Federer needs Monte Carlo and Rome for his resume

He got stopped multiple times by a younger stronger clay courter in Nadal. He really should have won it in 2003 and 2006. Anything after 2006 and he’s facing an uphill battle against Nadal. Djokovic simply handles Nadal better on clay because of his two hander. A prime Federer is better than Djokovic in every aspect of the game on clay except for backhand ground strokes. As good as Djokovic’s clay movement is I’ve seen Federer and Nadal wrong foot him many times and catch him slipping.
 
Last edited:
Ray Mercer said:
He got stopped multiple times by a younger stronger clay counter in Nadal. He really should have won it in 2003 and 2006. Anything after 2006 and he’s facing an uphill battle against Nadal. Djokovic simply handles Nadal better on clay because of his two hander. A prime Federer is better than Djokovic in every aspect of the game on clay except for backhand ground strokes. As good as Djokovic’s clay movement is I’ve seen Federer and Nadal wrong foot him many times and catch him slipping.
Click to expand...
Same thing with Nadal in 2010/13 at WTF. It’s not a fair excuse. The results are always comparative. Djokovic has several WTFs
 
Third Serve said:
1. I'm pretty sure RG is slow and high-bouncing. Fed has won that, if I'm not mistaken.

2. Fed also won Hamburg, which was slow but low-bouncing.
Click to expand...
1. 2009, when Rafa "lost" injured to the Sod. RF got lucky, as usual...

0-6 vs Rafa at FO. I.e. when Rafa is there, fit, RF has/had no real chance.

2. 2002 Weakera win.
2004 Rafa too young. Weakera win.
2005 Rafa pulled out of Hamburg due to injury.
2007 Beat an exhausted Rafa who came from winning Barcelona, Rome and MC, Federer - fresh as a daisy - took advantage of his luck, as per usual. Rafa took 1st set 62 then crashed, had no energy left. This is why Rafa avoided playing Hamburg: schedule.

Also, Hamburg was always the least visited clay M1000 in terms of top players. One of the reasons it lost its M1000 status around 2009. Just check out the champs list and compare it to MC and Rome...
 
Last edited:
UnderratedSlam said:
1. 2009, when Rafa "lost" injured to the Sod. RF got lucky, as usual...

0-6 vs Rafa at FO. I.e. when Rafa is there, fit, RF has/had no real chance.

2. 2002 Weakera win.
2004 Rafa too young. Weakera win.
2005 Rafa pulled out of Hamburg due to injury.
2007 Beat an exhausted Rafa who came from winning Barcelona, Rome and MC, Federer - fresh as a daisy - took advantage of his luck, as per usual. Rafa took 1st set 62 then crashed, had no energy left. This is why Rafa avoided playing Hamburg: schedule.

Also, Hamburg was always the least visited clay M1000 in terms of top players. One of the reasons it lost its M1000 status around 2009. Just check out the champs list and compare it to MC and Rome...
Click to expand...
Not even gonna bother with this list of excuses. No one should.
 
BackhandDTL said:
He’s right tho. Some of it may seem like hyperbole, but do you really think that none of that is true?
Click to expand...
All of it is hyperbole. It's literally just "muh weak era" without even paying attention to Fed's actual level in those tournaments. Fed's level in Hamburg 2002, 2004-2005 was absolutely solid but of course we should discount it because his opponents weren't great. Wasn't like AO 2006 where he had an easy draw and struggled. He manhandled those opponents exactly the way he should have.

Generally speaking, I don't have a huge problem with weak era arguments if the player in question did a great job winning anyway. Like Ned at 2010 USO. The draw was sub-par with mugs before the final and only a decent version of Djokovic in the final, but he tore everyone apart just fine. No issues at all there. With 2017 and 2019, though, I feel differently.

And Fed played very well to win all of his big clay titles. None of this struggling against CRAPOLA opponents (and he did face some fair opposition, though not perfect, such as Coria, Hewitt, and Nadal two times) that seems to be the norm nowadays.
 
