Ranking Federer at the French Open? (Open Era)

[BGod]

Stemming from the conversation about Nadal on grass, I thought about how Federer ranks in his worst Slam.

He's arguably #1 at both Wimbledon and U.S. Open and #2 at Australia (though some can argue he's equal with Djokovic there too).

But what of the French and his lonely title? Upon closer inspection:

1 Title
5 Finals (All 4 losses to Nadal)
Additional 2 Semifinal Exits (1 loss to Nadal)
Additional 4 Quarter Exits (1 loss to eventual Champion, 2 losses to Finalists)

The 11 Quarterfinal appearances alone are most among Open Era players.

For contrast, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander, both 3 time Champions made a total 7 Quarterfinals or better. While Gustavo Kuerten only made 5 Quarters and got past that stage on 3 occasions, which all resulted in a title.

Federer's 7 Semifinals or better are also tied for 2nd best with Djokovic.

So with that in mind, how would you rate them? For me it's like this:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Wilander
5. Lendl

It's easy to see Ivan and Mats won 3 in 5 Finals (the same as Federer) but their competition was nowhere near Federer who lost 5 freaking times to the GOAT at the event. The smart money says he goes on to win at least 2 of those 5 times if not all of them. Which should put things into perspective. Add in the losses to Wawrinka and to Finalist Soderling who lost to Nadal and you're looking at a guy who could have EASILY won 5+ titles without Nadal being so dominant.

There's really no precedent as when Sampras was piling up Wimbledons you couldn't pick any guy and say they would have won even 4 of his 7 titles were it not for him. I suppose one look at Lendl's track record of 8 consecutive Finals at the U.S. Open makes for a good comparison but in reality he was losing to several players, observe:

Twice to Connors
One to McEnroe
One to Wilander
One to Becker

So it's really not even in the same ball-park.

 

[TMF]

He's in the top 5.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Ivan Lendl
4. Mats Wilander
5. Gustavo Kuerten
6. Roger Federer
7. Jim Courier
8. Sergi Bruguera
9. Guillermo Vilas
10. Andre Agassi

Edit: I thought this was ranking them as claycourters, but I just realized that it was based only on their French Open performances. So I made some changes.

 

[BGod]

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Ivan Lendl
4. Mats Wilander
5. Gustavo Kuerten
6. Guillermo Vilas
7. Roger Federer

Explain this one. Kuerten went 3-0 in Finals but only made it to the quarters 5 times. That's pretty pathetic for a Top 5 player at any Slam. Moreso his opponents:

Bruguera
Norman
Corretja

Now, Corretja made two Finals, so good for him but not that special a player, he and Norman both took Kuerten to 4 sets. While Bruguera has a nice run but was on his last legs at that point. Kuerten may be the worst 3 Slam Champion in general. An 18 year old Safin beat him there in 98 IN HIS PRIME.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Explain this one. Kuerten went 3-0 in Finals but only made it to the quarters 5 times. That's pretty pathetic for a Top 5 player at any Slam. Moreso his opponents:

Bruguera
Norman
Corretja

Now, Corretja made two Finals, so good for him but not that special a player, he and Norman both took Kuerten to 4 sets. While Bruguera has a nice run but was on his last legs at that point. Kuerten may be the worst 3 Slam Champion in general. An 18 year old Safin beat him there in 98 IN HIS PRIME.

I don't care who he faced or who he beat. He played in a field full of the best players in the world and he won the French Open thrice. That puts him above any 1-time champion almost by default.

 

[KG1965]

Results outside top 5
Cleverness 3°

 

[BGod]

I don't care who he faced or who he beat. He played in a field full of the best players in the world and he won the French Open thrice. That puts him above any 1-time champion almost by default.

Terrible logic but you're welcome to it. The sample size and competition tells me Federer was top to bottom the better clay court player than Kuerten.

 

[mattosgrant]

Ranking him 3rd is utterly laughable. 1 title with a bunch of final losses is not better than 3 titles and some other final and semi losses for others. Plus we see by Kuerten vs Federer at the 04 FO when Kuerten was well past his prime that people like that are simply better clay courters.

