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

icedevil0289

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

australian open 2007. I think it was the semi final with andy that was one of his best performances, but poor andy. I wish that match in particular was a little more competitive as well as the entire run fed had in order to win AO 07.
 

P_Agony

Banned
while I agree that some of her comments can be annoying, she has said a few positive things about federer in the past. I don't think she is constantly hating on fed.

That is why I said she is usually a Nadal fan a guy can have a decent discussion with (see posts above). However, making fun of Federer is unwanted and uncalled for. If you can be a Federer fan and respect Nadal at the same time (like me), you can do the opposite too. Not that hard.
 

P_Agony

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

He did, and if every match there would have been like the one with Roddick I'd get really bored really quickly. However, there were competitive matches there. Even though all of them ended in straight sets, not all sets were 6-0 or 6-1 or 6-2.

And I enjoyed Federer's win at the US Open 08 much more than that, because he had to fight his way to the final and the trophy, losts sets and came close to losing to Andreev in the process.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
As a viewer I take it with a grain of salt...

You are not a "viewer'>>> you are an "excuse machine", that has yet to realize (Like Serena Williams), players get "beat" by their opponents. You have no grace, humility, or respect for this game, or your opponents.

Worse than the Freak himself?

Yes, becasue "she" at least has some signs of something working between the ears.

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.

Then with this logic, no one is the "GOAT" other than Nadal himself.

Sampras, Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden, Mcenroe, Borg, etc, etc, etc have never beaten Nadal on clay. You try, very weakly to make Nadal "the pedestal" Fed has to reach, when no one else is held to those same standards.

By this same standard, then Nadal could never be considered the greatest clay court player, since he never beat Borg at RG.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
australian open 2007. I think it was the semi final with andy that was one of his best performances, but poor andy. I wish that match in particular was a little more competitive as well as the entire run fed had in order to win AO 07.
I remember that match against Andy, I thought it was a clinic from Fed (apparently Roddick thought that too!). I haven't seen every Federer match but that match was the best I have seen him play.
 

edberg505

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

LOL, but you see the difference in that AO that Federer won without losing a set was that he was actually close several times to losing one. There wasn't even a hint that Nadal would drop a set last year.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
So veroniquem, you ignored a post of mine so I'm going to ask again...do you really wish Nadal would just cruise through the draw with no competition at all? Are that much more a Nadal fan than a tennis fan? Wouldn't you prefer watching Nadal challenged, having a hard time, and win at the end?
No, I enjoy watching Nadal crush his opponents! The difference between me and other people here is that I don't have qualms admitting it. I enjoy tight matches in general but I'm that much of a Nadal fan that when he's involved I take pleasure in a spanking (provided he's not on the receiving end of course!) and I'm not ashamed of it if you're intimating that I should be!! I believe you're not completely honest and you enjoyed the Fed- Del Potro match quite a bit, didn't you?
 
Last edited:

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
No, I enjoy watching Nadal crush his opponents! The difference between me and other people here is that I don't have qualms admitting it. I enjoy tight matches in general but I'm that much of a Nadal fan that when he's involved I take pleasure in a spanking (provided he's not on the receiving end of course!) and I'm not ashamed of it if you're intimating that I should be!! I believe you're not completely honest and you enjoyed the Fed- Del Potro match quite a bit, didn't you?

I saw part of the fed-del potro match and I was actually quite annoyed, mostly with del potro. After a little while, he didn't even try and then people were going on about how fed is back to his form, he's deadly now, when he beat someone who didn't even give him any competition.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
LOL, but you see the difference in that AO that Federer won without losing a set was that he was actually close several times to losing one. There wasn't even a hint that Nadal would drop a set last year.
There was actually (a hint): 3rd set tiebreak against Djokovic and super tight first set vs Bellucci in the first round (7- 5). Even his first set against Devilder was competitive (6-4).
 

edberg505

Legend
Here's what I think about the original post. I honestly don't care if Federer wins the FO or not. I don't care what he should or could have done. Hell, I don't care if he never wins another slam at all. He is the best tennis player that I have ever seen on a tennis court.
 

saram

Legend
Here's what I think about the original post. I honestly don't care if Federer wins the FO or not. I don't care what he should or could have done. Hell, I don't care if he never wins another slam at all. He is the best tennis player that I have ever seen on a tennis court.

I will surely agree with that. I can't remember which clay tournament it was--but when Roger won it in five over Rafa, I realized he was the greatest regardless of an RG win or not. Roger winning RG will only help with one thing--quieting the people here on TW/TT. Most tennis purists will agree he is the most gifted, fluid, and talented player to ever play the game.
 

