If Federer reaches the French Open Final...

[McEnroeisanartist]

...I believe he would be the only male player in the open era to reach at least three finals of all four grand slams.

I think it could be argued that this is almost as impressive as if he had actually won all grand slams.

What do you think?

 

[MajinX]

.... he reached all 4 finals last year and won 3 of them so he doesnt even have to reach it again this year to show how impressive he is.

 

[Dark_Angel85]

.... he reached all 4 finals last year and won 3 of them so he doesnt even have to reach it again this year to show how impressive he is.

Due to the hype of him actually TOPPING the 14 grand slams of Pete, a lot of people have actually forgotten how great a player he really is. 12 grand slams by any standards is already a HUMONGOUS achievement. The fact that he is still in the top 3 in the race with such a pitiful run in terms of titles and gameplay (saw his games, not really impressed), is already something.

He is already stamped as one of the greatest tennis players of all times.

Check it, among the top 10 players, who's got more than 5 slams?

Nadal is the only one with 3.

Roger Federer does not need anything anymore to show that he's one of the greatest.

Though I seriously think that if he goes head to head with Nadal in this year's FO, he ain't got any chance.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

My problem with Roger is that he doesnt try anything new with Nadal.I dont know why he hired Higueras.He will do the same crap should he reach the final.He will stay way behind the baseline and make alot of UEs.I been saying this a long time but the only way to beat Nadal on this surface is to come to net, try drop shots, etc.

 

[obnoxious2]

He will win the French Open this year if conditions stay "heavy". As in cool, moist weather.

 

[BkK_b0y14]

My problem with Roger is that he doesnt try anything new with Nadal.I dont know why he hired Higueras.He will do the same crap should he reach the final.He will stay way behind the baseline and make alot of UEs.I been saying this a long time but the only way to beat Nadal on this surface is to come to net, try drop shots, etc.

Um, he did try new things, and it worked. In the Hamburg final he was killing Nadal. It was just his mental game that was weak in the end.

 

[NamRanger]

Um, he did try new things, and it worked. In the Hamburg final he was killing Nadal. It was just his mental game that was weak in the end.

More like he has no idea how to stick to a game plan.

 

[austro]

Exactly! This post makes no sense at all! H etried something new in almost every encounter. Now I agree that he is a bit too passive at times. But his tactics (though not his strategy) worked, as he large lead in several sets showed. But he does seem to have a fear of closing out against Nadal... The problem mostly resides between his ears!

 

[cueboyzn]

If Roger gets to the final this year and loses to Nadal then assuming he wins 2 more Grand Slams in the remaining part of his career he would be rated as greater than Sampras (= Greatest of All Time).

(Sampras never made a Final at the French)

The argument that Rod Laver is greater because he won the Grand Slam is irrelevant because most of them (3 of the 4) were played on Grass court.

 

[CyBorg]

Making the final of each of the grand slam events three times would be a great achievement, but it's not as great achievement as many make it out to be.

The reason for this is two fold: it, for the most part, only accounts for the open era (the most important events being the majors); and it treats the four grand slam events as presumed fixed or even.

We know, of course, that the Australian Open really only caught up to the others over the past twenty years or so, after a handful of years of being roughly on par with the other majors in the late-60s-early-70s.

So Federer's accomplishment here in reality only weighs him against players over the past 20 years or so. A guy who comes close is Lendl who made the US Open final eight times, the French Open final five times, the Wimbledon final two times and the Aussie Open final four times. In terms of judging the guy on making finals alone this is as impressive as Federer and probably moreso. And, of course, we don't yet know whether Roger will make this year's RG final.

By SgtJohn's system of weighing the years' four most important tournaments we can conclude the the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Borg and a number of others (if we go further back Kramer, Budge, Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet and maybe Perry) most likely all would have made the finals of a hypothetical four majors numerous times if a standardized system was in place.

If anything, the playing longevity of the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales and Laver would virtually guarantee that they would accomplish these feats.

In terms of the sheer magnitude of career accomplishments as a total it is hard to beat Rosewall's resume. People forget that at his peak he was roughly as dominant as Roger, except that he was one of the game's top players for two decades, while Roger, at best, has been one for 6+ years.

I'll go back to the Open era for a second and add to that Lendl's example by bringing up Borg. If we use SgtJohn's list (most can look this up), Borg made the finals of each of the 'big four' events more than three times each.

