Nadal isn't an "excuse" for Federer not to win Roland Garros in his career

[Zaragoza]

It's an overused argument that Federer hasn't won Roland Garros yet because he has faced Nadal, one of the best clay-courters of all time (who could end up being the best one) in the last 4 years. I think it's a convenient thing to say and it's not the right way to look at things.

First, while it's true that Nadal is one of the greatest clay-courters of all time, an all-time great like Federer should live up to the challenge and not lose to Nadal every year at Roland Garros.

Look at it from the other side. Nadal was naturally a clay-courter and Federer is one of the greatest grass-courters and hard-courters of all time (probably the greatest on hardcourts). Nadal stepped his game. He lost 2 Wimbledon finals to Federer but he kept improving his game and he didn't give up.
Nadal lost the '06 Wimbledon final with relative ease, he gave Federer a really tough time in '07 and he won Wimbledon last year. I know some people will say that the grass at Wimbledon has changed since 2002-03 but it's still a fast surface (stats prove it) and it's the same grass where Federer beat Nadal in '06 with relative ease, including a bagel in the 1st set.

The same could be said about hardcourts. It was the hardest surface for Nadal to win a major because, in comparison with grass, his footwork and movement is not so superior to others and there are so many contenders. Nadal also improved his game on hardcourts and beat Federer (possibly the greatest hardcourter of all time) in the final. In other words, Nadal beat adversity and that's what an all time great like Federer should do on clay.

The counterargument could be that Federer wasn't at his best in 2008 and 2009 when Nadal won those finals. I would comment a few things on this:

-Other than Nadal, Federer only lost one match in a major in the last 4 years (Djokovic AO '08 ).

-Apart from Federer, Nadal had also to beat the "very good in a hot streak" type of player that used to beat him in previous years (Tsonga, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Youzhny...) to win those majors. The Verdasco match was a good example, he's exactly the kind of player that would have beaten Nadal in previous years. So Nadal definitely stepped up his game, it wasn't just about Federer.

-Federer was 26-27 when he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon and the AO. For someone who didn't reach his prime until 22 that's not old.


If you still think that Federer's age (5 years older than Nadal) and relative decline was the main reason why Nadal won majors on grass and hardcourts, then my question would be: what did Federer do at Roland Garros when Nadal wasn't at his best or didn't play?

2006 Federer lost the Rome final to Nadal in the 5th set tie-break wasting 2 match points. He lost the Roland Garros final in the 4th set tie-break after winning the first set 6-1. He wasn't far from Nadal that year.

2005 Nadal had a great season on clay but he wasn't as dominant as he's now. He played a marathon 5 setter against Coria in the Rome final and he almost went to a 5th set against Puerta in the R.Garros final (saved set point in the 4th). It was his first year playing R.Garros. Federer played Nadal on clay for the first time and he lost in 4 sets.

2004 Federer (22) lost to Kuerten in 3rd round in straight sets (not a prime Kuerten, who lost to Nalbandian in the quarters).

2003 Federer (21) lost to Horna in 1st round in straight sets.

2002 Federer (20) lost to Arazi in 1st round in straight sets.

2001 Federer (19) lost to Corretja in the quarters in straight sets.


So if Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career (I'm not saying he won't because he stands a chance) it will be because:

-He didn't live up to the challenge that Nadal represented on clay like an all-time great should do and other all-time greats did.

-He didn't step up his game earlier in his career when Nadal didn't play and there wasn't a dominant player on clay. Federer was already 22 (almost 23) when Gaudio won Roland Garros.

If Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career it will be his fault.

 

[Leublu tennis]

Interesting analysis. At the same time, my feeling is that Federer would give his eye teeth to win the FO. I really don't believe that there is anything that he can do to improve his dirt game against Nadal. Give Nadal credit. His game is pretty dull but it sure works on clay.

 

[aphex]

i agree with u completely

federer has the game to beat nadal in at least 1 in 3 or 4 matches in clay...
however, what u said about '08, for me, doesnt count due to the mono...
ao'09 sure as hell counts though...

so, yes, its his fault he doesnt have at least 1 rg

 

[RCizzle65]

Federer is my favorite player, and I agree, he had his chances in 2006, but he always seems to blow leads and chances to Nadal, and it's becoming more apparent now, just looking at the recent AO final shows this.

