerd pete to come up with something better

 

[urban]

Zagor, the problem with many very good clay courters in the draw, is not so much, that Federer could or would be able to beat any of them separately (even Sampras did that on occasion), but the cumulation of hard matches over the course of seven best of five sets matches. And Rios was at least a very good clay court player in the years 1996-1998. At RG, he was beaten by just this accumulation of three or four hard matches in a row. Look at Kuertens RG draw in 1997 or Couriers draw in 1992.

 

[zagor]

Zagor, the problem with many very good clay courters in the draw, is not so much, that Federer could or would be able to beat any of them separately (even Sampras did that on occasion), but the cumulation of hard matches over the course of seven best of five sets matches. And Rios was at least a very good clay court player in the years 1996-1998. At RG, he was beaten by just this accumulation of three or four hard matches in a row. Look at Kuertens RG draw in 1997 or Couriers draw in 1992.

I can agree with that but I simply consider Rios to be overrated regardless of the surface,for example a guy like Todd Martin deserves more recognition than Marcelo but gets none and is barely mentioned in the "best player to have never won slam debate" while Rios instantly pops out whenever that topic is discussed.

Courier's draw in 1992 was definitely brutal and was one of the best performances from a single player on clay ever IMO.I think Courier as a claycourter and as a player in general is underrated.He had a somewhat short prime but during it had as tough competition as it gets and was a true all surface player,even reaching Wimbledon final in 93 and giving Sampras a pretty tough match.He was a hell of a player IMO and as I said underappreciated.

 

[thalivest]

There was never a point Rios, Muster, Moya, Kuerten, Bruguera were all at their peak together, usually never more than 2. So it is moot pretty much. Anyway as zagor said Rios is way overrated, the guy has never beaten anyone of note in a grand slam. What is his biggest ever win? Moya is also overrated on this forum, he made it past the quarters of the French Open only once and it was the year he won, and he didnt beat any current or future French Open winners to do it.

 

[Spider]

I am not a Federer fan, but he has proven to be a great clay court player with his results in the last 4 years. But it's unfortunate that he is playing in Nadal's era, someone who is virtually unbeatable on the clay courts (very few from the past era's stand a chance against him on clay, so Fed is a bit unlucky in that respect that he had him in the same era as Fed's peak period). But we shouldn't be making excuses for them. You're only as good as your results show.

 

[sp00q]

Nicely put Zaragoza. Federer always was a fragile player mentally and Nadal knows how to exploit this weakness. Federer did however, despite lapses in his concentration, win a bunch of Slams and this is a testimony of his great skill.

 

[betovanbuuren]

I think nadal knows how to desperate federer, and he does very well

 

[urban]

Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Rios, Moya or Costa - all were factors on clay for some years, not only in their respective peak years. And in the 90s there were other clay experts too, like Corretja, Mantilla, Medwedew, Norman, or even Meligini, who were very dangerous. In my book, there isn't anywhere the depth in clay court tennis now, as there was 10 years ago. Nadal stands alone at the top, Ferrer or Del Potro are more hard courters, Almagro is not in the class of the Spaniards named above.

 

[P_Agony]

Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Rios, Moya or Costa - all were factors on clay for some years, not only in their respective peak years. And in the 90s there were other clay experts too, like Corretja, Mantilla, Medwedew, Norman, or even Meligini, who were very dangerous. In my book, there isn't anywhere the depth in clay court tennis now, as there was 10 years ago. Nadal stands alone at the top, Ferrer or Del Potro are more hard courters, Almagro is not in the class of the Spaniards named above.

What about Nalbandian?

 

[PERL]

Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Rios, Moya or Costa - all were factors on clay for some years, not only in their respective peak years. And in the 90s there were other clay experts too, like Corretja, Mantilla, Medwedew, Norman, or even Meligini, who were very dangerous. In my book, there isn't anywhere the depth in clay court tennis now, as there was 10 years ago. Nadal stands alone at the top, Ferrer or Del Potro are more hard courters, Almagro is not in the class of the Spaniards named above.

And you can add Berasategui or even Chang, Pioline, Agassi who were not clay court specialists but could go far.
I will even mention serve & volleyers like Edberg, Stich, Rafter, Krajicek. Today’s clay courters don’t even have to face that kind of challenge.
In the last years, Coria, Ferrero, Gaudio, Nalbandian should have been factors for a much longer period but they all fell to.
I think Nadal and Federer could have had as much success on clay anyway or approximately but the lack of depth is pretty obvious.

 

[Gizo]

Federer will be regretting his poor French Open campaign in 2004, when he was completely outclassed by an over the hill Kuerten who had a back back in the 3rd round. Considering how mentally brittle Federer and Coria were, you have to say that his golden chance at Roland Garros came that year.

 

[janipyt05]

No its not an excuse and i don't think he makes that excuse for himself its the media and probably his fans, but fact is right now Federer just doesn't know how to beat Rafa on clay, can he, i think so why not nothing in tennis is for certain... when i'm not sure but Federer has shown far to often that he can't sustain his attack for a full match, at some point he peters out, runs out of idea's, get tired and fed up.