Do you want Federer to win the French Open?

Do you want Fed to win the FO?

  • Hell yeah!!!!

    Votes: 99 72.3%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 13 9.5%
  • No way!!!!

    Votes: 25 18.2%

  • Total voters
    137
  • Poll closed .

Baghdatis72

Hall of Fame
If Federer wins this year's French Open he completes all the Grand Slams and also has a chance of winning the GS this year by winning all 4 Grand Slams. By doing that he will be the favorite to become the GOAT.

Do you want that to happen?

I would like that to happen because although I am not a Federer fan I would like to witness someone winning all Grand Slams in 1 year in my time and also he is worth it.
 
Last edited:

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
hell Yeah! Even if you are not a Fed fan, the fact you are on this forum means you are a tennis fan. Who wouldn't want to witness such a huge historical event, and possibly witness him winning the calendar slam.

He would be the first to do it on 4 completely different surfaces in one year.
 

lawrence

Hall of Fame
hell Yeah! Even if you are not a Fed fan, the fact you are on this forum means you are a tennis fan. Who wouldn't want to witness such a huge historical event, and possibly witness him winning the calendar slam.

He would be the first to do it on 4 completely different surfaces in one year.
thats true, i think even if you arent a fed fan its just always good to see someone accomplish something huge
im hoping for fed or hewitt to win, id prefer fed but itd be really nice to see hewitt come back at the top of the tour
 

Supernatural_Serve

Professional
Yes, but what I really want is a final that isn't Federer/Nadal.

So, a different final pairing, any pair other than Federer/Nadal is what I want first, then secondly, a Federer victory.
 

Tchocky

Hall of Fame
It's surprising to me that most people are picking Federer to win the French this year. Oddsmakers have Nadal as a -141 favorite as opposed to Roger who is a +221 underdog. So, the guys who actually put their money where their mouth is are backing Nadal. Sure...I would love to see Roger win but he still hasn't beaten Nadal in a best of 5 sets match on clay and until he can do that...he won't win the French.
 

Zaragoza

Banned
Federer needs to win more than 1 FO to be greater than Laver. If he wins the FO he would be greater than Sampras but Laver is still far.
 

McGee

Rookie
Yes, but what I really want is a final that isn't Federer/Nadal.

So, a different final pairing, any pair other than Federer/Nadal is what I want first, then secondly, a Federer victory.
No way. Where would the drama or great tennis be - what "other" opponent would make it a match for Fed? After Hamburg, this would have the makings of a great final. Fed beating Nadal on clay at the FO would be huge. Whether you have issues with Nadal or not...this is the way it should play out. Good clay rivalry and the mountain that Fed must conquer to add to his GOAT resume.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
If he wins the FO he would be greater than Sampras but Laver is still far.
I disagree. For starters why would he have to win the French to be greater than Pete? What if he wins 15 slams to Pete's 14 without a French?

Additionally, what would he have to do to surpass Laver? 3 calendar slams?

Laver's calendar slam is amazing, but don't forget 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass. Imagine if 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass when Pete was dominating. He would easily have 20+ slams under his belt.
 

Supernatural_Serve

Professional
No way. Where would the drama or great tennis be - what "other" opponent would make it a match for Fed? After Hamburg, this would have the makings of a great final. Fed beating Nadal on clay at the FO would be huge. Whether you have issues with Nadal or not...this is the way it should play out. Good clay rivalry and the mountain that Fed must conquer to add to his GOAT resume.
I recall amazing drama between Federer/Baghdatis, Federer/Gonzalez, Federer/Safin at the AO.

Quite frankly, I'm getting a little bored with the Federer/Nadal matchup.

We don't need either Federer/Nadal in the final to create drama at the FO.
 

Baghdatis72

Hall of Fame
I recall amazing drama between Federer/Baghdatis, Federer/Gonzalez, Federer/Safin at the AO.

Quite frankly, I'm getting a little bored with the Federer/Nadal matchup.

We don't need either Federer/Nadal in the final to create drama at the FO.
I agree. If there is someone on this forum who loves upsets then that's me :D

But this event is the only exception for me. I would like to see what would happened if Nadal and Federer met in this FO of great importance to both. Who has the most desire to win?

Federer who tries to win the only GS he hasn't won in his quest for the 2007's Grand Slam or Nadal who wants to win 3 RG in a row and achieve what Borg has (1979,1980 and 1981)?
 