That's Wimbledon 6 times; French 6 times; US Open 4 times; Masters/Philadelphia/Dallas 6 times.

So looking at all of the facts, if Roger makes the RG final that would put him in a group of probably about 15 other players, if we adjust for standards.

 

[CyBorg]

And, again, Sampras is not and has never been the standard for the greatest of all time. In fact, it is hard to even argue that he is the best of the open era. The belief that he is somehow the standard stems from mainsteam media coverage, which deems it necessary to overhype current or recent players for reasons directly and indirectly having to do with profit.

On my list Sampras currently sits 9th all-time.

 

[ksbh]

Couldn't agree more. This won't make you very popular with the *******s though. Because all the hype on this forum that Sampras is somehow GOAT comes from them because if Federer passes the 14 mark, he automatically becomes the GOAT!

By the way, I would place Sampras in the top 5 of all time, not as low as 9.

And, again, Sampras is not and has never been the standard for the greatest of all time. In fact, it is hard to even argue that he is the best of the open era. The belief that he is somehow the standard stems from mainsteam media coverage, which deems it necessary to overhype current or recent players for reasons directly and indirectly having to do with profit.

On my list Sampras currently sits 9th all-time.

 

[zagor]

Because all the hype on this forum that Sampras is somehow GOAT comes from them because if Federer passes the 14 mark, he automatically becomes the GOAT!

So the idea that Sampras is the GOAT comes from Fed fans ?!? LOL,you're really hilarious sometimes,no it comes from American media and from Sampras fans in this forum.Emerson's slam record only became relevant when Sampras was about to break it cause then the American media started to hype it,Federer wasn't even in conversation then as he was very young and not many poeople even knew about him.

 

[CyBorg]

Couldn't agree more. This won't make you very popular with the *******s though. Because all the hype on this forum that Sampras is somehow GOAT comes from them because if Federer passes the 14 mark, he automatically becomes the GOAT!

It's a pretty lazy talking point that necessitates complete and utter ignorance of history. I think that the best case for Roger can be made by concentrating on his peak years, which I think rival anyone's in history.

By the way, I would place Sampras in the top 5 of all time, not as low as 9.

I think that the only argument for Sampras to be in the top five would be the old 'the game has evolved' thing.

In terms of assessing a player's level of play in relation to his peers, Sampras isn't close to the top five. To me, Federer is close or at five.

 

[Azzurri]

My problem with Roger is that he doesnt try anything new with Nadal.I dont know why he hired Higueras.He will do the same crap should he reach the final.He will stay way behind the baseline and make alot of UEs.I been saying this a long time but the only way to beat Nadal on this surface is to come to net, try drop shots, etc.

I don't think that will do it. Nadal is too quick and has too much ability from the baseline. Think of the last player to win RG coming to net? Its been a while. Its very simple; Nadal is probably the greatest clay-courter of all-time. Federer is not at his level no matter what he does. Its just very simple, Nadal is the best clay court player (most likely since open tennis began). So its not really as simple for Federer to do this or that. He has done this or that and not much has worked.

 

[CyBorg]

I don't think that will do it. Nadal is too quick and has too much ability from the baseline. Think of the last player to win RG coming to net? Its been a while. Its very simple; Nadal is probably the greatest clay-courter of all-time. Federer is not at his level no matter what he does. Its just very simple, Nadal is the best clay court player (most likely since open tennis began). So its not really as simple for Federer to do this or that. He has done this or that and not much has worked.

I'm much more interested in seeing what Djokovic will do. I don't think Roger has a prayer. But Novak has seriously big balls.

I realize that it's a long shot, but Djokovic is a mean machine and he can hurt you. And I think he can hurt Nadal. As great as Rafa is I find that he has a soft spot here and there. He's not perfect. He breaks down sometimes. We haven't seen this on RG clay, but it happened at Wimbledon last year. I think what hasn't happened yet is that Rafa hasn't faced a real assassin on clay in all of these years. There are no Musters out there. Only sissies. Except for Djokovic. He can hurt him. Match him shot-for-shot. Surprise him. Bruise his ego.

It probably won't be enough, but I think that when Rafa does lose at RG - and he will one day - it will be because someone will finally refuse to lose, rather than accept defeat as an inevitability.

 

[Leublu tennis]

Thank you, CyBorg for your observations. Interesting points.