Serve_Ace

Professional
I will surely agree with that. I can't remember which clay tournament it was--but when Roger won it in five over Rafa, I realized he was the greatest regardless of an RG win or not. Roger winning RG will only help with one thing--quieting the people here on TW/TT. Most tennis purists will agree he is the most gifted, fluid, and talented player to ever play the game.

I certainly do!
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
With all the arguing going on I didn't get a chance to comment on the original post. I actually agree with the the idea that nadal is not an excuse for federer not to win RG. There is no guarantee that fed would have won before had rafa lost early. I don't remember which poster said it, but part of the reason that nadal was able to do win wimbledon was because he was continiously improving his game on grass and now on hardcourts, where as fed really hasn't improved anything and that's his fault. I think that nadal is definitely a better grass court player than fed is a clay court player, but I think fed has it in him to atleast take rafa to 5 sets. If he never wins the french open, its no one's fault but his.
 

P_Agony

Banned
You think Nadal is a quitter? :shock: Based on what?

I don't think he's a quitter, I said I could have said that and I didn't the same you took Federer's emotional behavior and turned him into a drama queen. You took a mouse and turned it into a mountain, and that's what I refused to do. I am a bit angry with Nadal for retiring that Davydenko match in a tourney where he played both singles and doubles. I think he should have stayed for one short set and let Davy have his well earned win, and I though it was very un-Nadal like. I was quite disappointed with him but I gave him a lot of credit when he didn't retire the recent match with Murray even though he was suffering, so kudos to him.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I will surely agree with that. I can't remember which clay tournament it was--but when Roger won it in five over Rafa, I realized he was the greatest regardless of an RG win or not. Roger winning RG will only help with one thing--quieting the people here on TW/TT. Most tennis purists will agree he is the most gifted, fluid, and talented player to ever play the game.
Federer has never won a 5 setter against Nadal on clay. Maybe you're referring to Hamburg? (You must be since that's the only match Fed has won vs Nadal on clay!) That was 3 sets.
 

P_Agony

Banned
No, I enjoy watching Nadal crush his opponents! The difference between me and other people here is that I don't have qualms admitting it. I enjoy tight matches in general but I'm that much of a Nadal fan that when he's involved I take pleasure in a spanking (provided he's not on the receiving end of course!) and I'm not ashamed of it if you're intimating that I should be!! I believe you're not completely honest and you enjoyed the Fed- Del Potro match quite a bit, didn't you?

I enjoyed it because it happened after a difficult 5-set match where Federer played like crap. Had the Berdych match was a spanking like the Delpo match, I'd hate every minute of it. In fact, in the Roddick semifinal match that came after the Delpo match, I kept rooting for Roddick just so he can give Federer a hard time. I was angry Roddick was going for Fed's fh too many times thus handing him the easy victory.
 
Last edited:

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer has never won a 5 setter against Nadal on clay. Maybe you're referring to Hamburg? (You must be since that's the only match Fed has won vs Nadal on clay!) That was 3 sets.

And of course, the only reason Nadal **lost** that day was because he was exhausted. I mean, he had the sun in his eyes, or was it >>>>> he didn't get a good nights rest. ????? can't remember from all the thousands of excuses you have come up with.
 

saram

Legend
Federer has never won a 5 setter against Nadal on clay. Maybe you're referring to Hamburg? (You must be since that's the only match Fed has won vs Nadal on clay!) That was 3 sets.

Typo--my bad. Yes, when Roger ended the 81 match win streak of Rafa's on clay.
 

vtmike

Banned
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).

Provide a link to that thread...as far I remember everyone was arguing about how he is the second best clay courter in the CURRENT playing field and not all time...
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I don't think he's a quitter, I said I could have said that and I didn't the same you took Federer's emotional behavior and turned him into a drama queen. You took a mouse and turned it into a mountain, and that's what I refused to do. I am a bit angry with Nadal for retiring that Davydenko match in a tourney where he played both singles and doubles. I think he should have stayed for one short set and let Davy have his well earned win, and I though it was very un-Nadal like. I was quite disappointed with him but I gave him a lot of credit when he didn't retire the recent match with Murray even though he was suffering, so kudos to him.
A quitter would be someone who quits a lot which definitely doesn't apply to Nadal (of course when there is a risk of aggravating an injury by not quitting, it would be foolish not to).
A drama queen is someone who has a lot of exaggerated reactions like "it's killing me", crying, etc. I still think my assessment was correct but I'm not expecting you to agree. There's a difference between disagreeing and attacking somebody else for their opinion.
 