At just RG (not clay overall where he would be lower) he would clearly be behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten at the very least. So outside the top 5 for sure. I would put him behind Bruguera and Courier too for the simple fact they defended a RG title, not just won a 2nd time but defended it.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Terrible logic but you're welcome to it. The sample size and competition tells me Federer was top to bottom the better clay court player than Kuerten.

Anybody who argues "competition" is proposing circular reasoning, and there is nothing more ridiculous than that. But you're welcome to your abysmal logic as well.

 

[abmk]

# 6 after nadal, borg, kuerten, lendl and wilander ...

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I would put him behind Bruguera and Courier too for the simple fact they defended a RG title, not just won a 2nd time but defended it.

Why does that matter? Does a title have more value if you won the previous year?

 

[BGod]

Ranking him 3rd is utterly laughable. 1 title with a bunch of final losses is not better than 3 titles and some other final and semi losses for others. Plus we see by Kuerten vs Federer at the 04 FO when Kuerten was well past his prime that people like that are simply better clay courters.

At just RG (not clay overall where he would be lower) he would clearly be behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten at the very least. So outside the top 5 for sure. I would put him behind Bruguera and Courier too for the simple fact they defended a RG title, not just won a 2nd time but defended it.

Explain Kuerten to me. As for Lendl and Wilander, they had weaker opponents as well and less long-term consistency.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yes I think defending a title is always better. In Bruguera and Courier's case they already have a 2nd French title which is a big edge on Federer, but that they won back to back which is very impressive in my book seals it.

It is one big knock on Maria Sharapova for instance. That she never defended a slam title despite her career slam. Even at RG where she won twice in the last 3 years she failed to defend, which looks bad on her. I am sure if you follow womens tennis you have heard that criticsm of her brought up often.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Yes I think defending a title is always better. In Bruguera and Courier's case they already have a 2nd French title which is a big edge on Federer, but that they won back to back which is very impressive in my book seals it.

It is one big knock on Maria Sharapova for instance. That she never defended a slam title despite her career slam. Even at RG where she won twice in the last 3 years she failed to defend, which looks bad on her. I am sure if you follow womens tennis you have heard that criticsm of her brought up often.

You haven't explained why defending a title is "better".

 

[BeatlesFan]

Come on... how can anyone place Roger above Lendl or Wilander, who both won three RG's? Losing in multiple French Open finals doesn't come close to what Mats or Lendl achieved in Paris. Nobody cares if their competition was supposedly inferior (a hugely debatable point, since they played in a supremely strong era). Losing in multiple finals to Rafa doesn't compare to winning the title. Guga is also ahead of Fed, especially since old Guga beat near-peak Roger at the FO.

Now it's indisputable Fed is the second-greatest clay court player of the past 10 years and he would have won many FO's without Nadal, but it is what it is. Being a finalist 10 times doesn't come close to winning it once.

Also, Fed is not #1 at the USO, since Pete and Connors both have 6 titles, Fed "only" five.

 

[TMF]

Federer has the 2nd most match wins(behind Nadal) at the French Open.

Roger Federer 65
Guillermo Vilas 56
Ivan Lendl 53
Andre Agassi 51
Bjorn Borg 49
Mats Wilander 47

 

[mattosgrant]

Explain Kuerten to me. As for Lendl and Wilander, they had weaker opponents as well and less long-term consistency.

3 RG titles vs 1, considered best clay courter in the world for 3-4 years solid, and kicked prime Federer to bits when they met at RG despite being WAY past his own prime. So simple.

Lendl vs Wilander 3 titles and many other finals and/or semis despite playing in a much tougher clay era than the current one. You keep using Nadal as an excuse but you ignore that until Djokovic emerged on clay in 2011 (the last year Federer did anything at RG) there was nobody else good on clay this era besides those two which could also explain all of Federer's extra finals if one wants to go that route.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Also, Fed is not #1 at the USO, since Pete and Connors both have 6 titles, Fed "only" five.

Sampras and Connors also have 5 USO titles. But they are better because they have more runners-up.

 

[mattosgrant]

You haven't explained why defending a title is "better".

It is harder to win back to back times at anything. Does that really need to be explained. It is the same logic as winning the Grand Slam (all 4 in one year) is way better than winning 4 slams over a 3 year period.