 

[Azzurri]

I'm much more interested in seeing what Djokovic will do. I don't think Roger has a prayer. But Novak has seriously big balls.

I realize that it's a long shot, but Djokovic is a mean machine and he can hurt you. And I think he can hurt Nadal. As great as Rafa is I find that he has a soft spot here and there. He's not perfect. He breaks down sometimes. We haven't seen this on RG clay, but it happened at Wimbledon last year. I think what hasn't happened yet is that Rafa hasn't faced a real assassin on clay in all of these years. There are no Musters out there. Only sissies. Except for Djokovic. He can hurt him. Match him shot-for-shot. Surprise him. Bruise his ego.

It probably won't be enough, but I think that when Rafa does lose at RG - and he will one day - it will be because someone will finally refuse to lose, rather than accept defeat as an inevitability.

So do you think Novak is outplaying Fed at this juncture? I think Fed is on fire and he is hitting on all cylinders. Its the best he has played all year. But I still believe Nadal is so good on clay it may not happen (Nadal losing) for at least another 1-2 years. I don't see anyone near his level...not yet.

 

[Lotto]

You saw how Ferrero beat Nadal and Federer needs to do the exact same:

Agressive off the forehand side, take alot of balls on the rise, and play them to Nadal's backhand when possible.

Agressive off the Backhand, take them on the rise, play them down the line. No deep slices, Nadal has enough time to move around it and hit that whopper forehand.

Short slices to Nadal's backhand, bring him in on both wings and then try and lob/pass him.

Hit big loopy deep forehands and backhands(backhands if he can, which I am sure he can) pushing Nadal back and then using the angle to pull Nadal off the court, attack the net and finish in the open space, or hit a drop shot after the angle and follow it in.

Also, on the occasional point serve and volley to mix things up more.

He also needs to attack Rafa's first and second serves. Make him play and don't give him free points, On Rafa's first serves hit them down the middle to get rid of any angles Rafa might have and it will put him under pressure. On the second serve attack with short angles and charge the net.


I know, it's easier said than done but I believe if he could pull that off he would beat Nadal. The key though is to stick to the game plan and keep mentally strong, brush away and spectacular winners Nadal might hit when using one of the tactics as it's unlikely it will happen again. Get pumped up, show Nadal you mean business, positive, powerful body language, head up and we should have a new French Open champion.

 

[Azzurri]

No disrespect to anyone on this thread, but its comical to read the advice given (mine also). We are a bunch of fools giving the #1 player in the world tennis advice. Don't you guys think he knows EVERYTHING you have all said? The guy is a literal tennis genius (many players have cnofirmed this). The point is Nadal is the best CC player for a reason. Even the best lose once in a while (on their best surface...Pete in 1996 W). But to think we know anything about how Fed should play Nadal is comical. I just assume everyone knows they are FOS, but its just interesting chatter and no one takes themselves serious...but there a few that actually do. You know who you are and it is comical.

 

[CyBorg]

So do you think Novak is outplaying Fed at this juncture? I think Fed is on fire and he is hitting on all cylinders. Its the best he has played all year. But I still believe Nadal is so good on clay it may not happen (Nadal losing) for at least another 1-2 years. I don't see anyone near his level...not yet.

Federer is playing as well as he did last year at this stage. Novak I think is better on clay now - not necessarily on other surfaces.

I think Novak matches up against Nadal better than Roger. On clay. Some of it may have to do with his youth. He's fierce and eager to beat everyone. Roger has more mileage on him.

 

[Azzurri]

Federer is playing as well as he did last year at this stage. Novak I think is better on clay now - not necessarily on other surfaces.

I think Novak matches up against Nadal better than Roger. On clay. Some of it may have to do with his youth. He's fierce and eager to beat everyone. Roger has more mileage on him.

I agree that Novak is eager, but more?? Not sure about that. Roger has chance to win career GS. How much more motivation does he need. But Novak is a terrific player..no doubt.

Novak is 48-19 on clay (71% winning)

Fed 117-39 on clay (75% winning)

Both are good...but here is Nadal: 148-14...my god!

 

[dh003i]

I agree that Novak is eager, but more?? Not sure about that. Roger has chance to win career GS. How much more motivation does he need. But Novak is a terrific player..no doubt.

Novak is 48-19 on clay (71% winning)

Fed 117-39 on clay (75% winning)

Both are good...but here is Nadal: 148-14...my god!

