If Federer wins the French Open........

harrpau7

harrpau7

Rookie
.......will it be less significant because he didn't have to play Nadal?

I am on the fence in this one. I say no because Nadal was not good enough to reach the final this year (it's not like Nadal didn't play the tournament, he simply got knocked out). Also Fed beat Nadal on clay in Madrid (say what you want about Nadal's semi-final with Djokovic etc, but Fed beat him).

However I also think yes because Nadal beat Fed in the last 4 French Open finals (not to mention the Wimbledon and Australian Open finals), so I am really undecided.

Thoughts.
 
R

raiden031

Legend
Not at all. I think Nadal's loss was a huge wake up call for so many people who have been discrediting Federer all this time. I have been a Federer fan for a couple years and I was starting to doubt his GOAT potential, but after seeing what happened to Nadal, I have newfound respect for his accomplishments. I didn't think Nadal was beatable in an early round at RG, yet he fell out after only 4 straight titles there. Then of course I think of all the slams we thought Fed was vulnerable and made it through at least to the SF or even to win the tourney. Its just amazing what he's done so consistently. He hasn't been playing his best tennis the last couple months so to win RG just shows how much heart and desire he really has, especially after these close matches.
 
Last edited:
B

boringmember

Rookie
I don't think so. First, Fed has to make the final. But if he does, he can only play the player who is across the net from him.
 
mikeler

mikeler

Moderator
In any tournament, you just have to worry about your own matches. You have no control about what happens in other matches. It's not Federer's fault Nadal lost, so to me it does not make a difference.
 
Andres

Andres

G.O.A.T.
If Nadal had been injured, yeah, I think it would've been less significant. But wasn't the case. Both Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray) played and got knocked earlier. They failed to live up to their seedings. Not Fed's fault.

It's just as significant. People here (mainly Nadal fans) are talking about asterisks next to his name... OH COME ON!!!

And this comes from a guy who absolutely dislikes Federer.
 
D

Danstevens

Semi-Pro
ATXtennisaddict said:
There are always going to be other years Fed can play against Nadal in the FO to "settle the score".
Click to expand...

But every year we wait, Fed gets a year older. OK, Nadal does too but he's much younger than Federer so it doesn't matter to him as much.

Anyway, if Fed wins, he deserved it. There's nothing he can do about the rest of the field. He didn't make Nadal, Djokovic and Murray lose - they did it for themselves. As someone said above, he can only play who is on the other side of the net.
 
A

ATXtennisaddict

Hall of Fame
Danstevens said:
But every year we wait, Fed gets a year older. OK, Nadal does too but he's much younger than Federer so it doesn't matter to him as much.

Anyway, if Fed wins, he deserved it. There's nothing he can do about the rest of the field. He didn't make Nadal, Djokovic and Murray lose - they did it for themselves. As someone said above, he can only play who is on the other side of the net.
Click to expand...

I think that if Federer does win this year, he won't have the pressure next time around he plays Nadal. He'll know he's already secured his place in history. He'll probably be more relaxed, that could help him in their next FO encounter.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Andres Guazzelli said:
If Nadal had been injured, yeah, I think it would've been less significant. But wasn't the case. Both Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray) played and got knocked earlier. They failed to live up to their seedings. Not Fed's fault.
Click to expand...
Good point! Nadal lost. It was not as if Nadal did not play because he was injured or was banned--he got beat.

If Fed wins the he will have beaten the player(s) who beat (the player who beat) Nadal.

If Fed wins he will tied with Pete and will have one FO championship--which is better than Pete.

He will thus be ranked higher than Pete!
 
Last edited:
dozu

dozu

Banned
harrpau7 said:
.......will it be less significant because he didn't have to play Nadal?

I am on the fence in this one. I say no because Nadal was not good enough to reach the final this year (it's not like Nadal didn't play the tournament, he simply got knocked out). Also Fed beat Nadal on clay in Madrid (say what you want about Nadal's semi-final with Djokovic etc, but Fed beat him).