BackhandDTL said:
He’s right tho. Some of it may seem like hyperbole, but do you really think that none of that is true?
Click to expand...
Lies, all I gave is lies and made-up stats!

Except that everything is true.

RF fans came to terms with 20=20, and they are coming to terms with the soon-to-come 311 > 310, so I believe they should be able to come to terms with other crashed/crushed myths...
 
Third Serve said:
All of it is hyperbole. It's literally just "muh weak era" without even paying attention to Fed's actual level in those tournaments. Fed's level in Hamburg 2002, 2004-2005 was absolutely solid but of course we should discount it because his opponents weren't great. Wasn't like AO 2006 where he had an easy draw and struggled. He manhandled those opponents exactly the way he should have.

Generally speaking, I don't have a huge problem with weak era arguments if the player in question did a great job winning anyway. Like Ned at 2010 USO. The draw was sub-par with mugs before the final and only a decent version of Djokovic in the final, but he tore everyone apart just fine. No issues at all there. With 2017 and 2019, though, I feel differently.

And Fed played very well to win all of his big clay titles. None of this struggling against CRAPOLA opponents (and he did face some fair opposition, though not perfect, such as Coria, Hewitt, and Nadal two times) that seems to be the norm nowadays.
Click to expand...
I thought you said you wouldn't bother?

What made you change?

My facts?
 
Third Serve said:
All of it is hyperbole. It's literally just "muh weak era" without even paying attention to Fed's actual level in those tournaments. Fed's level in Hamburg 2002, 2004-2005 was absolutely solid but of course we should discount it because his opponents weren't great. Wasn't like AO 2006 where he had an easy draw and struggled. He manhandled those opponents exactly the way he should have.

Generally speaking, I don't have a huge problem with weak era arguments if the player in question did a great job winning anyway. Like Ned at 2010 USO. The draw was sub-par with mugs before the final and only a decent version of Djokovic in the final, but he tore everyone apart just fine. No issues at all there. With 2017 and 2019, though, I feel differently.

And Fed played very well to win all of his big clay titles. None of this struggling against CRAPOLA opponents (and he did face some fair opposition, though not perfect, such as Coria, Hewitt, and Nadal two times) that seems to be the norm nowadays.
Click to expand...
They’re not even weak draws that’s the thing. Kuerten and Safin in 2002. Gaudio, Moya, Hewitt and Coria in 2004. Coria and Gasquet in 2005 (Gasquet was solid that year, good close win over Fed and played Nadal close)

But of course it’s 2004-2007 so by default goes into the weak era bin.
 
duaneeo said:
I'm not of the 'slot' belief. Unless Nadal lifts the Shanghai trophy, he hasn't won Shanghai.
Click to expand...
Ahh I see. Well I will tell Nadal that duaneeo isn’t of the “slot” belief, even if majority of others seem to be.
I well let him know inmediately so he starts to prepare a year in advance for Shanghai.
 
As @Third Serve rightly pointed out, Federer has won RG, which tends to be slow and high bouncing. He's won 2 different masters on clay; Hamburg and Madrid. He's even won on blue clay LOL! I think he's shown he's capable of dealing with various types of clay courts. Yeah, it would be nice if he'd won Rome and Monte Carlo, though he's made 4 finals at each so it's not like he hasn't played well there.

Indoor hard court is quite clearly a much more significant and recognised distinction from outdoor hard court than between variations on red clay. The ATP makes the distinction in tournament listing and in stats. Historically, there's always been a clear distinction between the two types of court.

In any case, Nadal won the Madrid Indoors in 2005 so I think he's clearly shown he can win on Indoor courts. Plus, he's had to deal with both Federer and Djokovic at the YEC, who are a combined 7-3 against him (4-1 Federer, 3-2 Djokovic), making his failure to win there more understandable. Yeah, not winning the WTF will be a hole on Nadal's resumé but it won't preclude him from being GOAT. Same for not winning Miami, Shanghai or Paris. Nor will not winning Rome or Monte Carlo preclude Federer from being GOAT. And Nole rightfully deserves kudos for having won all of them, most of them twice.
 
