If Fed wins because Nadal pulls out

R

richied

Rookie
If Fed wins the French because Nadal pulls out or retires because of injury (not out of the question) does it go down as a shallow victory? We all know slams are tough and whoever wins deserves all the credit they get, but because of Nadal's overwelming H2H record and favoritism to win the FO, surely everyone will remember this as the final without Nadal. Or, will it be remembered as Feds record equalling GS and career GS. I'd probably remember it as the Final without Nadal. I also wonder if a victory will elevate Feds position on the GOAT ladder. IMO, if this senario plays out the H2H record in slams still overules a Career Slam and most GS's record, but that's just me.
 
Well even if Nadal played and was healthy, there's not guarantee that he would make the final either so you can't discount a victory because of that.

At Wimbledon (or the USO), if someone wins and did not play Fed, should that still count (with full credit given)? I think yes.
 
Look if Fed cant win a calendar GS beating Nadal in straight sets at each on then he gets no credit plain and simple.

Furthermore even if Fed did play Nadal and beat him in straight it would only count if Nadal was 100% healthy, not tired, and had no blisters on hands/feet.
 
richied said:
If Fed wins the French because Nadal pulls out or retires because of injury (not out of the question) does it go down as a shallow victory? We all know slams are tough and whoever wins deserves all the credit they get, but because of Nadal's overwelming H2H record and favoritism to win the FO, surely everyone will remember this as the final without Nadal. Or, will it be remembered as Feds record equalling GS and career GS. I'd probably remember it as the Final without Nadal. I also wonder if a victory will elevate Feds position on the GOAT ladder. IMO, if this senario plays out the H2H record in slams still overules a Career Slam and most GS's record, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Are Pardraig Harrington's victories with Woods out shallow?
 
Injuries and chance are parts of any sport, so darn yes, a victory by default of the opponent is completely legitimate.

That said, the legend of Federer would be notably larger if he manages to outplay a healthy Nadal in RG final, no question about that. A Nadal-less FO will be still as valid a FO as any, but a Nadal-ful FO would be a FO+.

Regarding GOATness, I already regard Fed higher than Sampras based on their respective performance on clay, so in my opinion an actual win at FO would change little in that respect.
 
my grandma has 16 wheel chair... is she a freightliner?
 
It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately to many it will be a shallow victory. I don't think anyone has owned a slam like Nadal owns the French.

Its sad to say this, but if anybody wins it without beating Nadal they will not get the credit they deserve. Certainly not on this board.
 
Troll indeed - it is like saying Wilander's 1st French Open doesn't count because Borg didn't play. Yes, Borg would have been the overwhelming favorite, but all that matters is who is the last man standing.
 
alfa164164 said:
Troll indeed - it is like saying Wilander's 1st French Open doesn't count because Borg didn't play. Yes, Borg would have been the overwhelming favorite, but all that matters is who is the last man standing.
Click to expand...

I guarantee at least half this board will say that the victory is meaningless because they will say that Nadal still owns him and its a fluke title.
 
i agree a win is a win. Even if Fed does complete the career grand slam without playing Nadal at the french he still wont be the GOAT (there is not such thing). But he would have something Sampras could only dream of having. If Nadal was to win the US open and didn't have to play Federer for whatever reason would it still count? Of course! It doesn't matter who u have to play, just that u win 7 matches in a row over a two week period. Whoever does that deserves to win in my book.
 
whether Nadal on this other side of the net from Federer;if Roger wins it;his name will be on the Coupe des Mousquetaires trophy and yes the media will ya about Nadal's absence but at the end of the day;it wouldn't be Federer fault who makes it and doesn't make it int the finals to face him
Sampras;if Federer every wins RG will kick himself until he dies for not doing anything to even make the finals in Paris;I don't think he would have cared who the opponent would be

now troll go back in your cave.NEXT!
 
Federer would win fair and square but it wouldn't carry the same weight like Rafa beating him on his home turf. (W)

We should draft a contract with terms and provisions stating who can win what and how they need to win and when and under which circumstances. :)
 
^^I agree. To add, anyone who has won a French Open without beating Nadal should be stricken from the record book. :roll:
 
I don't think Federer or anybody would be satisfied with him winning when Rafa has pulled out. Great sporstmen like to earn their victory. Nobody would really consider Roger as the new king of clay until the next year, hoping Rafa could be healthy so it's a rematch.
 
cucio said:
Injuries and chance are parts of any sport, so darn yes, a victory by default of the opponent is completely legitimate.