 

[S H O W S T O P P E R !]

Fed could have won the French before Nadal came onto the scene, but now it's virtually impossible. The only way Fed can win the French is if Nadal gets hurt, because his game is just perfection on clay.

 

[oneguy21]

That's a very good analysis.

 

[oscar_2424]

It's an overused argument that Federer hasn't at -Other than Nadal, Federer only lost one match in a major in the last 4 years (Djokovic AO '08 ).

2003 Federer (21) lost to Horna in 1st round in straight sets.

.

If Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career it will be his fault.

yeap, Lucho Horna kicked Federer's ass

 

[drakulie]

It's an overused argument that Federer hasn't won Roland Garros yet because he has faced Nadal, one of the best clay-courters of all time (who could end up being the best one) in the last 4 years. I think it's a convenient thing to say and it's not the right way to look at things.

You are correct. nadal really isn't that good, and is way over-hyped.

 

[veroniquem]

I agree with op, my own feeling is that even if Nadal hadn't won RG one of the last years, there's no guarantee Fed would have won it (against someone else). Look at Rome last year, Nadal lost in 1st round, he wasn't in anybody's way. Did Fed win the tournament? No, Djoko did. That's why I'm ready to praise Fed's RG finals, that's a great achievement but I completely disagree with people claiming that Fed is the second best clay player of all time (or 3rd or 4th for that matter). That is plain preposterous, you cannot be one of the best without WINNING a lot of important tournaments on a surface and you can't use Nadal or any other player as an excuse for not doing so. Otherwise Nadal could have just said he would never win Wimbledon because Federer was unbeatable on grass. Precisely, if you're a champion, you find a way, that's what my definition of a champion is. Until Federer finds a way to win RG, he has everything to prove on clay and finals will not make him one of the best, just one who would always fail at the finish line.
That being said, Federer is only 27 (and that is not old for a player his fans refer to as a "late" achiever), so he has several years left to prove me wrong and demonstrate his greatness on clay.

 

[veroniquem]

Interesting analysis. At the same time, my feeling is that Federer would give his eye teeth to win the FO. I really don't believe that there is anything that he can do to improve his dirt game against Nadal. Give Nadal credit. His game is pretty dull but it sure works on clay.

Federer should be willing to give an eye or an arm for a RG title, given that it would make him the greatest of all time (much more than 1 extra other slam IMO). Strangely he's never given me that impression at RG, he's never even seemed to care that much quite frankly and yet he cries us a river at AO (that he has already won 3 times anyway). Federer is a puzzle I haven't solved yet!

 

[veroniquem]

You are correct. nadal really isn't that good, and is way over-hyped.

Nadal is good enough to beat Federer in slams on clay, grass and hard court. Will Federer ever be good enough to do the same?

 

[The-Champ]

Give the guy a break. What he's done on clay is impressive. 3 FO finals is not an easy thing to do even for the giants of the game. If you judge Fed's GOAT status based on the FO, then Sampras shouldn't be even mentioned in the GOAT discussion.

He still has a few more years to get that slam...anything can happen.

 

[thejoe]

I agree with op, my own feeling is that even if Nadal hadn't won RG one of the last years, there's no guarantee Fed would have won it (against someone else). Look at Rome last year, Nadal lost in 1st round, he wasn't in anybody's way. Did Fed win the tournament? No, Djoko did. That's why I'm ready to praise Fed's RG finals, that's a great achievement but I completely disagree with people claiming that Fed is the second best clay player of all time (or 3rd or 4th for that matter). That is plain preposterous, you cannot be one of the best without WINNING a lot of important tournaments on a surface and you can't use Nadal or any other player as an excuse for not doing so. Otherwise Nadal could have just said he would never win Wimbledon because Federer was unbeatable on grass. Precisely, if you're a champion, you find a way, that's what my definition of a champion is. Until Federer finds a way to win RG, he has everything to prove on clay and finals will not make him one of the best, just one who would always fail at the finish line.
That being said, Federer is only 27 (and that is not old for a player his fans refer to as a "late" achiever), so he has several years left to prove me wrong and demonstrate his greatness on clay.

Anyone saying that is clinically insane.