However I also think yes because Nadal beat Fed in the last 4 French Open finals (not to mention the Wimbledon and Australian Open finals), so I am really undecided.

Thoughts.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Nobody is discrediting Agassi's career grand slam, although he beat a stiff in Medvedev to win the French.
 
Rhino

Rhino

Legend
Every other Roland Garros champion in history didn't have to beat Nadal either and that doesn't diminish their achievement, so why should it diminish Federers.
If he wins, then he beat seven people in a row, and that is all that is required.
 
C

canuckfan

Semi-Pro
I'm tired of this "is fed's potential win tainted by the surprising losses of other players" business. All you can do is win all your matches. Agassi's french open in 1999 was also a famously easy draw, since he faced only 1 seeded player all tournament long. (All you kids who never saw the 99 tourney should look up that draw and find out how marshmellow soft that draw really was). And still he was down 2 sets until medvedev absolutely froze when he realized he could win. But you know what? Agassi earned that win. He deserved it. And if Federer wins this year he will have earned it too.
 
Q

Quickspin

New User
Andres Guazzelli said:
If Nadal had been injured, yeah, I think it would've been less significant. But wasn't the case. Both Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray) played and got knocked earlier. They failed to live up to their seedings. Not Fed's fault.

It's just as significant. People here (mainly Nadal fans) are talking about asterisks next to his name... OH COME ON!!!

And this comes from a guy who absolutely dislikes Federer.
Click to expand...

Wow really??
That's some BS right there.
I don't care for Federer much either but if he wins RG he wins it, no matter who he plays. This year Fed rose to the occasion to try and win it, sadly other could not.
 
theduh

theduh

Semi-Pro
tennisplaya said:
The REAL Roland Garros final is next year.
Click to expand...

Okay this is not the REAL Roland Garros because Nole and Nadal got knocked out before SF or even QF..... NOT!!!

Please if Nadal lost early this year what would be your guarantee that Nadal will make it the finals next year?
 
Andres

Andres

G.O.A.T.
Quickspin said:
Wow really??
That's some BS right there.
I don't care for Federer much either but if he wins RG he wins it, no matter who he plays. This year Fed rose to the occasion to try and win it, sadly other could not.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I cannot believe how people dare to diminish his RG title (if he wins it), only because he didn't FACE Nadal.
 
Nadal_Freak

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Rhino said:
How is that? All of the other GOAT contenders - Laver/Pete/Borg, etc.. none of them faced Nadal either...
Click to expand...
It's not just Nadal. Djokovic and Murray he avoided as well. He couldn't have possibly been handed an easier draw. To me Sampras is still the GOAT as he played in a tougher era.
 
DarthFed

DarthFed

Hall of Fame
Nadal_Freak said:
It's not just Nadal. Djokovic and Murray he avoided as well. He couldn't have possibly been handed an easier draw. To me Sampras is still the GOAT as he played in a tougher era.
Click to expand...

He didn't avoid them they avoided him:)... by losing before the QTR's or the Semi's
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Nadal_Freak said:
It's not just Nadal. Djokovic and Murray he avoided as well. He couldn't have possibly been handed an easier draw. To me Sampras is still the GOAT as he played in a tougher era.
Click to expand...

Why is sampras era tougher? Did he have trouble with any player in his era? Fed, by your own admission, played in an era of Nadal, Djoker and Murray, against whom he has had his share of troubles. So arguably, fed's era is tougher, and yes, he would have (and already has, IMO) surpassed Pete (no offense to Pete).
 
Rhino

Rhino

Legend
Nadal_Freak said:
It's not just Nadal. Djokovic and Murray he avoided as well. He couldn't have possibly been handed an easier draw. To me Sampras is still the GOAT as he played in a tougher era.
Click to expand...

That is crazy, because Pete didn't even make one final in RG!
Federer has just made FIVE CONSECUTIVE SEMI-FINALS. Even Nadal, Borg, Laver, Lendel, etc couldn't do that. And on Sunday he'll be RG champ with 14 slams.