That said, the legend of Federer would be notably larger if he manages to outplay a healthy Nadal in RG final, no question about that. A Nadal-less FO will be still as valid a FO as any, but a Nadal-ful FO would be a FO+.

Regarding GOATness, I already regard Fed higher than Sampras based on their respective performance on clay, so in my opinion an actual win at FO would change little in that respect.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, good call
 
babbette said:
I don't think Federer or anybody would be satisfied with him winning when Rafa has pulled out. Great sporstmen like to earn their victory. Nobody would really consider Roger as the new king of clay until the next year, hoping Rafa could be healthy so it's a rematch.
Click to expand...

Actually I think Fed would be more than satisfied (try elated) with tying at 14 GS's and completing the career slam!
 
It still counts just like any other Slam....but there will be a million posters trying to make excuses.

Just like if Rafa had won his first Wimbledon and Roger had pulled out injured, there would be certain bitter posters who discounted it.

If Rafa didn't get to the final and Federer somehow didnt win it he would be devastated....I would be shocked quite frankly!

But I dont think that would happen
 
babbette said:
I don't think Federer or anybody would be satisfied with him winning when Rafa has pulled out. Great sporstmen like to earn their victory. Nobody would really consider Roger as the new king of clay until the next year, hoping Rafa could be healthy so it's a rematch.
Click to expand...

So if Nadal wins the US Open this year not against federer? If he wins the french open and Nadal is not in the field he earned his victory. Does anyone discredit Mats Wilander after Bjorn Borg retired who had won it four times in a row. Should I descredit 2003 US open field for not having to play defending champion Pete Sampras. In 95 and 96 do we discredit all the female AO winners for not playing Steffi Graf who won the other three slams that year. Connors never could beat Borg in his prime but should we discredit the 82 Wimbledon because BOrg was gone. If Federer wins the French Open he wins it..so Rafa isn't there sure it does not look as good but you don't take away his French Open. Nobody would call him king of clay either that would be stupid, but he would definitely be looked upon as great. He would also have proven I can beat everyone but Rafa on clay.

Nadal_Freak said:
We all know Fed can't beat Nadal so it definitely does. But I'm not sure Fed can win it even if Nadal pulls out.
Click to expand...

So if we all know Fed can't beat Nadal and he wins a French Open without Nadal it just proves what we know. He can beat everyone else on clay..I don't think that should diminish anything. I agree on the second thing though it is not a given for him. Though it is not a given for anybody. Nadal still has to win 7 matches in a row.
 
cucio said:
Injuries and chance are parts of any sport, so darn yes, a victory by default of the opponent is completely legitimate.

That said, the legend of Federer would be notably larger if he manages to outplay a healthy Nadal in RG final, no question about that. A Nadal-less FO will be still as valid a FO as any, but a Nadal-ful FO would be a FO+.

Regarding GOATness, I already regard Fed higher than Sampras based on their respective performance on clay, so in my opinion an actual win at FO would change little in that respect.
Click to expand...

Agree...Good post!
 
richied said:
If Fed wins the French because Nadal pulls out or retires because of injury (not out of the question) does it go down as a shallow victory? We all know slams are tough and whoever wins deserves all the credit they get, but because of Nadal's overwelming H2H record and favoritism to win the FO, surely everyone will remember this as the final without Nadal. Or, will it be remembered as Feds record equalling GS and career GS. I'd probably remember it as the Final without Nadal. I also wonder if a victory will elevate Feds position on the GOAT ladder. IMO, if this senario plays out the H2H record in slams still overules a Career Slam and most GS's record, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

What a wonderful question? I can see it now. Federer wins the French against someone other than Nadal. As he is handed the trophy, Christian Bimes takes a big old hammer to the Coupe de Musketeer and bangs it in several times on the bottom to make it shallower. And then announces on the public address system that Roger has won a "shallow" final. And his prize money gets shaved down 25%. So too for the computer points. And he isn't awarded a 'full Slam', it's only 3/4 of one. So he would 'only' have 13-3/4 majors won, not 14.

That makes total sense, now doesn't it ? ? ; - } (WTF@%!$?!?&%$!)

