Thiem: Federer would have won 7 French Open if it wasn't for Nadal
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Tennis_Hands
Banned
beard
Legend
Tennis_Hands
Banned
"Equally dominant" should read "the most dominant just like Nadal was/is", but I agree that Federer wouldn't have had nearly as much success as Nadal overall, as at some point Djokovic would have taken over (at latest in the 2013 season up until his drop of form in 2017).
Subway Tennis
Legend
"Equally dominant" should read "the most dominant just like Nadal was/is", but I agree that Federer wouldn't have had nearly as much success as Nadal overall, as at some point Djokovic would have taken over (at latest in the 2013 season up until his drop of form in 2017).
Agree
Bukowski
Professional
?
Thats interesting, I meant more like RF would have much more equal slam dominance (between AO/FO/W/UO), does that make sense?
beard
Legend
Thats better..."Equally dominant" should read "the most dominant just like Nadal was/is", but I agree that Federer wouldn't have had nearly as much success as Nadal overall, as at some point Djokovic would have taken over (at latest in the 2013 season up until his drop of form in 2017).
beard
Legend
Thats better...
Tennis_Hands
Banned
angrybirds89
Rookie
Federer has only lost to Nadal 5 times at Roland Garros. So 7 RG titles isn't even a possibility in the best case scenario. 6 would have to be the absolute max (I doubt he wins 6). Theim is stupid.
Amazing that he would have at least 5-5-5-5 at all four slams. Federer was unlucky to have a clay goat in his path unlike the other ATG.
angrybirds89
Rookie
There are different angles to look at it, like most things. Federer, Djokovic, and even Nadal were also lucky to play in a clay era with no depth at all. Even Nadal would never win 13/14 or whatever number of French Open titles he winds up with in any other era but this one, one where he faced absolutely NO good clay courters at all besides 2005-2009 Fed and 2011-2015 Djokovic. Borg is almost as good as Nadal on clay and only won 6 since he played when there were actually good clay courters.
Federer or Djokovic might have won 4 or 5 French Opens without Nadal, but that is only since they played in such a pathetically weak clay era. There is no other era either one would win that many.
EloQuent
Legend
This is incorrect. Borg won only 6 because he retired at 25. He won 6/8 years from 74-81, losing only once, in 76 (to Panatta, who I guess you could call his Soderling). In 77 he didn't play because of a contract issue (tour was a mess then). This is a very similar record to Nadal, just without the longevity.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Even had he not retired early he probably only wins about 8 max. Maybe not even that. He was already burn out, on decline, and his appearances he did make in 82 and 83 were far from impressive to put it midly (eg a 6-2, 6-1 or something loss to LeConte in Monte Carlo). If one is being super generous maybe he wins 2 of 3 of 82, 83, and 85, but even that is unlikely.
Nadal has been on decline since 2010 to varying degrees but the clay field is so garbage he still wins almost every year anyway, and will probably continue to do so.
I think I follow Thiem's logic here. Had Nadal not existed, Fed would easily be the favorite to win in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011. Djokovic is arguably the favorite in 2008, based on their actual forms at the event, but if Federer was coming off three straight French titles, I think he'd have a lot more confidence and would play better than he actually did in 08.
Further, if there's no Nadal, there's no earth-shattering upset in 09 with Soderling catapulting to super-confidence and becoming a force on clay – at that point his worst surface by far. So then he doesn't go on to beat Fed in 2010. Thus, we have Fed sweeping the French from 2005 to 2011, winning 7 consecutive titles before finally succumbing to Djokovic in 2012.
Thiem is very smart.
Further, if there's no Nadal, there's no earth-shattering upset in 09 with Soderling catapulting to super-confidence and becoming a force on clay – at that point his worst surface by far. So then he doesn't go on to beat Fed in 2010. Thus, we have Fed sweeping the French from 2005 to 2011, winning 7 consecutive titles before finally succumbing to Djokovic in 2012.
Thiem is very smart.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Federer was pretty bad in mid 2010. Winning RG on his worst surface is very unlikely regardless.
Someone upthread made a good point that Federer altered his game slightly to better counter Nadal which ended up making him an even better clay courter. It is unlikely he is even the same caliber of clay courter without Nadal as his biggest rival. He still almost certainly wins atleast a couple RG titles without Nadal in that dire clay era, but he probably isnt as strong on the surface as he is with no Nadal existing.
Surecatch
Semi-Pro
I actually subscribe to the idea that if Federer had won like 30-35 slams (the "if Rafa/Novak never existed" theory) then he would not be nearly as beloved. No one likes an inhuman robot who obliterates everything in sight for years.
I'm just happy for the great era of the last 16-17 years or so that I've been privileged to watch that doesn't seem to want to end.
I'm just happy for the great era of the last 16-17 years or so that I've been privileged to watch that doesn't seem to want to end.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Yeah it is like asking how popular is Michael Phelps? Not very, other than maybe to a few swimming nuts.
EloQuent
Legend
I agree that Borg was basically done but the question was of dominance. In the era Borg played, he was just as dominant. Not sure you can make a bigger point of "no clay courters" but yeah, in the early 80s you had a new gen coming up and now you do not.
Stilljonesing
Rookie
Fed has a great clay court history regardless at the FO. Theim is right about that. I do think he is still one of the favorites there this year with his current form and history there. Dudes been to 5 finals how is he not.