Sampras has easy draws too... it happens.
For example, check out Sampras' draw for Wimbledon 2000. He didn't face a single top 20 player!!!!...
R128 Jiri Vanek (#80)
R64 Karol Kucera (#44)
R32 Justin Gimblestob (#99)
R16 Jonas Bjorkman (#78 )
Q Jan Michael Gambill (#56)
S Vladimir Voltchkov (#237)
F Pat Rafter (#21)

And he lost sets against Gimblestob (!!!!), Kucera, Gambill (!!!), and Rafter.
 
R_Federer

R_Federer

Professional
He beat him in Madrid right before the tournament...so any debate on this topic you can easily bring that point up and can actually argue if they played this year Fed could have beaten Nadal anyways at the French.
 
C

ChanceEncounter

Professional
Nadal_Freak said:
It definitely means less for his GOAT status.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If you want it to mean less for Federer's GOAT status because he didn't face Nadal, then I suggest Nadal plays his way into the final first.

He couldn't, so that's not Federer's fault. The tournament rewards who played the best. Period. You don't get to the final without winning 6 straight matches.
 
JT_2eighty

JT_2eighty

Hall of Fame
raiden031 said:
... after only 4 straight titles there.
Click to expand...

I don't think "only" is the right adjective there. anyway...

To the OP, if Fed wins it does not diminish the value in any way. The tournament is not called Nadal Garros. ;p

Anyone that says it is not the real RG or that Fed's potential win is less important is just a sore loser and needs to re-examine how tournaments work.
 
S

Strobe Lights

Semi-Pro
Rhino said:
That is crazy, because Pete didn't even make one final in RG!
Federer has just made FIVE CONSECUTIVE SEMI-FINALS. Even Nadal, Borg, Laver, Lendel, etc couldn't do that. And on Sunday he'll be RG champ with 14 slams.

Sampras has easy draws too... it happens.
For example, check out Sampras' draw for Wimbledon 2000. He didn't face a single top 20 player!!!!...
R128 Jiri Vanek (#80)
R64 Karol Kucera (#44)
R32 Justin Gimblestob (#99)
R16 Jonas Bjorkman (#78 )
Q Jan Michael Gambill (#56)
S Vladimir Voltchkov (#237)
F Pat Rafter (#21)

And he lost sets against Gimblestob (!!!!), Kucera, Gambill (!!!), and Rafter.
Click to expand...
That draw is ridiculous. Never seen that before.

Fed needs to win this year. 5 consecutive semis. This year he needs to complete the task.
 
B

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
No. Of course it would have been great to see him beat Nadal in the final, but in the larger picture it doesn't diminish the achievement.
 
D

Defcon

Hall of Fame
Nadal (and Djoker and Murray) wasn't even good enough to make the quarters, so why is beating him suddenly the yardstick for GOATness?

Nobody cares who you beat, as long as you win. Except for the Nadal freaks :) And nobody cares what they think.
 
dwhiteside

dwhiteside

Semi-Pro
The rationalization from extreme illogical projective and deifying Nadal fans for why he lost is painful to read, Freud would love it though - he wasn't tired from a big 5 setter before, he wasn't injured, so what was it? How could this God possibly lose!
 
DarthMaul

DarthMaul

Professional
JT_2eighty said:
I don't think "only" is the right adjective there. anyway...

To the OP, if Fed wins it does not diminish the value in any way. The tournament is not called Nadal Garros. ;p

Anyone that says it is not the real RG or that Fed's potential win is less important is just a sore loser and needs to re-examine how tournaments work.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious! :D
 
Bhagi Katbamna

Bhagi Katbamna

Legend
I am a huge Nadal fan but it seems like Federer can't catch a break with some posters here. If he wins the French Open that means he was the best player in the field that year regardless of who he played in the final.
 
Rhino

Rhino

Legend
Nadal_Freak said:
The best player doesn't always win.
Click to expand...