 

[abmk]

Explain this one. Kuerten went 3-0 in Finals but only made it to the quarters 5 times. That's pretty pathetic for a Top 5 player at any Slam. Moreso his opponents:

Bruguera
Norman
Corretja

Now, Corretja made two Finals, so good for him but not that special a player, he and Norman both took Kuerten to 4 sets. While Bruguera has a nice run but was on his last legs at that point. Kuerten may be the worst 3 Slam Champion in general. An 18 year old Safin beat him there in 98 IN HIS PRIME.

I'm a federer fan ...but this is incorrect

kuerten out of nowhere in 97 beat all these guys in a row : muster, medvedev, kafelnikov, bruguera ... It was his first title overall ....

his CC prime did not start in 98, it was in 99 ....

in 2000, he beat these 3 in a row : kafelnikov, ferrero and norman

in 2001, he beat these 3 in a row : kafelnikov, ferrero and corretja

while federer clearly has had the better longevity, peak to peak, kuerten is better and overall, cannot put fed ahead of him unless he somehow wins another RG ...

in 02, he had hip injuries and never really recovered from that ......

 

[The_18th_Slam]

3 RG titles vs 1, considered best clay courter in the world for 3-4 years solid, and kicked prime Federer to bits when they met at RG despite being WAY past his own prime. So simple.

Lendl vs Wilander 3 titles and many other finals and/or semis despite playing in a much tougher clay era than the current one. You keep using Nadal as an excuse but you ignore that until Djokovic emerged on clay in 2011 (the last year Federer did anything at RG) there was nobody else good on clay this era besides those two which could also explain all of Federer's extra finals if one wants to go that route.

Exactly. People who use "competition" just aren't very consistent in their own reasoning.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

It is harder to win back to back times at anything. Does that really need to be explained. It is the same logic as winning the Grand Slam (all 4 in one year) is way better than winning 4 slams over a 3 year period.

Again, that is not true. I don't see how WWL is any tougher than WLW.

 

[mattosgrant]

I'm a federer fan ...but this is incorrect

kuerten out of nowhere in 97 beat all these guys in a row : muster, medvedev, kafelnikov, bruguera ... It was his first title overall ....

his CC prime did not start in 98, it was in 99 ....

in 2000, he beat these 3 in a row : kafelnikov, ferrero and norman

in 2001, he beat these 3 in a row : kafelnikov, ferrero and corretja

while federer clearly has had the better longevity, peak to peak, kuerten is better and overall, cannot put fed ahead of him unless he somehow wins another RG ...

in 02, he had hip injuries and never really recovered from that ......

Had it not been for his hip problems he wins more RG titles for sure too. I think he could win atleast 2 of the 4 from 2002-2005, as he would be a major contender to win all 4 of them. I dont factor that into evaluating him as it is a useless what if, but still worth noting. He could easily have gone on to 5 or 6.

 

[mattosgrant]

Again, that is not true. I don't see how WWL is any tougher than WLW.

I just think defending shows greater dominance, and takes greater mental strength too. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me though.

Would you not be more impressed with Maria having won RG 2012 and 2013, instead of 2012 and 2014 for instance though? Well aside from that she breaks her Serena demon obviously in that case.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I just think defending shows greater dominance, and takes greater mental strength too. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me though.

Would you not be more impressed with Maria having won RG 2012 and 2013, instead of 2012 and 2014 for instance though? Well aside from that she breaks her Serena demon obviously in that case.

No, I'm equally impressed either way. I think the sum of your achievements is what matters. Not the sequence.

 

[Anaconda]

Ah, I see the Feddie fans are out in full force again trying to justiy Federer being a better claycourter than kuerten. Lol.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Ah, I see the Feddie fans are out in full force again trying to justiy Federer being a better claycourter than kuerten. Lol.

Let's not generalize. Federer is my favorite player, but I think Kuerten is definitely better.

 

[abmk]

Also, Fed is not #1 at the USO, since Pete and Connors both have 6 titles, Fed "only" five.

umm, pete and connors have five titles at the USO ... not 6

connors in 74, 76, 78,82,83 ( def rosewall, borg, borg, lendl, lendl )

sampras in 90,93,95,96,2002 ( def agassi, pioline, agassi, chang, agassi )

 

[mattosgrant]

I think Connors is tops at the U.S Open for sure since he won on 3 different surfaces which is pretty amazing, including beating Borg on clay. Also had it been on decoturf all those years no way he doesn't have 7. Obviously the thought of Orantes or even Vilas beating him on hard courts instead of clay in those finals is laughable. He also was in atleast the semis almost every year it seemed.