 

[NamRanger]

You are stating the obvious. Federer IS a great clay court player, and I'd say he would have one FO title by now if it was not for Nadal. That's something you seriously don't want to admit.

 

[drakulie]

Nadal is good enough to beat Federer in slams on clay, grass and hard court. Will Federer ever be good enough to do the same?

according to the OP, Nadal is not that good. Take it up with him.

 

[veroniquem]

Anyone saying that is clinically insane.

Ah you agree? Well there were threads in the past here claiming that Federer was the second best clay courter of all time (based on his consecutive finals at RG).

 

[veroniquem]

according to the OP, Nadal is not that good. Take it up with him.

The OP didn't say that at all, you're the one saying it, so I very rightfully take it up with you

 

[thejoe]

Ah you agree? Well there were threads in the past here claiming that Federer was the second best clay courter of all time (based on his consecutive finals at RG).

I'm honestly surprised that people who think that can type their opinions.

 

[NamRanger]

Ah you agree? Well there were threads in the past here claiming that Federer was the second best clay courter of all time (based on his consecutive finals at RG).

He's not second best, but I'd say he is easily a top 20 claycourt player. Considering he had a very bad 2008 and managed to do very well on clay, I'd say he's pretty good on the clay, better than 99% of the field for the past 3 years or so.

 

[drakulie]

The OP didn't say that at all, you're the one saying it, so I very rightfully take it up with you

The OP is suggesting that Federer could/should beat Nadal at the French. Therefore, he is suggesting, Nadal is not as great on clay as everyone (including you) are making him out to be.

But this is what I like about you>>>> your attention to detail :roll:

 

[Sentinel]

Nadal stepped up his game, he evolved.
Federer did not. Fed does the same things ...

Nadal has a coach who can point out weaknesses and how to improve, Fed does not.

 

[veroniquem]

The OP is suggesting that Federer could/should beat Nadal at the French. Therefore, he is suggesting, Nadal is not as great on clay as everyone (including you) are making him out to be.

But this is what I like about you>>>> your attention to detail :roll:

The OP suggested that if Federer was a great clay court champion he would find a way to win RG regardless of other players and that has nothing to do with saying Nadal is not good. Have you ever heard the expression "raising to the occasion"? Well, Nadal did. It's up to Fed whether he will in the future or not, it's not up to anybody else.

 

[Leublu tennis]

I'm honestly surprised that people who think that can type their opinions.

Thats very funny, as I struggle with my typing.

 

[Leublu tennis]

Nadal stepped up his game, he evolved.
Federer did not. Fed does the same things ...

Nadal has a coach who can point out weaknesses and how to improve, Fed does not.

The unc is better than the gf??

 

[P_Agony]

When Fed and Nadal meet, it's usually the Federer choking which decides the result of the match. That's what happenned on AO 2009 final. Add to the mental barrier Nadal's super effective clay game, which is arguably the best of all time, and you get FO 2008 final. Fed had his chances when he was in his prime. I think he was the better player in Rome 2006 and in some ways FO 2006, however today Federer is not as good as he's been, while Nadal improved greatly on all surfaces, and that's why Fed can't ever beat Nadal on the french clay. I think Fed knows it and I think he's pretty much given up on the FO. If Nadal somehow losses before the final, then I think Federer will suddenly feel ultra motivated to win this thing. But the chances for it to happen are below zero.

 

[GameSampras]

It's an overused argument that Federer hasn't won Roland Garros yet because he has faced Nadal, one of the best clay-courters of all time (who could end up being the best one) in the last 4 years. I think it's a convenient thing to say and it's not the right way to look at things.

First, while it's true that Nadal is one of the greatest clay-courters of all time, an all-time great like Federer should live up to the challenge and not lose to Nadal every year at Roland Garros.

Look at it from the other side. Nadal was naturally a clay-courter and Federer is one of the greatest grass-courters and hard-courters of all time (probably the greatest on hardcourts). Nadal stepped his game. He lost 2 Wimbledon finals to Federer but he kept improving his game and he didn't give up.
Nadal lost the '06 Wimbledon final with relative ease, he gave Federer a really tough time in '07 and he won Wimbledon last year. I know some people will say that the grass at Wimbledon has changed since 2002-03 but it's still a fast surface (stats prove it) and it's the same grass where Federer beat Nadal in '06 with relative ease, including a bagel in the 1st set.

