If Fed wins because Nadal pulls out

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I just want Fed to win this FO as his 14th Slam and complete a Career Slam, so he can relax. If that happens with Nadal out of the picture, so what? It would be a testimony to Fed's longevity that he hang in there while younger players did not even play.
 
Feds my favorite player, but he's gotta beat Nadal. Nadal's hit him hard on grass and hardcourt. Federer has to show Nadal that he's still got it.
 

Noveson

Hall of Fame
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.

That's a good one. A healthy Nadal fresh off winning the Aussie Open not making the french open final? Psh.

Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, so no on that one. If Nadal won the US Open without Federer being in it(not merely not having to play him) I think it would definitely not count for as much.
 

Safinator_1

Professional
Feds my favorite player, but he's gotta beat Nadal. Nadal's hit him hard on grass and hardcourt. Federer has to show Nadal that he's still got it.

Nadal didnt Fed but that much if anything it is right down the middle with Nadal just a little bit ahead in the long run of their 5 set matches except for FO (Thats obviously his clutch). If Fed does beat Nadal in the Final at the FO, i believe everyone will recongnise Fed as immortal probably GOAT.

But beating Nadal at FO is near impossible
 

Joseph L. Barrow

Professional
Of course it would be used against Federer when discussing the accomplishment, but it isn't as though it's historically been a prerequisite to beat a prime Nadal in order to win a French Open or else it's worthless. Certainly it's well within the normal operation of tennis for the top guy at a tournament to end up pulling out or being upset or something at some stage in a five-year period, and if the next best guy can maintain his level of play so long and so consistently that he ensures himself the ability to seize the day when that happens, he deserves his prize.
 

THERAFA

Banned
That's a good one. A healthy Nadal fresh off winning the Aussie Open not making the french open final? Psh.

Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, so no on that one. If Nadal won the US Open without Federer being in it(not merely not having to play him) I think it would definitely not count for as much.

I think if Rafa won US Open without Federer playing most of the public would say "he would have beaten Federer anyway cos he always does" whether that is true or:
Not
 

matchmaker

Hall of Fame
Well, it would be a most embarrassing case, even for Fed. I think he would prefer to win it in a French Nadal participates to, but maybe without playing the final against Nadal. Nadal could be taken out by someone else.

If Nadal does not participate at all, it would cast a really big shadow on Fed's title, certainly now Nadal has been beating him even on other surfaces in GS finals and the H2H is looking more lopsided than ever.
 

Mkie7

Rookie
Well, it would be a most embarrassing case, even for Fed. I think he would prefer to win it in a French Nadal participates to, but maybe without playing the final against Nadal. Nadal could be taken out by someone else.

If Nadal does not participate at all, it would cast a really big shadow on Fed's title, certainly now Nadal has been beating him even on other surfaces in GS finals and the H2H is looking more lopsided than ever.

I don't think it matters... a win is a win. Why is Nadal the borometer for his achievements. All this analysis is only applicable to those people who don't like him anyway. So who cares.
 

Noveson

Hall of Fame
I think if Rafa won US Open without Federer playing most of the public would say "he would have beaten Federer anyway cos he always does" whether that is true or:
Not

I don't think so. The US Open is a totally different story SO FAR. So far Nadal hasn't been near as good there as he has on other surfaces, even other hardcourts.
 

Noveson

Hall of Fame
I don't think it matters... a win is a win. Why is Nadal the borometer for his achievements. All this analysis is only applicable to those people who don't like him anyway. So who cares.

Lots of people. I like Federer, quite a bit. Nadal is the barometer because he is the reason Federer doesn't have 3(4?) french open titles. I can't remember how many.
 

Mkie7

Rookie
Lots of people. I like Federer, quite a bit. Nadal is the barometer because he is the reason Federer doesn't have 3(4?) french open titles. I can't remember how many.

Thanks for stating the obvious., I would still argue that "lots of people" may feel that a win is still a win with or without Nadal in the picture. If Nadal does not make it to the finals or due to injury it would not be Fed's fault.

Winning a GS is about the whole field., and fitness. Not about if player A meets or beats player B. The one who survives deserve ALL the credit.
 

Blinkism

Legend
It's a shallow victory to those the same people that would make up other excuses if Fed won the FO, even with Nadal in it (even in the final!)

However, if Federer's draw is weak, then it'll be fair to call it a shallow win.

I mean, if he's meeting Mardy Fish in the final, you might as well cancel the rest of the season!
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
If Sport Billy win the FO because Nadal has Blisters? or is Tired? or has Mono? or is tired of having mono-blisters in his index and thumb fingers?

and if the Monkey wins the Eurovision Song Contest because Djokovic choked in his "I Will Survive Cover" and Fed is acused of having a copyed song of Jonny Logan! what would it be like?
 

ksbh

Banned
It won't matter. Federer is too great a player to have an asterisk by his name simply because his chief rival didn't play. He's a 13-time slam champion, not some wild card that got lucky.

It'll be just as good a victory as one with Nadal in the draw.
 

Noveson

Hall of Fame
Thanks for stating the obvious., I would still argue that "lots of people" may feel that a win is still a win with or without Nadal in the picture. If Nadal does not make it to the finals or due to injury it would not be Fed's fault.

Winning a GS is about the whole field., and fitness. Not about if player A meets or beats player B. The one who survives deserve ALL the credit.

I answered your question, which should have been obvious because lots of people are responding, therefore people care. Cool, make that argument. I am sure quite a few people feel that way.

Surviving the field is not the same when the player that is clearly dominant is not there. If Jordan wouldn't have been able to play in Game 6 of the 98 finals and the Jazz won would you still consider it a as much of an accomplishment?
 
Top