I would rank Sampras 2nd probably due to all his extra finals. However Federer could have a case due to his winning 5 straight.

Both behind Connors for sure there IMO.

 

[Anaconda]

I think Connors is tops at the U.S Open for sure since he won on 3 different surfaces which is pretty amazing, including beating Borg on clay. Also had it been on decoturf all those years no way he doesn't have 7. Obviously the thought of Orantes or even Vilas beating him on hard courts instead of clay in those finals is laughable. He also was in atleast the semis almost every year it seemed.

I would rank Sampras 2nd probably due to all his extra finals. However Federer could have a case due to his winning 5 straight.

Both behind Connors for sure there IMO.

What this guy said.

 

[90's Clay]

ROFLMAO. Putting him above guys like Lendl with only French Open. Typical FeDelusion.

Fed is maybe on par with someone like Chang or Kafelnikov at the French. Below guys like Bruguera/Courier/ Lendl/Wilander/Muster (As Muster's clay peak was far superior to Fed's) /Kuerten etc.

Since when does winning ONE French Open get you in the top 5? There are quite a few guys who have won more than that.

 

[TMF]

ROFLMAO. Putting him above guys like Lendl with only French Open. Typical FeDelusion.

Fed is maybe on par with someone like Chang or Kafelnikov at the French. Below guys like Bruguera/Courier/Muster/Kuerten etc.

So everyone should be biased like you to make you happy? Not a chance.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Below guys like Bruguera/Courier/ Lendl/Wilander/Muster (As Muster's clay peak was far superior to Fed's) /Kuerten etc.

How is Muster above Federer at the French Open?

 

[90's Clay]

At the very least Federer/Muster on par at the French. Both with 1 French title. Muster obvious far>>>>>>> Fed overall on clay. Not even close

 

[90's Clay]

So everyone should be biased like you to make you happy? Not a chance.

The only thing that is biased is putting someone with ONE French Open title in the elite of the open era.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

At the very least Federer/Muster on par at the French. Both with 1 French title. Muster obvious far>>>>>>> Fed overall on clay. Not even close

Nope.

French Open:
Titles: 1=1
Runners-up: 4>0
Semifinals: 2>1
Quarterfinals: 4>1

Clay Masters:
Titles: 6=6
Runners-up: 10>1

An argument can be made that 4 French Open runners-up and 9 claycourt Master runners-up surpasses anything else Muster achieved on clay.

 

[90's Clay]

How about Muster's ridiculous winning streak on clay and clay dominant?
What do you mean... "Nope"

Fed NEVER had a dominant stretch on clay overall like Muster did

 

[TMF]

How about Muster's ridiculous winning streak on clay and clay dominant?
What do you mean... "Nope"

Fed NEVER had a dominant stretch on clay overall like Muster did

Muster only has 32 match wins at the FO, Federer has 65 !

 

[The_18th_Slam]

How about Muster's ridiculous winning streak on clay and clay dominant?
What do you mean... "Nope"

Fed NEVER had a dominant stretch on clay overall like Muster did

And Sampras never had a ridiculous winning streak and dominant stretch on grass like Federer did. Federer went 65-0. What's Sampras's best streak on grass?

 

[mattosgrant]

Comparing Federer to Muster at RG ONLY, which is the thread title, Federer > Muster without question. Anyone arguing otherwise is an idiot (just as someone arguing Federer 3rd best is likewise an idiot). Now clay overall it is a much tougher call as Muster easily trumps Federer on clay everywhere except RG.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Now clay overall it is a much tougher call as Muster easily trumps Federer on clay everywhere except RG.

Not true. Federer is better at the Masters level.

Titles: 6=6
Runners-up: 10>1

 

[mattosgrant]

Not true. Federer is better at the Masters level.

Titles: 6=6
Runners-up: 10>1

That is surprising. Didn't know Federer had so many more finals. Still Muster has won all the important Masters of his time hasn't he. So I would still say it is close there, when Federer has won neither Monte Carlo or Rome.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

That is surprising. Didn't know Federer had so many more finals. Still Muster has won all the important Masters of his time hasn't he. So I would still say it is close there, when Federer has won neither Monte Carlo or Rome.