The same could be said about hardcourts. It was the hardest surface for Nadal to win a major because, in comparison with grass, his footwork and movement is not so superior to others and there are so many contenders. Nadal also improved his game on hardcourts and beat Federer (possibly the greatest hardcourter of all time) in the final. In other words, Nadal beat adversity and that's what an all time great like Federer should do on clay.

The counterargument could be that Federer wasn't at his best in 2008 and 2009 when Nadal won those finals. I would comment a few things on this:

-Other than Nadal, Federer only lost one match in a major in the last 4 years (Djokovic AO '08 ).

-Apart from Federer, Nadal had also to beat the "very good in a hot streak" type of player that used to beat him in previous years (Tsonga, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Youzhny...) to win those majors. The Verdasco match was a good example, he's exactly the kind of player that would have beaten Nadal in previous years. So Nadal definitely stepped up his game, it wasn't just about Federer.

-Federer was 26-27 when he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon and the AO. For someone who didn't reach his prime until 22 that's not old.


If you still think that Federer's age (5 years older than Nadal) and relative decline was the main reason why Nadal won majors on grass and hardcourts, then my question would be: what did Federer do at Roland Garros when Nadal wasn't at his best or didn't play?

2006 Federer lost the Rome final to Nadal in the 5th set tie-break wasting 2 match points. He lost the Roland Garros final in the 4th set tie-break after winning the first set 6-1. He wasn't far from Nadal that year.

2005 Nadal had a great season on clay but he wasn't as dominant as he's now. He played a marathon 5 setter against Coria in the Rome final and he almost went to a 5th set against Puerta in the R.Garros final (saved set point in the 4th). It was his first year playing R.Garros. Federer played Nadal on clay for the first time and he lost in 4 sets.

2004 Federer (22) lost to Kuerten in 3rd round in straight sets (not a prime Kuerten, who lost to Nalbandian in the quarters).

2003 Federer (21) lost to Horna in 1st round in straight sets.

2002 Federer (20) lost to Arazi in 1st round in straight sets.

2001 Federer (19) lost to Corretja in the quarters in straight sets.


So if Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career (I'm not saying he won't because he stands a chance) it will be because:

-He didn't live up to the challenge that Nadal represented on clay like an all-time great should do and other all-time greats did.

-He didn't step up his game earlier in his career when Nadal didn't play and there wasn't a dominant player on clay. Federer was already 22 (almost 23) when Gaudio won Roland Garros.

If Federer can't win Roland Garros in his career it will be his fault.

I will agree people shouldnt fall back on the, "Oh Federer had to deal with Nadal at RG." Didnt Federer grow up playing on clay anyways? Were people making these excuses for Borg not winning the USO or Pete winning RG? Regardless of who u are, you should find a way to overcome your rivals. Thats the bottom line if you are among the Greatest ever

 

[GameSampras]

Well Nadal is experiencing knee problems again which is part of his fault. He should have gotten some more rest after the AO but instead jumped right into another tournament. So if he isnt top form come RG time, this could be the year Fed takes the RG. Hemay not have to play Nadal if he makes the final

 

[veroniquem]

When Fed and Nadal meet, it's usually the Federer choking which decides the result of the match. That's what happenned on AO 2009 final. Add to the mental barrier Nadal's super effective clay game, which is arguably the best of all time, and you get FO 2008 final. Fed had his chances when he was in his prime. I think he was the better player in Rome 2006 and in some ways FO 2006, however today Federer is not as good as he's been, while Nadal improved greatly on all surfaces, and that's why Fed can't ever beat Nadal on the french clay. I think Fed knows it and I think he's pretty much given up on the FO. If Nadal somehow losses before the final, then I think Federer will suddenly feel ultra motivated to win this thing. But the chances for it to happen are below zero.

The chances of Nadal losing before the final are actually high. It's winning RG 4 times in a row that is quite exceptional!

 

[P_Agony]

The chances of Nadal losing before the final are actually high. It's winning RG 4 times in a row that is quite exceptional!

Really? They're high? Who's going to beat him? I'll even make it easier for you - who's going to even win a set from him?