The more important stat is how well they've done in clay masters events and the FO.

 

[CyBorg]

I agree that Novak is eager, but more?? Not sure about that. Roger has chance to win career GS. How much more motivation does he need. But Novak is a terrific player..no doubt.

Novak is 48-19 on clay (71% winning)

Fed 117-39 on clay (75% winning)

Both are good...but here is Nadal: 148-14...my god!

I don't think it stacks up to motivation. I think it's something else.

Martina Navratilova spoke about this. The older you get the harder it is psychologically.

Novak is young and fearless like so many young guys are. Roger, meanwhile, looks like he hates the heat more than ever. Every year he looks a little bit more tired of the whole thing.

Your numbers aren't applicable. I like this one saying about statisticians which I find amusing: statisticians will tell you that if you have one foot in water and another in fire then on average you are comfortable.

 

[Azzurri]

I don't think it stacks up to motivation. I think it's something else.

Martina Navratilova spoke about this. The older you get the harder it is psychologically.

Novak is young and fearless like so many young guys are. Roger, meanwhile, looks like he hates the heat more than ever. Every year he looks a little bit more tired of the whole thing.

Your numbers aren't applicable. I like this one saying about statisticians which I find amusing: statisticians will tell you that if you have one foot in water and another in fire then on average you are comfortable.

The stat was to point out Nadal's dominance...its obvious he is the best CC player in at least 20 years. This "stat" just shows how dominate he is on clay. So the #'s are applicable. Nadal is 21 by the way.

 

[CyBorg]

The stat was to point out Nadal's dominance...its obvious he is the best CC player in at least 20 years. This "stat" just shows how dominate he is on clay. So the #'s are applicable. Nadal is 21 by the way.

We know that Nadal is great on clay and I wouldn't be my house against him, but Djokovic is a solid young player who is still improving. I think he's the only guy out there who can beat Nadal in a best-of-five match.

 

[Roland]

We know that Nadal is great on clay and I wouldn't be my house against him, but Djokovic is a solid young player who is still improving. I think he's the only guy out there who can beat Nadal in a best-of-five match.

The main reason Novak has no chance is the Match is best of five sets.
He might(maybe even probably) win one and it's extremely unlikely he'll win two, but three.
Against Nadal.
On RG clay.
Not only that, but how do you think he would do this?
Straight sets? In four?
I doubt you do, so I'll assume you think he could win in five. That means Nadal winning only two of five sets, on clay, which I think is almost impossible at the moment.
The only person I feel even has chance is Roger, for four reasons.
One: he's the only player to take Nadal to five sets of anyone who hasn't destroyed their shoulder. (And Federer had a match point too.)
Two: Federer had big leads late in sets in THREE of FIVE sets they've played this season.Federer gave himself a great chance to win those sets.
Three: Jose has had Federer work extensively on his drop shot imployment and Cross-court stability on the back hand. Federer's last two matches with Nadal, He has been closer to victory each time (Great chance of a set the first time, Great chance at the match the second time) each time.
Four: Federer had a chance to take both his finals with Nadal to a fifth set.
The fact is RF has given himself the chance to win numerous times and has lost for a variety of reasons, But if a person keeps giving themselves good chances, they are going to convert eventually( see hamburg '07)

In the end; however, that's all Federer gives himself: a chance.
While Federer has a slim chance of beating Nadal, I'd argue, to quote Bruce Campbell, if he where talking about the subject of Novak winning against Nadal, "Well, I've got news for you pal, you winning but two things: Jack and ****... and Jack left town."

/btw I enjoyed reading your analysis of the game's history of great players. It is unfortunate that today those players are greatly forgotten, due to a change in evaluation of players and marketing of products(media is just one product).
// I also agree with your analysis of older versus younger players. I think It simply comes down to, for Novak, Every big win he gets an extreme upgrade to his career at this point.
For Federer: He has proven himself in so many matches and played his best on so many occasions, that it has lost its novelty to a degree.
However, In big matches, I feel that Federer has the same remarkable intense desire to win. So while he might lose to a lesser player sometimes earlier in tournaments, He would routine them if the match was important. And Important changes over your career.

 

[Azzurri]

We know that Nadal is great on clay and I wouldn't be my house against him, but Djokovic is a solid young player who is still improving. I think he's the only guy out there who can beat Nadal in a best-of-five match.

