Federer at the FO

[RF-18]

Roland Garros top ten most match wins in history:

1. Nadal 66
2. Federer 61
3. Vilas 58
4. Lendl 53
5. Agassi 51
6, Borg 49
7. Wilander47
8. Djokovic 42

He has the second most wins in history of the French Open, Nadal has only won 5 games more than him, and it seperates 8 titles between them.

It's really mind boggling looking at it now.

Federer is an fantastic clay court player and probably the most underrated in history looking that he only has 1 title but all those wins. Is he one of the greatest clay courters? Nah, he could of been, but you need the titles to support that argument. Still one of the most underrated? Hell yes.

But it was unfortunate for him to play the greatest clay court player of all times and also the guy who least suits him when it comes to match ups in majority (almost all of them except one) of the finals.

Its sick how complete Federer is. Those 61 wins is atleast worth three slams if not more.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Roland Garros top ten most match wins in history:

1. Nadal 66
2. Federer 61
3. Vilas 58
4. Lendl 53
5. Agassi 51
6, Borg 49
7. Wilander47
8. Djokovic 42

He has the second most wins in history of the French Open, Nadal has only won 5 games more than him, and it seperates 8 titles between them.

It's really mind boggling looking at it now.

Federer is an fantastic clay court player and probably the most underrated in history looking that he only has 1 title but all those wins. But it was unfortunate for him to play the greatest clay court player of all times and also the guy who least suits him when it comes to match ups in majority (almost all of them except one) of the finals.

Its sick how complete Federer is. Those 61 wins is atleast worth three slams if not more.

Is this the new desperate Fed fan craze as Nadal gets closer to 17 each year? :lol: all of a sudden so many nickels and dimes are worth slams. I'll tell you what's worth 3 slams..... 3 slams. The rest of your post before the fanboyism was spot on.

 

[RF-18]

Is this the new desperate Fed fan craze as Nadal gets closer to 17 each year? :lol: all of a sudden so many nickels and dimes are worth slams. I'll tell you what's worth 3 slams..... 3 slams. The rest of your post before the fanboyism was spot on.

MN, don't take that wrong. What I meant was that usually when you have so much wins at a tournament or finals for that matter, it should result in several titles, but it didn't. My purpose was not to say he has 20 slams now, not at all.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Federer lost to Kuerten as well on clay and while Nadal may be the best of all time on clay you can't ignore losses from 05-07 at RG. From 08 onwards fine Nadal peaked but he should have won at least one of those matches. Nadal was what a 20 year old in 2006 and a teen in 05. No excuses there. You can't tell me Nadal was the greatest ever on clay when he won his first RG or even his second and third.

 

[MichaelNadal]

MN, don't take that wrong. What I meant was that usually when you have so much wins at a tournament or finals for that matter, it should result in several titles, but it didn't. My purpose was not to say he has 20 slams now, not at all.

Oh I know the feeling. #Wimby06-07-11 #WTF10-13 #AO12-14

 

[Mr.Snrub]

Weak clay era so it's easy for Federer to get to the end of the tournament.

Also Nadal has played 5 fewer FO so that explains them being so close. In 5 years compare Nadal's number of wins 2014 Federer's. It will be more like 30 wins separating 8-10 major titles

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Weak clay era so it's easy for Federer to get to the end of the tournament.

Also Nadal has played 5 fewer FO so that explains them being so close. In 5 years compare Nadal's number of wins 2014 Federer's. It will be more like 30 wins separating 8-10 major titles

You just did Nadal a huge disservice there. :-?

 

[RF-18]

Federer lost to Kuerten as well on clay and while Nadal may be the best of all time on clay you can't ignore losses from 05-07 at RG. From 08 onwards fine Nadal peaked but he should have won at least one of those matches. Nadal was what a 20 year old in 2006 and a teen in 05. No excuses there. You can't tell me Nadal was the greatest ever on clay when he won his first RG or even his second and third.

Maybe I should have added "upcoming" greatest clay courter OA?

But looking at it now, nadals record is sick. 66-1.

Although I also believe federer could of clutched more than one title still federer was having a hard time vs nadal on clay outside FO too.