Supernatural_Serve

Professional
Federer who tries to win the only GS he hasn't won in his quest for the 2007's Grand Slam or Nadal who wants to win 3 RG in a row and achieve what Borg has (1979,1980 and 1981)?
I understand its the biggest rivalry and a showdown has merit. But, a storybook run by a Djokovic upsetting Nadal and facing Federer would be exciting, or an amazing run by Baghdatis to face Federer in the final would be more dramatic for me. Or an amazing run by Canas knocking out Federer to face Nadal in the final.

Something refreshing instead of the classic face off would be nice for a change.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Agreed, but the point remains. He won 3 of 4 slams on one surface. If any player today were to win a calendar slam it would be a far greater achievement than what Laver did.
 

Baghdatis72

Hall of Fame
I understand its the biggest rivalry and a showdown has merit. But, a storybook run by a Djokovic upsetting Nadal and facing Federer would be exciting, or an amazing run by Baghdatis to face Federer in the final would be more dramatic for me. Or an amazing run by Canas knocking out Federer to face Nadal in the final.

Something refreshing instead of the classic face off would be nice for a change.
I like the Baghdatis and the Djokovic scenario you mentioned :D
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
Agreed, but the point remains. He won 3 of 4 slams on one surface. If any player today were to win a calendar slam it would be a far greater achievement than what Laver did.
Totally agree with sentence 1 and 2. Sentence 3 is something I'll reserve judgement on but it has been enthusiatically debated in another discussion.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Laver needs to win some Slams on hardcourts to be considered.
Statements like this are pretty funny. In essence, that means one can only be considered the GOAT if they played from 1978(when US Open switched to hardcourt) on(or 1988 on for loonies that consider the AO a '4th'surface)

Put that way, it really doesn't seem to that impressive to be GOAT, does it? Just by being the best of the last 20-30 years means you are the best of alltime? How exciting.

FYI, out of Laver's 52 open era titles, only 5 were on grass. He won 22 titles on hardcourt, some with 128 draw & best of 5 all the way through. It is extremely unlikely that he wouldn't have won a hardcourt slam in his time had they been around, since he won on everything. again & again.

Imagine if 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass when Pete was dominating. He would easily have 20+ slams under his belt.
Imagine if Laver wasn't banned for the 5 best years of his career. have you read some of the stats on Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall? Many experts say they won the equivalent of 20 majors.

And some observers say that Laver was past his prime when he won the 1969 Grand Slam(at age 31, he struggled with some players that year that he was destroying a few years earlier) Also Laver was banned from several slams post '69 due to political disputes between various tours, he wasn't allowed to defend his AO or French title in '70, or play the French from '71-'72(and he won same major clay titles those years)

So many "what-ifs" about Laver, yet he still won enough to be considered GOAT, which says a lot.
 

asitkin

New User
amazing run by Canas knocking out Federer to face Nadal in the final.
We already saw Canas facing Nadal in Barcelona and it was neither dramatic or exciting. He doesn’t have anything to hurt Nadal who is faster and stronger. Federer proved to be the only one who can stay with Nadal for 5 sets. So if you want something dramatic it better be him. About Baghdatis or Djokovic scenario - after knocking Nadal they would be half dead and not fit to show something really exciting second time in row
 
Last edited:

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
He would be the first to do it on 4 completely different surfaces in one year.
and the last:

"MELBOURNE, May 30 (Reuters) - Organisers of the 2008 Australian Open have ditched the Rebound Ace playing surface for courts at Melbourne Park in favour of a new acrylic composition, Tennis Australia said on Wednesday."

this proves how absurd the whole surface obsession thing is. people putting down laver for not being able to play a slam on hardcourts can now put down the best player 10 years from now, who won't get a chance to play on Rebound Ace.
 

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
i love tennis, but i'm over the whole 'can fed win rg' thing. it's been goin on for three years now. enough already. win the damned thing and let's move on to the next storyline (which they can drag out for the next three years).
 