Willing to place a wager on that (I have Pay Pal)? No way Novak beats him...NO WAY. Novak is not yet skilled enough. I think Novak is not at Nadal's level on clay...not even Federer who is easily the second best clay court player the past 3-4 years.

 

[SempreSami]

Pete was way better dressed when he won his grand slams though :roll:

 

[Peaches]

No disrespect to anyone on this thread, but its comical to read the advice given (mine also). We are a bunch of fools giving the #1 player in the world tennis advice. Don't you guys think he knows EVERYTHING you have all said? The guy is a literal tennis genius (many players have cnofirmed this). The point is Nadal is the best CC player for a reason. Even the best lose once in a while (on their best surface...Pete in 1996 W). But to think we know anything about how Fed should play Nadal is comical. I just assume everyone knows they are FOS, but its just interesting chatter and no one takes themselves serious...but there a few that actually do. You know who you are and it is comical.

LOL, so true!

 

[CyBorg]

Willing to place a wager on that (I have Pay Pal)? No way Novak beats him...NO WAY. Novak is not yet skilled enough. I think Novak is not at Nadal's level on clay...not even Federer who is easily the second best clay court player the past 3-4 years.

Place a wager on what? Was I not clear enough that I like Nadal in that match?

I think that Djokovic can beat him, which is a lot more sensible thing to say that saying that he can't.

Of course he can. Novak is an excellent player on all surfaces and it much better on clay than Federer.

 

[Stinkdyr]

Nadal is the greatest cc player ever...EVER!

end of discussion. And he is playing perhaps his best cc tennis now. He might not have even peaked yet! yikes! And I don't even like him! Just bad luck timing for Roger's career. No GS unless the human mole gets a Kennedy tumor or some such force majeure.

 

[CyBorg]

end of discussion. And he is playing perhaps his best cc tennis now. He might not have even peaked yet! yikes! And I don't even like him! Just bad luck timing for Roger's career. No GS unless the human mole gets a Kennedy tumor or some such force majeure.

Get on the bus. Let's hope you don't run down a cliff.

 

[Azzurri]

Place a wager on what? Was I not clear enough that I like Nadal in that match?

I think that Djokovic can beat him, which is a lot more sensible thing to say that saying that he can't.

Of course he can. Novak is an excellent player on all surfaces and it much better on clay than Federer.

OK..then I will give you odds. I think there is NO chance Novak beats him, NONE. You think he has a shot. So I will give you odds. 3-1 odds is fair.

Novak is not beter than Fed on clay.

 

[bigmatt]

If I recall correctly, Agassi also made the finals of all 4 Slams at least 3 times: Wimbledon 3 times; French 3 times; US Open 4 times; Australian at least 3, because he won 3 times. Not that I'm saying Andre is on a par w/ Roger, but just that it has been done in the Open Era.

 

[Thor]

Place a wager on what? Was I not clear enough that I like Nadal in that match?

I think that Djokovic can beat him, which is a lot more sensible thing to say that saying that he can't.

Of course he can. Novak is an excellent player on all surfaces and it much better on clay than Federer.

And you base that on what exactly???

 

[oberyn]

If I recall correctly, Agassi also made the finals of all 4 Slams at least 3 times: Wimbledon 3 times; French 3 times; US Open 4 times; Australian at least 3, because he won 3 times. Not that I'm saying Andre is on a par w/ Roger, but just that it has been done in the Open Era.

Agassi "only" made 2 wimbledon finals, 1992 and 1999.

You're also shortchanging him on his U.S. Open and Australian Open finals appearances.

He made it to 4 Aussie Open Finals (1995, 2000, 2001, and 2003).

He made it to 6 U.S. Open finals (1990, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2002, and 2005).

 

[Stinkdyr]

I thought about a wager. And you would

have to give me 10-1 odds at least to get me to bet any of my $ on anyone beating Nada this year at RG. And I wouldn't even bet big with those odds.

 

[ksbh]

Not yet! Bjorn Borg is the greatest clay court player at the moment.

I will admit though that if Rafa takes the French Open title for the 4th straight year on Sunday, he'll be in the same company as Borg. A 5th title will likely steer him to the top. Nobody, including Borg, has dominated the clay court season as Rafa has for such a long period of time.

