Fed's best opportunity was 2004, FO

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MasterTS, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. MasterTS

    MasterTS Professional

    Dec 29, 2005
    Look who won the FO!!! Gaudio lolz... and off of a coria choke too! Nadal wasn't ready to win at that time, and had injury problems.

    If fed had stepped it up and beat guga, he woulda gone all the way and taken out gaudio.

    Too bad, he missed his chances for 4 years now.. Guga smashed Fed 6-4, 6-4, 6-4... Now that nadal is on the scene and still not in his prime yet, Fed has no chance at the FO. With each year passing, Fed's chance of the FO deminishes expontentially!

    I suspect Fed would have lost to a primed Guga 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 if a non-prime guga can beat Fed 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 lol!!!
  2. Ztalin

    Ztalin Guest

    I agree that a prime guga would embarrass fed on clay most of the time. But if fed and guga were both at 100% of their level (which doesn't happen for fed very often, especially on this surface), it'd be pretty tight. When he's at 100%, he's hitting winners like crazy.

    Fed's best chance is a nadal injury.

    Plus, I don't think Nadal has ever beaten Fed that badly, even on clay. Are you saying Keurten is better on clay in his prime than Nadal? You can only use stats from 3 years ago to assume so much...
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2007
  3. Bassus

    Bassus Rookie

    Jun 17, 2006

    I'm afraid that Federer will look back on 2004 as the year he lost his best chance, and the fact that it was also a lost shot at a Grand Slam will make it ever worse.

    He had beaten Gaudio and Coria a few weeks earlier in Hamburg, and unlike with Nadal, the differences between Hamburg and Roland Garros would not have been something that either Gaudio or Coria would have really benefitted from. His biggest roadblock would have been Nalbandian, who I think he would have faced along the way.

    Federer also wasted 2002 and 2003, when he went out in the first or second round, after having made the quarterfinals in 2001. I'm not saying he would have beaten Ferrero or Costa, but I think his chances would have been better for that than they now are for beating Nadal at the French.

    And of course, one would have thought that Federer could have put the inexperienced, 19-yr old Nadal under pressure in their 2005 semifinal and win the match, but of course, he did not.

Share This Page