P_Agony

Banned
A quitter would be someone who quits a lot which definitely doesn't apply to Nadal (of course when there is a risk of aggravating an injury by not quitting, it would be foolish not to).
A drama queen is someone who has a lot of exaggerated reactions like "it's killing me", crying, etc. I still think my assessment was correct but I'm not expecting you to agree. There's a difference between disagreeing and attacking somebody else for their opinion.

Yes, of course. Quit a tourney when your'e playing both singles and doubles in it. If he felt injured or tired, he should've just quit before the match began.
Your assessment is fanboy-ish, Federer is a human being, and he has emotions, he's a very honest man who always says what's on his mind. Sometimes it doesn't come out right, like the Jankovic comment, which I thought was uncalled for, or the crying, but that's how he's like. If he was a drama queen, I'm sure we'd seen more of that on-court as well...

Face it, you're doing nothing with your comments but creating flame.
 

P_Agony

Banned
Uncalled for? Did you see edberg's post? So it's OK for him to post that based on Nadal' excellence, all clay court tournaments should be avoided but it's not OK for me to react? Sorry but we're gonna have to disagree on this. And as far as I'm concerned you're the one trying to flame me here, not the opposite.

You mean the one with the clay courts? Where did he even mention Nadal in there? The results have shown what he thinks should result in less clay courts. What does that have anything to do with "And people say Federer is better than Nadal. Insane" comment?
 

edberg505

Legend
Uncalled for? Did you see edberg's post? So it's OK for him to post that based on Nadal' excellence, all clay court tournaments should be avoided but it's not OK for me to react? Sorry but we're gonna have to disagree on this. And as far as I'm concerned you're the one trying to flame me here, not the opposite.

LOL, what did I say that was wrong? I posted each of the slams that both Nadal and Federer didn't drop a set. It's quite clear the Nadal's FO was way more dominating. Do you disagree with this? So people would actually like to see more tournaments on clay?
 
M

Morrissey

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

Actually he didn't say that at all. He's saying that Fed should step up to the challenge like Nadal stood up to Fed on grass and hardcourt. Especially since Fed is an all time great. Nadal is one of the best clay courters of all time. But Fed is an all time great, a GOAT. Shouldn't he step up and take Nadal on clay like Nadal stepped up and took him out on grass and hardcourt? If he can't do it, maybe he's not the GOAT. That was what he was trying to relay to everyone. I don't know where you got that other stuff you came up with other than you're still p1ssed off from 2 weeks ago. Just my opinion.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
Zaragoza made a great point. He's basically calling Fed out. "If you're the greatest, then why don't you step up to the challenge made by your main rival and start beating him?" I won't even say just clay because he can't seem to beat him on any surface anymore. If he's the greatest, he should beat everyone, right? What is it about that that's so hard to comprehend? Are Fedfans in the business of obscured clarity? Lol
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
Didn't Djokovic call Federer out last year at the AO, after he beat him?

Yes and he came back and beat him every time since. That's stepping up to the challenge. So far Fed has lost 5 in a row to Nadal on every surface. He has to step up to that challenge and change the tide. If he can't do that, he shouldn't be called a GOAT. Simple enough. Right?
 

Serve_Ace

Professional
Yes and he came back and beat him every time since. That's stepping up to the challenge. So far Fed has lost 5 in a row to Nadal on every surface. He has to step up to that challenge and change the tide. If he can't do that, he shouldn't be called a GOAT. Simple enough. Right?

Yeah, simple.
 

Federer_pilon

Professional
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:

He also said that Nadal managed to beat Fed on grass and hard despite Federer being one of the best (if not the best) on those surfaces.
 

edberg505

Legend
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.

Hmm, everyone is starting to figure him out? Well I guess that means he won't win another single match the rest of the year.
 

thalivest

Banned
The GOAT is by far Laver at this moment IMO. However even Sampras has a stronger claim that Federer as he wasnt owned by anyone, atleast not a main rival, despite his shabby results on clay. Krajicek or Ferreria examples are fallacy as they are not main rivals (nor did they really own him).
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
You mean the one with the clay courts? Where did he even mention Nadal in there? The results have shown what he thinks should result in less clay courts. What does that have anything to do with "And people say Federer is better than Nadal. Insane" comment?
He compared Nadal's results to Federer's results (apparently you didn't understand his post) when they won a slam in straight sets. I jokingly commented on how much better Nadal was than Federer which was a very logical way to react to his post as it clearly showed that Nadal's perf at RG 2008 was better than Fed's perf at AO 2007.
 

edberg505

Legend
The GOAT is by far Laver at this moment IMO. However even Sampras has a stronger claim that Federer as he wasnt owned by anyone, atleast not a main rival, despite his shabby results on clay. Krajicek or Ferreria examples are fallacy as they are not main rivals (nor did they really own him).