Last edited:
Towny said:
As @Third Serve rightly pointed out, Federer has won RG, which is tends to be slow and high bouncing. He's won 2 different masters on clay; Hamburg and Madrid. He's even won on blue clay LOL! I think he's shown he's capable of dealing with various types of clay courts. Yeah, it would be nice if he'd won Rome and Monte Carlo, though he's made 4 finals at each so it's not like he hasn't played well there.

Indoor hard court is quite clearly a much more significant and recognised distinction from outdoor hard court than between variations on red clay. The ATP makes the distinction in tournament listing and in stats. Historically, there's always been a clear distinction between the two types of court.

In any case, Nadal won the Madrid Indoors in 2005 so I think he's clearly shown he can win on Indoor courts. Plus, he's had to deal with both Federer and Djokovic at the YEC, who are a combined 7-3 against him (4-1 Federer, 3-2 Djokovic), making his failure to in there more understandable. Yeah, not winning the WTF will be a hole on Nadal's resumé but it won't preclude him from being GOAT. Same for not winning Miami, Shanghai or Paris. Nor will not winning Rome or Monte Carlo preclude Federer from being GOAT. And Nole rightfully deserves kudos for having won all of them, most of them twice.
Click to expand...
Fair fair post. Can’t argue with this one.
 
Towny said:
As @Third Serve rightly pointed out, Federer has won RG, which is tends to be slow and high bouncing. He's won 2 different masters on clay; Hamburg and Madrid. He's even won on blue clay LOL! I think he's shown he's capable of dealing with various types of clay courts. Yeah, it would be nice if he'd won Rome and Monte Carlo, though he's made 4 finals at each so it's not like he hasn't played well there.

Indoor hard court is quite clearly a much more significant and recognised distinction from outdoor hard court than between variations on red clay. The ATP makes the distinction in tournament listing and in stats. Historically, there's always been a clear distinction between the two types of court.

In any case, Nadal won the Madrid Indoors in 2005 so I think he's clearly shown he can win on Indoor courts. Plus, he's had to deal with both Federer and Djokovic at the YEC, who are a combined 7-3 against him (4-1 Federer, 3-2 Djokovic), making his failure to in there more understandable. Yeah, not winning the WTF will be a hole on Nadal's resumé but it won't preclude him from being GOAT. Same for not winning Miami, Shanghai or Paris. Nor will not winning Rome or Monte Carlo preclude Federer from being GOAT. And Nole rightfully deserves kudos for having won all of them, most of them twice.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything here.
 
And what will it prove if Federer wins these titles. The answer is a big, fat nothing. Nadal is going to beat his Slam count by a minimum of 3 Slams to become the undisputed GOAT. Djokovic will likely tie his Slam count at the minimum, be ahead in head-head and beat him by many weeks at #1.

Federer will rightfully be at #3 when all their careers end which is what he deserves after behind both Nadal and Djokovic on head-to-head, backhand quality, return quality, movement, defense etc. He is better by a clear margin only on serves and a net game which don’t matter as much during these days of slow surfaces dominating the ATP calendar. Federer had a chance to be the GOAT only if he held his Slam and weeks at #1 records which now look like both have no chance of being retained by him. He was the best player in the world and that too only outside of clay from 2003-2009, but only his blinder-wearing fans could claim that he has been the best player in the world since.
 
FrontHeadlock said:
"They're all the same except for these two" haha

Seriously though I view the current Masters in tiers. Not that my list is dispositive, but this is how I see it.

Tier 1
  • Indian Wells
  • Rome
  • Cincy
Tier 2
  • Miami
  • Monte Carlo
  • Canada
Tier 3
  • Shanghai
  • Madrid
Tier 4
  • Paris
Click to expand...