 

[wy2sl0]

No points for second place. The only year I would give Fed the nod at a distinct chance at winning was RG 11 when he took out Djokovic and then was about to take the first set against Rafa, playing better from the backhand wing than I had ever seen him (on clay). He then has a stroke and tries a drop shot that goes wide; loses focus, gets broken, loses the set, only wins the 3rd because of a small let down in focus from Nadal and continued on to be defeated (which he already was mentally after the first).

Nadal does not fold against anyone. Do you have any idea how hard he battled to break that 7 match winning streak against Novak? Within POINTS in a few matches and continued on in 2012 with that epic 6 hour marathon.

Fed resigned losing to Rafa after the 2nd game in the 5th set @ AO 09.

No for real, that is actually when the end began.

You can't teach talent but you also can't teach "will". I don't like playing these games saying give this player this or that but in all honesty, if Fed was better at losing earlier in his career he actually may have ended up considerably more successful in his 2nd half.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Oh I know the feeling. #Wimby06-07-11 #WTF10-13 #AO12-14

WTF 13 final was just lucky. He wouldn't have been routined by DjokoKing otherwise in the final. He beat a brokeback Federer who barely had any recovery time after the Delpotro match.

 

[MichaelNadal]

WTF 13 final was just lucky. He wouldn't have been routined by DjokoKing otherwise in the final. He beat a brokeback Federer who barely had any recovery time after the Delpotro match.

There was no luck involved, and Nadal would have had his chances against anyone else in the final.

 

[RF-18]

Oh I know the feeling. #Wimby06-07-11 #WTF10-13 #AO12-14

Not the same thing. Federer dominated clay year in year out but nadal was standing in his way. 61 wins in FO, 5 wins less than nadal. that was the whole point of the thread. It has only resulted in one FO title, that shows how underrated and fantastic he is on clay. Probaly most underrated in history

 

[MichaelNadal]

Not the same thing. Federer dominated clay year in year out but nadal was standing in his way. 61 wins in FO, 5 wins less than nadal. that was the whole point of the thread. It has only resulted in one FO title, that shows how underrated he is on clay.

Im not talking about finals losses here.

Um, Nadal made 5 straight Wimbledon finals. It's not as far off as you think. But i'll let you have the spotlight.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Um, Nadal made 5 straight Wimbledon finals. It's not as far off as you think. But i'll let you have the spotlight.

Yeah but there's a big difference between 38 wins and 61 MN.

 

[tennisaddict]

I am so glad for Fed's lone FO.

I will not pretend he deserved more in Rafa's reign.

 

[torpantennis]

Um, Nadal made 5 straight Wimbledon finals. It's not as far off as you think. But i'll let you have the spotlight.

And some even dare to claim that Nadal was still in his peak after 2011. Yeah right... :?

 

[RF-18]

Um, Nadal made 5 straight Wimbledon finals. It's not as far off as you think. But i'll let you have the spotlight.

He made three straight wimbledon finals. Where did you get 5 from?

Nevertheless, he still hasn't dominated wimbledon in the extent as Roger has on RG. Yes, Nadal has 2 titles, but thats irrelevant in this thread as Im talking about how good federer actually is on clay. That his 1 title don't speak the whole truth as he is actually much better than that.

Don't know why you bring rafa into this from the first place.

 

[MichaelNadal]

He made three straight wimbledon finals.

Nevertheless, he still hasn't dominated wimbledon in the extent as Roger has on RG. Yes, Nadal has 2 titles, but thats irrelevant in this thread as Im talking about how good federer actually is on clay. That his 1 title don't speak the whole truth as he is actually much better than that.

Don't know why you bring rafa into this.

Like I said, I'll let you have the floor, I can see this means a lot to you :lol: Nadal is also better at Wimbledon, AO, and WTF than his record speaks, that's all I was saying.

 

[Djokovic2011]

And some even dare to claim that Nadal was still in his peak after 2011. Yeah right... :?

At least you said "after 2011" torpan. Anyway 2013 NA swing says hi.

 

[torpantennis]

Like I said, I'll let you have the floor, I can see this means a lot to you :lol: Nadal is also better at Wimbledon, AO, and WTF than his record speaks, that's all I was saying.

Simply, Fedal >> Murrovic?

 

[MichaelNadal]

At least you said "after 2011" torpan. Anyway 2013 NA swing says hi.

Nadal's grass peak was over after 2011. Yes, 2011.

Simply, Fedal >> Murrovic?

Definitely.