That may be true, but he sure as heck had many rivals on clay.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
The GOAT is by far Laver at this moment IMO. However even Sampras has a stronger claim that Federer as he wasnt owned by anyone, atleast not a main rival, despite his shabby results on clay. Krajicek or Ferreria examples are fallacy as they are not main rivals (nor did they really own him).

In a sense that's true. To be a GOAT or at least a Best of your own generation you have to beat your biggest and most consistent rival. Sampras had winning records against Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
LOL, what did I say that was wrong? I posted each of the slams that both Nadal and Federer didn't drop a set. It's quite clear the Nadal's FO was way more dominating. Do you disagree with this? So people would actually like to see more tournaments on clay?
You think a surface should be eradicated as soon as a very dominant player comes up on it? That is nonsensical to me. Dominant players are what motivate other players to improve and take the challenge. That's what makes the sport progress.
 

thalivest

Banned
In a sense that's true. To be a GOAT or at least a Best of your own generation you have to beat your biggest and most consistent rival. Sampras had winning records against Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg.

Yep, a true GOAT candidate is not owned by anyone of their own time. At most they are pushed by them. Evert isnt even considered a serious womens GOAT candidate mostly since she was too much seemingly on the short end of her rivalry with Navratilova, yet she only trailed 43-37! Federer has won about 30% of his meetings with his greatest contemporary rival.
 

Breaker

Legend
In a sense that's true. To be a GOAT or at least a Best of your own generation you have to beat your biggest and most consistent rival. Sampras had winning records against Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg.

In another sense Sampras couldn't have a big rival on clay because there wasn't a consistent opponent in the finals, as well as the small detail that Sampras didn't make very many clay finals, let alone a Roland Garros final.

If we take that logic it would have been more beneficial for Federer to lose before the finals every year since 2005 at Roland Garros and in Monte Carlo/Rome so that his head to head wouldn't be so bad against Nadal, 3 RG finals + 4 Hamburg titles outweigh Sampras not having been beaten 3 times a year by the same player in clay court matches because he couldn't reach the final.

No, Nadal's not an excuse, but to bring Sampras into the equation makes no sense because Federer is on a much higher level than Pete on clay, and even if he had made 3-4 clay finals a year in his prime years he wouldn't had a consistent rival to face every year and (potentially) ruin his head to head.
 

edberg505

Legend
You think a surface should be eradicated as soon as a very dominant player comes up on it? That is nonsensical to me. Dominant players are what motivate other players to improve and take the challenge. That's what makes the sport progress.

Please show me anywhere in my post that I said all clay courts should be removed. If you can do that I'll give you a cookie. What I said is "NO" to more clay courts.

As for the second part of your statement, yes that's exactly right. So why try to change up the season by putting in more claycourts. Prove your dominance by doing the same on all courts and not whining about there being too many hardcourts.
 

edberg505

Legend
In another sense Sampras couldn't have a big rival on clay because there wasn't a consistent opponent in the finals, as well as the small detail that Sampras didn't make very many clay finals, let alone a Roland Garros final.

If we take that logic it would have been more beneficial for Federer to lose before the finals every year since 2005 at Roland Garros and in Monte Carlo/Rome so that his head to head wouldn't be so bad against Nadal, 3 RG finals + 4 Hamburg titles outweigh Sampras not having been beaten 3 times a year by the same player in clay court matches because he couldn't reach the final.

No, Nadal's not an excuse, but to bring Sampras into the equation makes no sense because Federer is on a much higher level than Pete on clay, and even if he had made 3-4 clay finals a year in his prime years he wouldn't had a consistent rival to face every year and (potentially) ruin his head to head.

Wait a second, now you're not playing fair. You can't use logic.
 

Bassus

Rookie
Federer should have won the French

Federer most definitely should have already won at least one, and probably two French Opens in his career. Red clay was not a nearly alien surface to him like it was for other greats like Sampras and McEnroe. His first breakthrough in a grandslam tournament was the 2001 French where he made it to the quarters.