Pro Staff Pete

Semi-Pro
Yeah, so that all GOAT speculations would come to an end :)

No I really think he deserves it, even Nadal is (probably, no hard feelings) the best on clay (ever).
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
and the last:

"MELBOURNE, May 30 (Reuters) - Organisers of the 2008 Australian Open have ditched the Rebound Ace playing surface for courts at Melbourne Park in favour of a new acrylic composition, Tennis Australia said on Wednesday."

this proves how absurd the whole surface obsession thing is. people putting down laver for not being able to play a slam on hardcourts can now put down the best player 10 years from now, who won't get a chance to play on Rebound Ace.
Its way more difficult to win 4 majors on 4 different surfaces than 4 majors on 2 surfaces, only one of which is different. Its nothing against Laver but thats just how it is.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Its way more difficult to win 4 majors on 4 different surfaces than 4 majors on 2 surfaces, only one of which is different.
and now we have only 3 surfaces, not 4. by all accounts I've read the 3 grasscourts of the slams in 1960/70s were very different conditions, as different as the difference between Rebound ace & us open. I think most fans/commentators etc know absolutely nothing about Laver's era & assume too much. even players today(or before W switched its grass) talk about the difference between queens & wimbledon(lendl beat becker at queens, since the bounce was different, but was 0-3 vs him at W)

do you really have any doubt that laver would have won a us open on hardcourt, had that been the case in his time? he was far more dominant in his career on hardcourts than grass(as I mentioned), so nothing would have changed. the grasscourts of forest hills were widely criticized by the players back then, so many upsets happened there. I think a hardcourt surface would have made it easier for Laver frankly, no bad bounces, & he was such a great striker of the ball, even on those bad grasscourts.

also, there weren't many grasscourt events outside of the slams in laver's time. there were no warmup events on grass before the us open back then. so he had to constantly change surfaces, there were no "seasons" like there are now(clay, grass, etc) he would have to play on clay one week, carpet another, back to clay, than hard, than grass)

does that sound easy to do? I imagine there would be quite an uproar if the schedule was like that today.
 
Last edited:
do you really have any doubt that laver would have won a us open on hardcourt, had that been the case in his time?
I suspect very much he would have. Then again though had the U.S Open continued to have been played on grass during Borg's prime, instead of clay from 75-77, and hard courts from 78-81, and hypotheticaly had he had ended up winning any U.S Opens on grass courts(pretty good bet considering he won 5 straight Wimbledons on grass courts from 1976-1980), people would probably say that same thing "do you really doubt that Borg would have won a U.S Open on hard court, after all he dominated on grass and clay-the two most foreign surfaces." However surprise surprise we know what happened to Borg with the U.S Open on hard courts, despite his dominance on the two extremes of grass and clay from 1978-1981.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
suspect very much he would have. Then again though had the U.S Open continued to have been played on grass during Borg's prime, instead of clay from 75-77, and hard courts from 78-81, and hypotheticaly had he had ended up winning any U.S Opens on grass courts(pretty good bet considering he won 5 straight Wimbledons on grass courts from 1976-1980), people would probably say that same thing "do you really doubt that Borg would have won a U.S Open on hard court, after all he dominated on grass and clay-the two most foreign surfaces." However surprise surprise we know what happened to Borg with the U.S Open on hard courts, despite his dominance on the two extremes of grass and clay from 1978-1981.
Borg's problems at the US Open wasn't surface, but some bad luck(injuries in '77/'78) & some phenemenal players in finals(Connors, Mac) He really didn't play it enough times for any sort of legit reason for why he didn't win it, I think to many try to do so, even though Mac & Connors are reason enough. He had close encounters with Connors at W '77, no reason Connors couldn't have beaten him in '77 if the US Open was on grass. And his matches with Mac in '80 were so close, even if they were both on grass, he could have lost one of them to Mac.

I don't think Laver would have had to face an American playing inspired tennis at the US Open in his time. Maybe Stan Smith, but he's no Connors or Mac.

The reason the US switched from grass, is that the grass was considered so bad, & resulted in too many upsets '68-'74. Had they stayed with grass, Borg may have lost to Tanner again('79), big servers had an ad there, even more than Wimbledon at the time.
 
Borg's problems at the US Open wasn't surface, but some bad luck(injuries in '77/'78) & some phenemenal players in finals(Connors, Mac) He really didn't play it enough times for any sort of legit reason for why he didn't win it, I think to many try to do so, even though Mac & Connors are reason enough.
However the same Connors and McEnroe played every French Open and Wimbledon from 1978-1981, with the exception of McEnroe missing the 78 and 79 French and Connors the 78 French. Those are the years of course when the U.S Open was on hard courts and Borg played, and when Borg won 7 out of 8 Wimbledons and French Opens(runner up in the other), the slams played on the two most foreign surfaces-grass and clay. So I would think it is obvious why Connors and McEnroe, great as they are, are not reasoned by many people as simply "reason enough", without further analysis, as to his failure to win a U.S Open in its 4 years or hard courts during the height of his dominance on both grass and clay.