Stilljonesing
Rookie
He would have 6 without Nadal.
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011
Pretty clear he would have won 6 on clay with out Nadal. He literally lost to him in the finals most of these years or in 2005 in the SF's and he would have been the scrub there in the finals most likley. I don't see the 7th though.
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011
Pretty clear he would have won 6 on clay with out Nadal. He literally lost to him in the finals most of these years or in 2005 in the SF's and he would have been the scrub there in the finals most likley. I don't see the 7th though.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
Absolutely. I would definitely take him to beat Djokovic in 2008 although it’s the year I’m least confident in.
If Fred did not face Horna in 2003 and Kuerten in 2004 >>> 10 years later, they would become hypothetical matches on here
In those hypothetical matches, I bet most of people would take Fred to win. No way he (No. 1 at the time) could lose to a 88th ranked player and a badly injured Kuerten, right?
However, Fred DID play Horna and Kuerten, Lost in straights.
What does it tell you? It tells me that sports is full of surprises. Saying something would Surely have been if... is totally nonsense.
He could have won 6-7, but he could also have won 1-2... Who knows???
Am I right as usual?
In those hypothetical matches, I bet most of people would take Fred to win. No way he (No. 1 at the time) could lose to a 88th ranked player and a badly injured Kuerten, right?
However, Fred DID play Horna and Kuerten, Lost in straights.
What does it tell you? It tells me that sports is full of surprises. Saying something would Surely have been if... is totally nonsense.
He could have won 6-7, but he could also have won 1-2... Who knows???
Am I right as usual?
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
So which Fed fan on TTW is actually Thiem?
angrybirds89
Rookie
My point is Borg was never winning anywhere near as many French Opens as Nadal will end up winning, or has won already even in the extremely unlikely event he never wins another. Yet I would argue he is almost equally as good on clay. And even if you want to just focus on his prime he lost on clay in big events sometimes, remember the Panatta loss at the French, losing to Connors twice at the U.S Open on clay (green clay but still), who knows he might have lost to an on fire Vilas had he even played the 77 French, etc....Nadal had only 1 loss in not only his prime but his semi prime (but not really prime) years like 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, and that was atleast partly based on injury (the Soderling loss) and Borg stopped playing immediately when his prime was arguably over so never even had tested in his semi prime years unless you count the early years he won the French like 74 and 75. Even if you dont think that is a good example, bottom line is the clay court field of the last 15 years is super weak, with very few exceptions. The fact BOTH Federer and Djokovic probably have about 5 French Opens without Nadal only serves as further proof of that. There probably is no actual era that Federer or Djokovic win that many French Opens, just maybe there is an era 1 of them wins 3, but I think even that is a long shot, as I have no doubt guys like Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander are better on clay than both. Thank goodness for Nadal as he basically just balances out the otherwise super weak clay field to have Federer and Djokovic wind up about where they should be (still both many more finals than clay courters of their level probably should have mind you).
Dallas.
Agree this is hypothetical. But in a most realistic scenario, Federer would have won those FOs without Nadal because he was widely considered the #2 player on clay behind Nadal. His results/performance against the playing field since 2005 backup this case.If Fred did not face Horna in 2003 and Kuerten in 2004 >>> 10 years later, they would become hypothetical matches on here
In those hypothetical matches, I bet most of people would take Fred to win. No way he (No. 1 at the time) could lose to a 88th ranked player and a badly injured Kuerten, right?
However, Fred DID play Horna and Kuerten, Lost in straights.
What does it tell you? It tells me that sports is full of surprises. Saying something would Surely have been if... is totally nonsense.
He could have won 6-7, but he could also have won 1-2... Who knows???
Am I right as usual?
Would Nadal not win 2007 Wimbledon without Federer? or Nole not win 2013 FO without Nadal? Yes but that is very unlikely. More realistically, they would have won.
It's all hypothetical, but there's a huge distinction between the least likely and the most likely scenario.
MugOpponent
Hall of Fame
3 at the very worst, 7 at the most. In all likelihood 5.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
You're wrong, in the second set Nadal breaks Federer quickly and has the opportunity to serve to set equal but he commits a series of errors as a double fault that leads the Swiss to recover the break and reach a tie break at end of the second set.
Nadal has a mini break, has a lead of 3 to 2, dominates the point, but he clamorously fails a forehand, the Swiss breathes.
later, it is federer who with new air finishes taking the so crucial second set after a forehand of the Spaniard ends in the net.
After that it would be Nadal who would win the third set with another tie break, this time in favor of the Spaniard.
Remember that if the Swiss won in straight sets, he equaled Borg's record of winning Wimbledon without losing a single set (something that would end up happening 11 years later, with almost 36 years).
It is false that Federer lowered his level a little, on the contrary, if possible he would have liked to win more easily.
In short, if Nadal won a set and almost 2 to the best version of Federer in history at Wimbledon (or almost), I'm sure he would have won the tournament if it had not been the Swiss his rival.
angrybirds89
Rookie
I dont get why anyone is still taking 7 seriously. I will repeat again, Federer only lost to Nadal at RG 5 times. Even IF he won every single RG he lost to Nadal without him (unlikely) he still couldnt win more than 6. 7 isnt even a remote possability. Some really over zealous fanboys here. The fact Thiem is an idiot who either didnt think his statement through or doesnt even know basic math aside.