The post-Kuerten/pre-Nadal era therefore provided at least 4 decent chances for Federer to win it. He clearly wasn't prepared in 2002 and 2003, and he didn't show much fight in that 2004 loss to Kuerten. Kuerten was temporarily resurgent, but had Federer put up a better fight then perhaps Guga would have faltered. After that Federer's biggest challenge would have been Nalbandian in the quarters. Nalbandian dominated Federer then, so maybe it would have ended there, but if Federer had gotten by that he would have been a huge favorite to beat Gaudio and Coria, as he had just done so a few weeks earlier in Hamburg.

2005 was another huge lost opportunity. It was Nadal's first French, and his first time on the big stage of a grand slam seminfinal. Federer already had many big grandslam matches under his belt, yet it was Nadal who played like a champion. To say that Federer did not put forth a good effort that day is to run the risk of not giving Nadal his due credit. That Nadal has gone on to dominate Federer says there is more to it than Federer simply not bringing his A-game, but that day I do contend that Federer did not put forth a champions effort. The mental domination Nadal has over Federer did not yet exist, as they had only played twice, splitting those two matches. Nadal set the tone that day for the rivalry that was to come.

2006 was obviously a wasted opportunity since Nadal came out very nervous and gave Federer the first set. But how did Federer respond? Well, he turned around and gave away the second, and effectively started the match over. Early in that set when it was still on serve, Federer was up 40-0 in a game and dumped a relatively easy volley into the net. That was pretty much the end of the set, as Nadal came back to break and run away with the set. In fact, it turned out to be the end of the match as Federer never really recovered. He did show some fight by breaking late in the 4th to force tiebreak, but then he went away in the tiebreak much as he did in the 5th set of this year's AO open.

I'd rank 2007 as big a lost opportunity as 2006. I know most probably wouldn't agree since Nadal did not give away a set, but Federer had multiple break points in the first set and was (just like now) unable to convert. He then recovers to play a great second set, but then follows that with poor starts to both the 3rd and 4th that he never recovered from. Had he played those break points better in the first, then who knows what would have happened? Also, I think that Federer hit his backhand much better that year than in 2006. Whether it was the cross-court exchange to Nadal's forehand, or the down-the-line backhand to backhand exchange, I thought Federer's backhand was not nearly the liability it had been before. But in the end, all of the work that he had clearly put into shoring up the backhand was all for nothing.

2008 --- well, there was never any chance.

Going forward, it is almost inconceivable that Federer could beat a healthy, or near-healthy Nadal, so he'll need someone else to beat Nadal. But even if that happens, we have to expect that Federer's chances of dominating the rest of the field will begin to drastically decline as he is now 27 going on 28. And even if Federer does beat someone else to win the French, then would history judge a French title for Federer that does not go through Nadal to be somewhat hollow? I think I would because Nadal has now beaten Federer on his two best surfaces, so Federer needs to return the favor.

So basically, yes, Federer should have won the French by now. He probably should have won it before the rise of Nadal, and he should have managed to beat Nadal at least once in four tries.
 

Zaragoza

Banned
saram,

I enjoyed your replies on this thread and you saved me from doing a lot of work. It seems you perfectly understood the point of this thread and most others did as well, some reasonable Federer fans included.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Please show me anywhere in my post that I said all clay courts should be removed. If you can do that I'll give you a cookie. What I said is "NO" to more clay courts.

As for the second part of your statement, yes that's exactly right. So why try to change up the season by putting in more claycourts. Prove your dominance by doing the same on all courts and not whining about there being too many hardcourts.
OK I see you're referring to Nadal asking for more claycourt tournaments. On that particular issue I think it would be fair to have the same number on clay/ grass/ hard, not realistic at this point but fair. Does anybody know how many tournaments there are on each surface (only pro tour excluding challengers) at the moment?
 
Last edited:

bolo

G.O.A.T.
I always find the "if only nadal weren't around" thoughts strange. What? Would people prefer that the federer's supertalented rival grew up playing on hard courts?
 

saram

Legend
saram,

I enjoyed your replies on this thread and you saved me from doing a lot of work. It seems you perfectly understood the point of this thread and most others did as well, some reasonable Federer fans included.

I totally understood your logic. To me, Roger should hit the clay as soon as the AO is over every year until he wins the FO. It is the one thing he lacks in terms of being the GOAT and ending all discussions about it.

Rafa wanted Wimbledon since he was a kid--he went out and won it.

Rafa wanted a fast a hard court slam--he went out and got it.

Roger just doesn't seem to care about the FO--although he has been close so many times to attaining it. The only emotion I see from him at the FO is the 'deer in the headlights' look he gets when he hits the final and Rafa is on the other side of the net.

I'd like to see more emotion from Roger at the FO and more dedication to winning it--even if he meets Rafa on the final Sunday.
 
Top