I would say winning 3 of 4 Wimbledons, and being runner up in the other; while during the same timeframe winning 0 of 4 U.S Opens, even if losing 3 in the finals, is enough times to draw some conclusion from if you wish to. It is not like it is only 1 or 2 years to draw a conclusion from.

He had close encounters with Connors at W '77, no reason Connors couldn't have beaten him in '77 if the US Open was on grass. And his matches with Mac in '80 were so close, even if they were both on grass, he could have lost one of them to Mac.

I don't think Laver would have had to face an American playing inspired tennis at the US Open in his time. Maybe Stan Smith, but he's no Connors or Mac.

The reason the US switched from grass, is that the grass was considered so bad, & resulted in too many upsets '68-'74. Had they stayed with grass, Borg may have lost to Tanner again('79), big servers had an ad there, even more than Wimbledon at the time.
You are saying matches vs certain players were so close at Wimbledon that they could have easily gone the other way against some of the same people who beat him at the U.S Open. However they still didnt go that way almost each time at Wimbledon, yet at the U.S Open, the only slam played on hard courts then, they did go the other way to these same people. So I understand those people who have tried to make something of that, are not going to look at that as merely coincidental.
 
Last edited:

malakas

Banned
My first choise would be Baghdatis of course,but very close second comes Federer winning the FO and completing the Grand Slam.:D
 

Voltron

Hall of Fame
Hell yeah, I may not be a really big fan of either player, but I like how Fed plays, and I want to see a calender slam in my lifetime. Besides, I really don't like Nadal very much.
 
Back on subject. I think it would be great to see him do it.. I remember Wilander winning 3 of the four in 88 and thinking "what could have been", and Steffi doing the Golden Slam.. Its a special thing to witness....
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
.. I remember Wilander winning 3 of the four in 88 and thinking "what could have been"
Yeah, but do you really think Wilander was that close that year? I recall all his slam wins being a grind, he wasn't blowing anyone away, & wasn't a dominant #1 at all. I thought he had no chance pre-Wimbledon that year & he proved me right(even if he had beaten Mecir, I think Edberg & Becker would have beaten him easily)

Pre Fed, the only time I thought a grand slam was possible(post Borg) was Sampras in '94.
 
Some of you people are just funny.. What has a guy got to do to earn some respect? It doesnt matter how hard he did it. The fact of the matter is, that his name was engraved on 3 of the four trophies in that year. Something that isnt achieved very often.. sheesh..

Look, I give Sampras credit where credit is due. But I am so sick of hearing his name.. In my opinion, I like my sports stars to have witt, charisma, and rogueish streak about them. In other words "animated"... Sampras in my mind was an arrogant tossle that was so boring to watch and listen to, that I usually turned him off when his matches came on.. I can not think of a duller person to listen to in an interview and play on court.. The fact he chose himself over Davis Cup speaks volumes about the guy!
 
Last edited:

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, but do you really think Wilander was that close that year? I recall all his slam wins being a grind, he wasn't blowing anyone away, & wasn't a dominant #1 at all. I thought he had no chance pre-Wimbledon that year & he proved me right(even if he had beaten Mecir, I think Edberg & Becker would have beaten him easily)

Pre Fed, the only time I thought a grand slam was possible(post Borg) was Sampras in '94.
moose, I'm kind of surprised at this post, especially coming from you.

I mean, come-on the guy won 3 of the 4. On one hand if he would be blowing people away, people will say , 'yeah, but his compettition was easy". Now you say he was "grinding" to win.

Seriously, I'm sure judging from your posts it ticks you off when you hear people say Laver had it easy in the early rounds back then.

And, you know better than to do "what if" arguments. Fact is, he won. You don't know if becker, or edberg would have beaten him. I'm sure you weren't aware Fed was going to lose to volandri. >> unless you are psychic :)
 
i love tennis, but i'm over the whole 'can fed win rg' thing. it's been goin on for three years now. enough already. win the damned thing and let's move on to the next storyline (which they can drag out for the next three years).
I hear you. One thing is for sure. In the next week or so, this msg. board is going to blow up one way or the other. I can't imagine all the sh't talking here when either Nadal or Roger falls. Goger better get it done this year.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
I hear you. One thing is for sure. In the next week or so, this msg. board is going to blow up one way or the other. I can't imagine all the sh't talking here when either Nadal or Roger falls. Goger better get it done this year.
Last year Federer lost in the final to Nadal and this board is still active and fully operational.;-)
 

omniexist

Semi-Pro
Wow, must admit Fed is very popular on this board...even with americans.

What with the "hell, yeah!" comments...
 
Top