This is a good list, and I mostly agree. Given that it's not compulsory anymore, I would likely put Monte Carlo with Shanghai and Madrid rather than with Miami and Canada.

Side note: I am really not sure why/when it became the common view that Indian Wells is more prestigious than Miami. It is certainly the dominant view on this board and may be the view of the tennis community as a whole these days, but when I first followed at the end of the 80s, I think most viewed it the other way around. At that point, I'd have had Rome and Miami as the two most important events after the Slams and tour finals. But I think you're right that Miami has dipped in prestige over the years.
 
FrontHeadlock said:
Fed doesn't need either of those two tournaments for his legacy; they are not must-win events.

That said, his lack of Rome titles (the 2nd most prestigious clay court tournament) as compared to Djokovic really hampers him when you compare the two by surface.
Click to expand...
Its pretty clear in a three way tie that Goatovic wins.:sneaky:
 
helterskelter said:
This is a good list, and I mostly agree. Given that it's not compulsory anymore, I would likely put Monte Carlo with Shanghai and Madrid rather than with Miami and Canada.

Side note: I am really not sure why/when it became the common view that Indian Wells is more prestigious than Miami. It is certainly the dominant view on this board and may be the view of the tennis community as a whole these days, but when I first followed at the end of the 80s, I think most viewed it the other way around. At that point, I'd have had Rome and Miami as the two most important events after the Slams and tour finals. But I think you're right that Miami has dipped in prestige over the years.
Click to expand...

I think that's fair re Monte Carlo, though it has a lot of history and gets played by top players.

I'm also not sure re Miami. Certainly in the last 20 years IW has surpassed it. That said, the gaps between these tiers aren't supposed to be gigantic, with the exception of Paris which is a dumpster fire.
 
Third Serve said:
All of it is hyperbole. It's literally just "muh weak era" without even paying attention to Fed's actual level in those tournaments. Fed's level in Hamburg 2002, 2004-2005 was absolutely solid but of course we should discount it because his opponents weren't great. Wasn't like AO 2006 where he had an easy draw and struggled. He manhandled those opponents exactly the way he should have.

Generally speaking, I don't have a huge problem with weak era arguments if the player in question did a great job winning anyway. Like Ned at 2010 USO. The draw was sub-par with mugs before the final and only a decent version of Djokovic in the final, but he tore everyone apart just fine. No issues at all there. With 2017 and 2019, though, I feel differently.

And Fed played very well to win all of his big clay titles. None of this struggling against CRAPOLA opponents (and he did face some fair opposition, though not perfect, such as Coria, Hewitt, and Nadal two times) that seems to be the norm nowadays.
Click to expand...
Nadals USO 2010 is tougher than more than 2/3rds of Feds slams.
 
FrontHeadlock said:
1994 Corretja who had made a single tournament final at that time and who wouldn't make a single Masters SF until 1996?
Click to expand...
There is only 1 Corretja....the guy who beat Federer at RG back to back....2 time RG finalist... 1 Masters Cup win...never lost to Nadal on clay...but got whooped by Pete on clay in Rome TWICE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Roger needs to change his clay court schedule next year he should skip Rome
Replies
45
Views
2K
plain jane
plain jane
VolleyHelena
  • Poll Poll
Have we seen the last of Federer on Clay courts?
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
Centre Court
Centre Court
Meles
Federer Should Wildcard Monte Carlo
2 3 4
Replies
151
Views
7K
oldmanfan
oldmanfan
ForehandCross
Hypothetical TTW War : Peak Federer vs Peak Djokovic throughout a season
2 3
Replies
105
Views
3K
abmk
abmk
jack_kramer
  • Poll Poll
Djokovic vs. Spanish Armada + Federer on Clay
Replies
5
Views
1K
The-Champ
The-Champ
Back
Top