Are you sure you understand what the OP is trying to say MN. :???:

No, I just think Nadal getting credit for the slightest things makes your skin crawl.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Like I said, I'll let you have the floor, I can see this means a lot to you :lol: Nadal is also better at Wimbledon, AO, and WTF than his record speaks, that's all I was saying.

Are you sure you understand what the OP is trying to say MN. :???:

 

[torpantennis]

At least you said "after 2011" torpan. Anyway 2013 NA swing says hi.

That 2011 was definitely a huge year by Nole, he dominated absolute peak Nadal through the whole year! Strange enough, it was actually post prime Fed who caused him more trouble, almost beating Nole twice in the slams!

 

[torpantennis]

Nadal's grass peak was over after 2011. Yes, 2011.



Definitely.



No, I just think Nadal getting credit for the slightest things makes your skin crawl.

Actually I think whole of Nadal's peak was over after 2011. That 2013 was still prime though. A bit like Fed peak was 2004-2007, and the prime was two years longer.

 

[RF-18]

Wow, its like pounding your head against a wall. You know it hurts, but you keep doing it.

Im not gonna explain myself anymore. Read the thread again cause im out of explanations anymore.

 

[Djokovic2011]

That 2011 was definitely a huge year by Nole, he dominated absolute peak Nadal through the whole year! Strange enough, it was actually post prime Fed who caused him more trouble, almost beating Nole twice in the slams!

I prefer to call him "post prime peak Fed" myself seeing as how good he was against Nole in those particular slams. :wink:

 

[torpantennis]

As for OP, yes Fed would definitely win multiple FO in any era without Nadal/Borg in it. And sorry MN, I think Nadal deserved exactly that two Wimbys.

 

[Djokovic2011]

No, I just think Nadal getting credit for the slightest things makes your skin crawl.

Not at all but how does Nadal have many wins as Fed does at RG to warrant having more slams at those tournaments(especially WTF, I mean really) than he does??

 

[MichaelNadal]

Not at all but how does Nadal have many wins as Fed does at RG to warrant having more slams at those tournaments(especially WTF, I mean really) than he does??

I never said it was the same :lol: in my post ALL I said was that "I know the feeling" and then a bunch of words got put into my mouth. Nadal could or should have more Wimby/AO/WTF titles and has lost multiple finals in each, resulting in what you could say is him under-performing there. That's it.

 

[torpantennis]

And TBH, even Soderling deserved one FO. And I'd say Nole two and Fed 2-3.

But no, Nadal has been too great on clay. Without a doubt the clay-GOAT. And TBH, Nadal on clay is better than anybody on any surface. That's why Nole has no FO, and Fed only the one.

 

[MichaelNadal]

As for OP, yes Fed would definitely win multiple FO in any era without Nadal/Borg in it. And sorry MN, I think Nadal deserved exactly that two Wimbys.

Mmm, between 07 and 2011 and him not playing in 09, I think he should have won another. 07 was really close until the MTO. No need to be sorry though we're 2 people with 2 views.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I never said it was the same :lol: in my post ALL I said was that "I know the feeling" and then a bunch of words got put into my mouth. Nadal could or should have more Wimby/AO/WTF titles and has lost multiple finals in each, resulting in what you could say is him under-performing there. That's it.

But you don't really know the feeling since Nadal's never lost in a final at the same major 4 times to the same player. That's why I sensed you were getting a little confused with what the OP was trying to point out.

 

[torpantennis]

Mmm, between 07 and 2011 and him not playing in 09, I think he should have won another. 07 was really close until the MTO. No need to be sorry though we're 2 people with 2 views.

Do you think Nadal would get more Wimbys in any other era?

 

[ultradr]

Roland Garros top ten most match wins in history:

1. Nadal 66
2. Federer 61
3. Vilas 58
4. Lendl 53
5. Agassi 51
6, Borg 49
7. Wilander47
8. Djokovic 42

He has the second most wins in history of the French Open, Nadal has only won 5 games more than him, and it seperates 8 titles between them.

Yes, Federer has better chance to beat Djokovic at French Open than hard courts, IMHO. So if Nadal is not there, it is Federer.

Federer is a great clay courter and in fact this is era of clay courters.

Since 2003, Wimbledon grass is similar type of organic court with uncertain bounces.