If last year is any indication, Nadal has nobody who can challenge him on clay anymore. It won't be Federer, as his mental barrier is stronger than ever now, and his form is not. It won't be Djokovic, as he looks like he's not even close to last year's form, and even then he couldn't beat Nadal on clay. It won't be Murray, because Murray and clay do not go together, so who can it be really? And please don't mention guys like Verdasco or Almagro who lost to Nadal so badly last year it wasn't even funny.

 

[saram]

To the OP--great analysis and theory. I agree--if the Fed is going to go down in the GOAT status, he needs to pick it up at the FO or at least dominate some other clay MS events.

I also agree in your breakdown of Rafa elevating his game everywhere while Roger has failed to do it--or at least take it to the level and diversity as Rafa has.

I think your thoughts are spot-on and well thought and shared.

 

[ksbh]

I have to echo Saram's post above.

Great post, OP! I think the one area that really hurts Federer's legacy is his inability to rise to the occasion against Nadal. He may be let off the hook in regards to Roland Garros and perhaps even Wimbledon as Rafa has proved he has the grass game to beat the best but losing to his greatest rival on harcourts, his preferred surface, will be a blemish that'll be hard to erase.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

zargagoza read about the years before Federer blossomed.

Federer's Lost Years:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/federers-lost-years/2007/01/24/1169594363451.html?page=fullpage

Roger Federer is devastated after losing to Tommy Haas in five sets at the Australian Open in 2002.
Photo: Ray Kennedy

'I'VE lost all confidence lately. I feel like I'm missing energy. I started the year well — I made the top 10 for the first time and won Hamburg, but after that it's mainly been downhill, and I really can't explain why." — Roger Federer, August 22, 2002, after he lost to Nicolas Massu in the first round at Long Island, his fourth opening-round loss in five tournaments.

The epiphany, according to Federer and Lundgren, came at the 2003 French Open, when he lost in the first round to Peruvian Luis Horna, now ranked in the 60s.

"I guess that loss at the French Open against Horna really put me down," said Federer, when asked after his quarter-final about the difference between 2002 Roger and the current phenomenon. "I was really disappointed. The important (thing) was the reaction from then on."

Federer steeled himself following the Horna debacle. "He learnt from his mistakes," said Lundgren.

Luis Horna was one of the midwives who gave birth to the amazing Roger Federer. The other assisting in the delivery was Mark Philippoussis, whom Roger defeated 7-6, 6-2, 7-6 — a match that became a Sliding Doors of sorts for both players, especially the hapless Scud, who lost as much from that as Federer gained.

Lundgren said it was telling that Wimbledon was followed by the Masters Cup at the end of 2003, when he twice defeated Agassi and slayed the Nalbandian bogy; the Argentinian having beaten him at the 2003 US Open.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/federers-lost-years/2007/01/24/1169594363451.html?page=fullpage

 

[veroniquem]

Really? They're high? Who's going to beat him? I'll even make it easier for you - who's going to even win a set from him?

If last year is any indication, Nadal has nobody who can challenge him on clay anymore. It won't be Federer, as his mental barrier is stronger than ever now, and his form is not. It won't be Djokovic, as he looks like he's not even close to last year's form, and even then he couldn't beat Nadal on clay. It won't be Murray, because Murray and clay do not go together, so who can it be really? And please don't mention guys like Verdasco or Almagro who lost to Nadal so badly last year it wasn't even funny.

Every year is different. Nadal is not necessarily gonna cruise through the draw for years to come just because he did it last year. I mean I wish he did but I don't think it works that way, it's not easy to win slams year after year. Ask Federer! (FYI noone has won RG more than 4 times in a row so I would certainly not expect it to be a "done deal" kind of thing!)

 

[MegacedU]

Federer just hasn't figured a way to use Nadal's speed and athleticism against him. Fed plays everyone the same way and now people are starting to figure him out. He's spent.

 

[drakulie]

So when somebody beats you, you don't really lose?

Yes, if you play a match, and after the last point has been played, you are on the losing end>>>>>> you got "beat". Plain and simple. Learn to be grascious and accept that someone beat you, and learn to give them credit, rather than making excuses.

Actually, the OP never suggested that Rafa was not that good--

No, he suggested that federer should win, and by process of elimination, if we take that into consideration, then this means Nadal is not as good on clay as Federer, and therefore, Nadal's wins were "flukes". Bottom line is, Nadal won, >>> not Nadal lost. No fluke, or excuses. Nadal is a far better player on clay. Period. End of story. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.