Masters are Masters. If you're gonna argue Rome and Monte Carlo are more important, would you also argue Wimbledon is more important than the rest of the Slams, so Sampras > Nadal no matter how many other Slams Nadal wins?

It doesn't matter. 6 Masters = 6 Masters. Let's not start trying to elevate one Masters tournament over the other. It's unbecoming. Federer has 6 Masters and 10 runners-up. Muster has 6 Masters and 1 runner-up. Federer has shown far greater consistency and longevity.

 

[Steve0904]

Federer is better on clay than Muster specifically because of RG, IMO, but he's not better than anyone with 3 RG titles obviously. I think he's at least on par if not better than Courier and Bruguera, but he's certainly not better than anyone with 3 titles.

 

[BGod]

How about a guy losing 5 times to the guy who won 9 titles?

Longevity and consistency means little here I see. Kuerten won 2 of his titles in the weakest era in the sport and mediocre on clay.

Like Federer stood in front of Roddick and Hewitt, Nadal was the only thing standing in front of Roger on clay.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

How about a guy losing 5 times to the guy who won 9 titles?

If he had won those 5 times, the other guy would have 4 titles. See how that works?

 

[mattosgrant]

Masters are Masters. If you're gonna argue Rome and Monte Carlo are more important, would you also argue Wimbledon is more important than the rest of the Slams, so Sampras > Nadal no matter how many other Slams Nadal wins?

It doesn't matter. 6 Masters = 6 Masters. Let's not start trying to elevate one Masters tournament over the other. It's unbecoming. Federer has 6 Masters and 10 runners-up. Muster has 6 Masters and 1 runner-up. Federer has shown far greater consistency and longevity.

I didnt say Rome and Monte Carlo are more important (well Rome probably is, but that wasnt my main point regardless). Winning all 3 that exist at the time is far better than only winning 2 of the 4 that exist in the time (or 1 of 3 since Madrid technically replaced Hamburg as the 3rd Masters). It would be like comparing someone that won their slams at only 2 of the 4, and someone who has the same number who won them at all 4. That compensates for all the extra finals IMO considering winning >>> making finals.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I didnt say Rome and Monte Carlo are more important (well Rome probably is, but that wasnt my main point regardless). Winning all 3 that exist at the time is far better than only winning 2 of the 4 that exist in the time (or 1 of 3 since Madrid technically replaced Hamburg as the 3rd Masters). It would be like comparing someone that won their slams at only 2 of the 4, and someone who has the same number who won them at all 4.

Muster never won Hamburg.

That compensates for all the extra finals IMO considering winning >>> making finals.

But both have 6 Masters. If Muster had more Masters, you might have a point.

6 Masters = 6 Masters
10 runners-up >> 1 runner-up

What does Muster have to compensate for the 9 additional runners-up?

 

[mattosgrant]

How about a guy losing 5 times to the guy who won 9 titles?

Longevity and consistency means little here I see. Kuerten won 2 of his titles in the weakest era in the sport and mediocre on clay.

Like Federer stood in front of Roddick and Hewitt, Nadal was the only thing standing in front of Roger on clay.

The Nadal/Federer era is a weak era on clay. I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not. There are some who argue Borg is still close with Nadal to who is the clay GOAT, despite that Nadal's achievements completely dwarf Borg's now, due to how weak the clay era is.

If you want to take away Nadal, then likewise take away all the people who are better than the 3rd best clay courter of 2005-2010 (who the hell is that, Davydenko or Ferrer, ROTFL!!!!) for all those other guys and they easily all jump to 6+ titles themselves probably.

Honestly for a very long time now the competition has been weak on both clay and grass, but very strong on hard courts. The homogenized playing conditions are probably most to blame for that, as everyone essentialy wants to have a hard court game. There are no such thing as specialists anymore, even Nadal being excellent on other surfaces in his prime is not one, and the lack of specialists make the competition on specialty surfaces thin and with no depth at all.

 

[mattosgrant]

Muster never won Hamburg.

OK in that case I would agree Federer is definitely above Muster even in Masters.