 

[RF-18]

As for OP, yes Fed would definitely win multiple FO in any era without Nadal/Borg in it. And sorry MN, I think Nadal deserved exactly that two Wimbys.

Yes, but do you agree that he is one of the most underrated clay court players in history?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Do you think Nadal would get more Wimbys in any other era?

Do you think Federer would have as many WTF's? That's an off the map question.

 

[BringBackSV]

No points for second place. The only year I would give Fed the nod at a distinct chance at winning was RG 11 when he took out Djokovic and then was about to take the first set against Rafa, playing better from the backhand wing than I had ever seen him (on clay). He then has a stroke and tries a drop shot that goes wide; loses focus, gets broken, loses the set, only wins the 3rd because of a small let down in focus from Nadal and continued on to be defeated (which he already was mentally after the first).

Nadal does not fold against anyone. Do you have any idea how hard he battled to break that 7 match winning streak against Novak? Within POINTS in a few matches and continued on in 2012 with that epic 6 hour marathon.

Fed resigned losing to Rafa after the 2nd game in the 5th set @ AO 09.

No for real, that is actually when the end began.

You can't teach talent but you also can't teach "will". I don't like playing these games saying give this player this or that but in all honesty, if Fed was better at losing earlier in his career he actually may have ended up considerably more successful in his 2nd half.

Rafa was clearly resigned to losing at Wimbledon 11 and USO 11.

 

[RF-18]

And TBH, even Soderling deserved one FO. And I'd say Nole two and Fed 2-3.

But no, Nadal has been too great on clay. Without a doubt the clay-GOAT. And TBH, Nadal on clay is better than anybody on any surface. That's why Nole has no FO, and Fed only the one.

That is true. Nadal is better on his best surface than what federer and Djokovic is on theirs.

But there is reasons for that too IMO. Clay courts has always been slow, imagine if they somehow made it similar to a grass court, faster and with lower bounce?

Wimbledon who has always been known for its speed, has slown down drastically. The same can be said about HCs wich can in several areas be compared to a clay court.

Clay courts have no similarities with the other surfaces whatsoever, so this could be a valid theory to why Nadal is so much better on his best sirface than what Fed and nole is in theirs.

But I dont want to take anything away ffom rafas amazin clay results. He deserves it.

 

[torpantennis]

Yes, but do you agree that he is one of the most underrated clay court players in history?

Yes, without a doubt. Ridiculously, many think without a doubt that Nole is better than Fed on clay, peak to peak. IMO it's the other way around.

 

[RF-18]

Feels like we are getting to much off topic, lets get back to the threads purpose.

 

[torpantennis]

Do you think Federer would have as many WTF's? That's an off the map question.

Against any other era, at least 4-5 WTFs for Fed. On clay, Nadal would win all his FO in any era, and on grass Fed all his Wimbys or even one more. Nadal on grass, 1-2 Wimbys max. He was actually lucky to face a good match up in 4/5 of his finals!

 

[The_Order]

Oh I know the feeling. #Wimby06-07-11 #WTF10-13 #AO12-14

Really though, out of all of those he should've won WIM07, AO12 and AO14.

They're the real missed opportunities but every top player has hits and misses. Nadal probably has the least out of him, Federer and Novak.

People call clay era weak when we have Federer who's won 61 matches at RG (more than anyone except Rafa) and Djokovic who has quite a few wins there (already top 10) as well.

They just can't stand the dominance Rafa has at that major.

 

[The_Order]

Against any other era, at least 4-5 WTFs for Fed. On clay, Nadal would win all his FO in any era, and on grass Fed all his Wimbys or even one more. Nadal on grass, 1-2 Wimbys max. He was actually lucky to face a good match up in 4/5 of his finals!

Nadal was lucky to face peak Federer in 3 Wimbledon finals?

LOL don't let logic get in your way pal...

 

[John6239]

No points for second place. The only year I would give Fed the nod at a distinct chance at winning was RG 11 when he took out Djokovic and then was about to take the first set against Rafa, playing better from the backhand wing than I had ever seen him (on clay). He then has a stroke and tries a drop shot that goes wide; loses focus, gets broken, loses the set, only wins the 3rd because of a small let down in focus from Nadal and continued on to be defeated (which he already was mentally after the first).

Nadal does not fold against anyone. Do you have any idea how hard he battled to break that 7 match winning streak against Novak? Within POINTS in a few matches and continued on in 2012 with that epic 6 hour marathon.