People need to learn to accept that, rather than coming up with stupidities, in a weak attempt to throw "back-hand" compliments.

To the OP--great analysis and theory. I agree--if the Fed is going to go down in the GOAT status, he needs to pick it up at the FO or at least dominate some other clay MS events.

No, he doesn't. No one else in history has done this, so why should this only be relevant to Federer??

I also agree in your breakdown of Rafa elevating his gave everywhere while Roger has failed to do it--or at least take it to the level and diversity as Rafa has.

So, now Federer hasn't elevated his game??? 3 grand slam titles for 3 years out of 4 is not "elevating your game???? Only way he could possible elevate his game is to go undefeated for an entire year, and win every slam, and MS event in the year.

Since we seem to be comparing Rafa to Fed>>>>> When/if Rafa wins 3 slams in one year, for 3 straight years or our of 4, and makes 19 straight slam semis, 10 straight slam finals>>>> then you could say he has elevated his game, until then>>> he isn't even scratching the surface.

I think your thoughts are spot-on and well thought and shared.

His "thoughts" are full of holes. Period.

 

[CyBorg]

I think that it's a decent excuse, just a good one when made in support of the goat claim.

 

[veroniquem]

zargagoza read about the years before Federer blossomed.

Federer's Lost Years:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/federers-lost-years/2007/01/24/1169594363451.html?page=fullpage

Fed is always "devastated" (unless he wins of course), top level drama queen, #1 in tennis for sure!

 

[brc444]

I tihnk it's a good excuse. You take away Nadal at the FO from 2005-2008 and I like Federer's chances -- I would say the same for 2009 and 2010. In addition, Fed should be given credit for improving his clay game -- unfortunately by 2005 it was too late because Nadal was on the scene.

 

[icedevil0289]

Fed is always "devastated" (unless he wins of course), top level drama queen, #1 in tennis for sure!

I think that's a bit of en exaggeration, but whatever. :roll:

 

[P_Agony]

Every year is different. Nadal is not necessarily gonna cruise through the draw for years to come just because he did it last year. I mean I wish he did but I don't think it works that way, it's not easy to win slams year after year. Ask Federer! (FYI noone has won RG more than 4 times in a row so I would certainly not expect it to be a "done deal" kind of thing!)

That's what you wish for? Nadal easily going through everybody else? My god, you are truly a fan of Nadal more than you're a fan of tennis. I would hate it if Federer would cruise through the draw to win any title. I want to see matches, competition, new talent, not the same guy (no matter how good he is and how incredibly fun to watch he is) dominating. I mean, if I think of a major when Federer does to everyone what he did to Del Potro, I want to puke. That would be the most boring, pointless major ever, and I'm digusted by the fact that you actually want it, only for Nadal of course.

 

[drakulie]

Fed is always "devastated" (unless he wins of course), top level drama queen, #1 in tennis for sure!

at the level these guys play at, with all the practice, dedication, and sacrifice of "putting their personal life on hold" >>>>> it is very understandbale, anyone who has reached these levels and does not win when they make it to the "big time", is going to be devastated. Would is be better if he woudl have run around like a clown, popping party poppers while Rafa is being awarded the trophy??? ( URA>> loser)

But again, this is what I like about you>>> your attention to detail. :roll:

 

[veroniquem]

I think that's a bit of en exaggeration, but whatever. :roll:

OK maybe not always but often enough that it would strike me as extreme. Find me another player saying things like "this is killing me!", he said it after Wimbledon 2008, after AO 2009 and even in Canada after a journalist asked him a question about retiring on top... And yet he's still alive and kicking right? I say Drama Queen territory

 

[icedevil0289]

That's what you wish for? Nadal easily going through everybody else? My god, you are truly a fan of Nadal more than you're a fan of tennis. I would hate it if Federer would cruise through the draw to win any title. I want to see matches, competition, new talent, not the same guy (no matter how good he is and how incredibly fun to watch he is) dominating. I mean, if I think of a major when Federer does to everyone what he did to Del Potro, I want to puke. That would be the most boring, pointless major ever, and I'm digusted by the fact that you actually want it, only for Nadal of course.