Also love how some folks would rate H2H in Slams over a career Slam or most GS won. That means Adriano Panatta (beat Borg 2x in the French Open no less) who won 1 French title is ahead of Borg. Again, makes perfect sense. Jim Courier (2 French, 2 Australian) is then definitely ahead of Andre Agassi (1 French, 1 Wimbledon, 2 US, 4 Australian) because he won 4 of 6 major encounters. Andres Gomez (1 French) title is ahead of Agassi too, since Gomez won their only encounter in a major. And Roddick (1 US Open) is ahead of Nadal, since Andy won their only meeting in a major. Am I making sense?

Things that maker you go hmmm......

Perhaps we should just inscribe Nadal's name n the Coupe de Musketeer now, and for the next, what, 10 years?! No need to even bother playing it, right ?!

In fact, if an earth shattering event such as Nadal losing before the finals, they should just cancel the tournament then and there. It would "only be the finals without Nadal" and certainly nothing to consider complete or earned. It would of course be a "shallow" victory!
 
thejoe said:
No, they were both beaten. Nadal did not pull out.
Click to expand...
I meant Nadal wasn't in Roger's way and he still didn't win it, what's the difference from Federer's point of view whether that happened because of a pull out or a loss that is injury related?
 
I don't think Roddick would feel bad if he were to win a major without Federer,Murray(who both have his #),Nadal and Djokovic.As a matter of fact I bet he'd give his right nut just for 1 ;)

I don't think Nadal would be too happy going 5 sets with Federer on grass again either to possibly try to defend again this year
 
Last edited:
Any win is legitimate. If Agassi's majorly lucky 1999 French Open title which gave him his "career slam" is fully credited, if Agassi's 1999 U.S Open 99% likely won only due to Sampras's absence is fully credited, if Kafelnikov's 2 majors are fully credited with the absolute JOKE draws he had to win both, and Korda's lone major with his joke draw at the 1998 Australian Open, then of course Federer's would be however he won it.
 
thalivest said:
Any win is legitimate. If Agassi's majorly lucky 1999 French Open title which gave him his "career slam" is fully credited, if Agassi's 1999 U.S Open 99% likely won only due to Sampras's absence is fully credited, if Kafelnikov's 2 majors are fully credited with the absolute JOKE draws he had to win both, and Korda's lone major with his joke draw at the 1998 Australian Open, then of course Federer's would be however he won it.
Click to expand...
Very true!
 
THERAFA said:
Well it wasn't a shallow victory when Federer won all those slams in a weak era (pre-Nadal):
Was
It?
Click to expand...

remember not that long ago,as a matter of fact not until last year,James Blake,out of all people who can't even make a slam semis;even on hard court was crushing your guy so take it easy on the kool-aid ;)
 
Gorecki said:
my grandma has 16 wheel chair... is she a freightliner?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm still giggling over this one.

On the topic, I don't think the win will be tainted in any way in the long run. In the short run people will say this and that, but not later in his life.
 
Are Pardraig Harrington's victories with Woods out shallow?[/QUOTE]

With woods out no victory is a 100% victory. Given it is still an achievement, you would have to think Tiger, if not winning, would have at least phsyched him out...
 
If you agree that fitness is a part of tennis then how can you argue that the guy who wins because he stayed fit deserves less credit?

If it's fair for Nadal fans to point out that Roger's one handed BH is his "weakness" (which I do not agree with) and Nadal uses it at %100 to win, then it's also fair to say that his game style is his weakness since it prevented him from staying fit.
Nothing comes free. You win on your knees you come down on your knees.
 
If you are of the belief that Federer winning the French will be shallow (if Rafa pulls out with injury) then you also make shallow all Federer's slam victories (before Rafa established himself), it depends on your perspective and whether you value a win over someone not named:
Rafa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rafa24
Who thinks Fed might hang it up if he wins the USO?
2
Replies
76
Views
3K
Bender
Bender
R
Why Fed is the GOAT if he wins RG
Replies
24
Views
2K
AprilFool
A
Fabresque
  • Locked
So what does Djokovic have over Nadal?
2 3
Replies
128
Views
4K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
hipolymer
Do you think Rafa would give up a slam to not have played the AO final last year against Fed?
Replies
41
Views
2K
chjtennis
chjtennis
N
If Nadal wins Wimby, I'm ready to concede he's the GOAT in my book
5 6 7
Replies
301
Views
18K
cknobman
cknobman
Back
Top