This made me laugh out loud.

I guess Nadal will always be the best player in your heart. Even when he's long gone out of the top 100, it will only be because of the draws, the bad scheduling, the court speeds, the unfair tournament calendar, the weather, the tennis balls, the altitude, the long match the day before, the sun in his eyes, the knee injury, the bad line calls, etc, .... but never because there are better players :)
 
Nadal_Freak

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Rhino said:
This made me laugh out loud.

I guess Nadal will always be the best player in your heart. Even when he's long gone out of the top 100, it will only be because of the draws, the bad scheduling, the court speeds, the unfair tournament calendar, the weather, the tennis balls, the altitude, the long match the day before, the sun in his eyes, the knee injury, the bad line calls, etc, .... but never because there are better players :)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. Who's the number 1 player right now? Vamos!
 
2

2ndserveace

Semi-Pro
If Fed wins this year he will have deserved it just as much as if he had to beat the others in the Big 4. Even though he won't have faced competition as great as in the other years, he would still be the only one of the Big 4 who didn't get upset in the tourney. Upsets are like an illness: once they get started, they start to spread around until everyone has "upset fever." If Fed wins, he would have survived through a bunch of guys who were completely set on upsetting him.
 
T

Tennis_Bum

Professional
Nadal_Freak said:
The best player doesn't always win.
Click to expand...

You should quit while you still have a chance. You are looking very stupid right now, the more you post about this topic the more stupid you look. If Nadal, the *** picking player that you dearly love would make it to his seeding then he would have a chance to win FO this year in the final, regardless whom he plays. And I am sure you along with other *********s would be so quick to claim the greatest player ever, etc. But he's not as good as you or we all thought. So let's see what will happen next year.

Would he be upset in early rounds at Wimbledon this year? Let's see what happens during the next few weeks. If he lost there would he blame the crowd, fatigue and/or injuries?
 
Rhino

Rhino

Legend
Nadal_Freak said:
I'm sorry. Who's the number 1 player right now? Vamos!
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about the number one player, we were talking about the best player.
Right now your pink-shirted number one player has lost two of his last 5 matches on his favorite surface. Federer, the form player, is riding a 10-match clay-court streak. I'm just saying... :)
 
Nadal_Freak

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Nadal is still number 1. Therefore he is still the best player in the world. Hot streaks and cold streaks happens. But at luke warm, Nadal is better then Fed at luke warm. Right now Nadal is cold.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Nadal_Freak said:
Nadal is still number 1. Therefore he is still the best player in the world. Hot streaks and cold streaks happens. But at luke warm, Nadal is better then Fed at luke warm. Right now Nadal is cold.
Click to expand...



Nadal's aura of invincibility has been broken also. After Federer lost at Wimbledon, he went on to lose in horrible fashion multiple times until he finally rebounded at the USO.


Nadal has tons of points to defend during the grass season, and should he get taken out early (which is a possibility) at either tournament, Federer is in good position to take over Nadal during the NA HC Season.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Nadal_Freak said:
It's not just Nadal. Djokovic and Murray he avoided as well. He couldn't have possibly been handed an easier draw. To me Sampras is still the GOAT as he played in a tougher era.
Click to expand...
You're right. If Nadal played in Sampras' era, he wouldn't even be in the Top 20 nor would he ever have won even a single Grand Slam.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
If Federer Wins the French but....
Replies
6
Views
668
MichaelH
M
Q
If Thiem wins this Australian Open he will win French Open
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
skypadq
my madrid open , rome open , french open prediction
Replies
22
Views
663
Yugram
Yugram
L
What if Last years results were changed, Fed won French and Nadal won Wimbeldon
Replies
3
Views
520
Tchocky
Tchocky
Nadalator
FO title with a cakewalk draw won't make Fed GOAT,he needs to beat Nadal in Slams
2 3
Replies
107
Views
4K
Carlo Giovanni Colussi
C
Top