I do agree with you to a certain extent. Majors are always more fun when there is more competition, upsets, new guys rising and not the same person dominating over and over again. However, in federer's case, I'd would prefer him to have easier matches, not like del potro ofcourse, but when he gets into 5 setter matches, its not always a guarantee he will come out on top, where as with nadal, there is more of a chance. I would hope that this french open, nadal does not cruise through, and not because I'm a fed fan, but I just wish for the other players to raise their games and give some competition to nadal.

 

[icedevil0289]

OK maybe not always but often enough that it would strike me as extreme. Find me another player saying things like "this is killing me!", he said it after Wimbledon 2008, after AO 2009 and even in Canada after a journalist asked him a question about retiring on top... And yet he's still alive and kicking right? I say Drama Queen territory

alright he may be a little over the top at times, after all he is an emotional guy, but I don't think he's no.1 in that area. I'd like to point out other guys who are known to be dramatic, but I don't want to start another argument or fight. I can respect the fact that you have your opinion and I have mine and I don't intend to change your opinion whatsoever, so its all good.

 

[P_Agony]

I do agree with you to a certain extent. Majors are always more fun when there is more competition, upsets, new guys rising and not the same person dominating over and over again. However, in federer's case, I'd would prefer him to have easier matches, not like del potro ofcourse, but when he gets into 5 setter matches, its not always a guarantee he will come out on top, where as with nadal, there is more of a chance. I would hope that this french open, nadal does not cruise through, and not because I'm a fed fan, but I just wish for the other players to raise their games and give some competition to nadal.

A competitive match can also be a straight sets match. I'm not saying I want every Federer match to be a 5-setter, but I don't want it to be a Del Potro match as everytime as well. I mean, first, I'm a fan of tennis. Then, I'm a fan of Federer. I will never be able to understand how someone could ever put Federer or Nadal before tennis itself. That's why I claim the FO is the most boring slam of them all - because it's purely a one man show. Nobody could touch Nadal last year. Nobody could even win a set from him last year. There were no competitive matches with him at all (No, not even the Djokovic one, sorry), and that takes all the fun from watching. It's not Nadal's fault he's so much better than everyone else on clay, but it also means there is really no reason to watch the thing.

 

[veroniquem]

at the level these guys play at, with all the practice, dedication, and sacrifice of "putting their personal life on hold" >>>>> it is very understandbale, anyone who has reached these levels and does not win when they make it to the "big time", is going to be devastated. Would is be better if he woudl have run around like a clown, popping party poppers while Rafa is being awarded the trophy??? ( URA>> loser)

But again, this is what I like about you>>> your attention to detail. :roll:

Funny post! He could just look disappointed, that's what 's expected. Federer adds a more dramatic dimension. As a viewer I take it with a grain of salt...

 

[dtrain]

I agree with the OP. If Federer was such a great champion he would figure how to beat Nadal on clay. I'm not a Fed fan, but if he's the "GOAT" like everyone claims he is... then he would have found a way to beat Nadal at RG.

 

[veroniquem]

alright he may be a little over the top at times, after all he is an emotional guy, but I don't think he's no.1 in that area. I'd like to point out other guys who are known to be dramatic, but I don't want to start another argument or fight. I can respect the fact that you have your opinion and I have mine and I don't intend to change your opinion whatsoever, so its all good.

Do you mean Djoko? Yes he has an emotional personality too. It's not an insult. I know a lot of people who tend to overdramatize and I still like them.

 

[P_Agony]

yeah that's true. I never liked the french open, mainly because I don't like the long rallies, I find it extremely boring, but to each his or her own. I'll admit as a *******, that when I think of tennis, I primarily think of federer and usually want him to win everything. However, Federer did always say that no player can be bigger than the game. Even though I always root for fed, I definitely want the other players to start winning things too, perhaps 1 or 2 slams.

I want Federer to win everything too (unless it's against Gasquet), but if he'd win the same way Nadal wins the FO, I'd quickly get bored (and yes, it's possible to get bored even in a Federer match)

 

[veroniquem]

I want Federer to win everything too (unless it's against Gasquet), but if he'd win the same way Nadal wins the FO, I'd quickly get bored (and yes, it's possible to get bored even in a Federer match)

Federer has won a slam without losing a set (at least one slam), although I don't remember which one.