Of course, you could talk about weak competition and all, especially considering that his greatest opponent on clay (Roger Federer) is a mental weakling while playing him but that's another discussion.

end of discussion. And he is playing perhaps his best cc tennis now. He might not have even peaked yet! yikes! And I don't even like him! Just bad luck timing for Roger's career. No GS unless the human mole gets a Kennedy tumor or some such force majeure.

 

[pow]

I wish he could win the French but looking at the way Nadal is playing, it is improbable for him to win it it this year unless Nadal shows up in a wheelchair.

 

[veroniquem]

If Federer reaches the FO final again this year... he's gonna get spanked!

 

[CyBorg]

I will admit though that if Rafa takes the French Open title for the 4th straight year on Sunday, he'll be in the same company as Borg. A 5th title will likely steer him to the top. Nobody, including Borg, has dominated the clay court season as Rafa has for such a long period of time.

Bullcrap.

Borg was the undisputed best for five consecutive years from 1977 to 1981. Over that span he lost three matches on red clay.

To add to this he had two Roland Garros titles from '74 and '75.

Again, the day Rafa wins seven French Opens with his brand new metallic hip is the day we can start talking about him being the finest clay courter of all time.

 

[ksbh]

If Borg indeed went backwards in time, I'd have to say nobody can catch him! Besides that, GOAT is really subjective. I won't really argue with someone who claims Borg was the clay GOAT because Borg does make a very strong case.

Bullcrap.

Borg was the undisputed best for five consecutive years from 1977 to 1971. Over that span he lost three matches on red clay.

To add to this he had two Roland Garros titles from '74 and '75.

Again, the day Rafa wins seven French Opens with his brand new metallic hip is the day we can start talking about him being the finest clay courter of all time.

 

[CyBorg]

I corrected the typo.

 

[CyBorg]

If Borg indeed went backwards in time, I'd have to say nobody can catch him! Besides that, GOAT is really subjective. I won't really argue with someone who claims Borg was the clay GOAT because Borg does make a very strong case.

My reply to you was not to have an argument, but to present facts.

The fact is that Borg was far and above the best player on red clay for five consecutive years and then retired. Before that he was also probably the best in 1974 and arguably the best in 1975. In 1976 he played too little to draw solid conclusions.

What displeases me is that Nadal fans are flooding this board with misinformation and this is unacceptable.

 

[ksbh]

Out of curiosity, how many matches on clay did Borg win just so we can compare to Rafa?

And also, I no longer believe Rafa will go down so soon with injuries. Many posters have been saying this for the past 2 years, and he only seems to be getting better. It's a very tall order but I won;t put it past him to win 7. And no ... he won't need them metallic parts!

Bullcrap.

Borg was the undisputed best for five consecutive years from 1977 to 1981. Over that span he lost three matches on red clay.

To add to this he had two Roland Garros titles from '74 and '75.

Again, the day Rafa wins seven French Opens with his brand new metallic hip is the day we can start talking about him being the finest clay courter of all time.

 

[CyBorg]

Out of curiosity, how many matches on clay did Borg win just so we can compare to Rafa?

As a total? Hard to say. You could go on atptennis and count them up, but they have some events missing.

And also, I no longer believe Rafa will go down so soon with injuries. Many posters have been saying this for the past 2 years, and he only seems to be getting better. It's a very tall order but I won;t put it past him to win 7. And no ... he won't need them metallic parts!

That's up to him to accomplish.

 

[ksbh]

Got it. Nothing new ... the Federer fanboys have been doing that as well. There are 2 or 3 different groups all doing the same but just with different players!

My reply to you was not to have an argument, but to present facts.

The fact is that Borg was far and above the best player on red clay for five consecutive years and then retired. Before that he was also probably the best in 1974 and arguably the best in 1975. In 1976 he played too little to draw solid conclusions.

What displeases me is that Nadal fans are flooding this board with misinformation and this is unacceptable.

 

[Thor]

Bullcrap.

Borg was the undisputed best for five consecutive years from 1977 to 1981. Over that span he lost three matches on red clay.

To add to this he had two Roland Garros titles from '74 and '75.

Again, the day Rafa wins seven French Opens with his brand new metallic hip is the day we can start talking about him being the finest clay courter of all time.

I agree,although i do think 6 FO titles should be enough

 

[Azzurri]

have to give me 10-1 odds at least to get me to bet any of my $ on anyone beating Nada this year at RG. And I wouldn't even bet big with those odds.

OK...10-1 odds. how much?