Fed resigned losing to Rafa after the 2nd game in the 5th set @ AO 09.

No for real, that is actually when the end began.

You can't teach talent but you also can't teach "will". I don't like playing these games saying give this player this or that but in all honesty, if Fed was better at losing earlier in his career he actually may have ended up considerably more successful in his 2nd half.

If you are talking about rafa then yes federer is a bit stunted in the ability to be mentally strong since it is a bad match up. Nadal leads federer 10-8 outside of clay. Just like Davydenko being 6-1 on hard courts against rafa was a bad match up.

But to say fed is not mentally strong I have to disagree, especially given this year. Yes, in the past I have felt federer get mentally beaten when he doesn't get the break deep into a match and loses his serve. But look at how he came back against Djokovic and Berdych in Dubai, how he came back a break down in the 4th in Wimbledon and saved a matchpoint. Look at how he came back against Monfils at the US Open and how he saved 5 maps against Mayer and set points in both sets against Simon. And look at how he saved those 4 match points against Wawrinka.

This year I am really proud that fed was able to battle through matches he might have lost mentally in the past. Maybe it's the new racket and ability to rally more consistently (and hit his backhand), but whatever it is it is a lot of will.

 

[kOaMaster]

How should Nadal have won the AO2014?
At absolutely no point I felt that he's having a real chance. Injury or not, Wawrinka was dominating him from the beginning.
That's like saying Federer should've won the USO14...

@OP: Yeah that is true although Federers longevity and consistency kicks in too. But in an era with Nadal on clay, there's almost no space for anything but 2nd places. Federer has done a great job on clay, more than anyone else except Nadal. Therefore we can only say that he is beind Nadal. In my personal opinion, Federer ranks somewhere in the top5 of all clay courters (perhaps just behind Borg & Nadal) but how does it matter? It's just another "what if?"-game.

 

[RF-18]

How should Nadal have won the AO2014?
At absolutely no point I felt that he's having a real chance. Injury or not, Wawrinka was dominating him from the beginning.
That's like saying Federer should've won the USO14...

@OP: Yeah that is true although Federers longevity and consistency kicks in too. But in an era with Nadal on clay, there's almost no space for anything but 2nd places. Federer has done a great job on clay, more than anyone else except Nadal. Therefore we can only say that he is beind Nadal. In my personal opinion, Federer ranks somewhere in the top5 of all clay courters (perhaps just behind Borg & Nadal) but how does it matter? It's just another "what if?"-game.

In any other era federer would have atleast three or four RG titles, if not more. He is a better clay court player than Lendl, Wilander, yes pretty much anyone except Nadal and Borg. But is he a greater clay court player? No, he doesn't have the titles (especially on RG) to support that argument against likes of Lendl, Wilander etc on that surface in particular.

but he was unfortunate to meet the upcoming greatest clay courter of all times. Otherwise we would have a different conversation here.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Really though, out of all of those he should've won WIM07, AO12 and AO14.

You missed out 5 CYGS in a row from 2010-2014. Come on now, don't be so modest.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

You missed out 5 CYGS in a row from 2010-2014. Come on now, don't be so modest.

Perhaps if he jumped in the body of Laver, other that...no.

 

[punsalen]

1 French Open is about right for Federer. He had the clay GOAT in his way, but an otherwise relatively weak clay field, and the organizers kept fixing draws and putting Djokovic in Nadal's half every year just go get a Federer-Nadal final. He is 1-1 vs Djokovic at RG which would probably be 3-3 or so without the draw fixing.

In most eras he would win 1 French Open. The odd one 2, and the odd one 1. In almost no other era would he reach 5 French Open finals though. Probably in Borg's era he would too, losing every final to Borg just as he does to Nadal, and that is the only one he would reach so many.

He is a good clay courter though. Top 12 in Open Era and top 25 in history.

 

[TMF]

Yes, but do you agree that he is one of the most underrated clay court players in history?

I think the main reason why he's underrated is because he achieved so much outside of clay, and many considered him the hard court and grass goat. This alone gets overshadowed and overlooked at his clay prowess. I mean only a few players in history were able to reach at least 5 FO finals, and as the OP pointed out, he has the 2nd most match wins at the FO.

He's in the top 10 greatest clay courter of all time.