Ranking Federer at the French Open? (Open Era)

[mattosgrant]

I am baffled at all the votes for top 5 (thank goodness only 4 are insane enough to vote 3rd). How is it even possible to rate him above any of Kuerten, Lendl, or Wilander at RG. That is crazy. If you remove Nadal for Federer, you could remove Lendl and Wilander for each other and get both up to around 5 as well probably, and both would still have tougher competition remaining than Federer would ever have removing Nadal. Kuerten I can see the competition arguments more only due to Nadal, but with 3 RG titles to merely 1, that even he played in a much deeper clay era with all of Ferrero, Corretja, Costa, Muster, Kafelnikova, Moya, Rios, who are all easily better than the 3rd best clay courter of 2005-2010 (who is that even!?!?), and considering he was almost surely robbed of more RG titles by his hip problems (and by playing the no Nadal card we have already opened up the what ifs), and way past his prime spanked prime Federer silly their lone meeting at RG, it is frankly silly to rank Federer over him on clay, particularly at RG, as well.

Anyone voting for anything but the last option is clearly only thinking with their heart and not using an ounce of brain. There is no plausible argument whatsoever to rank Federer higher than 6th. If you think Federer is top 5, you might as well say Djokovic is top 5 at RG too if he wins next year, and somehow I think the exact same people would be less receptive to that somehow.

 

[jhhachamp]

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

I'm a huge Federer fan, but this list looks pretty accurate. Federer is clearly behind the top 5 players. You might be able to make a case for Federer over Kuerten if Federer had managed to win the French 2 times, but 3 slams vs 1 is just too vast of a difference. Federer is at #6 and much closer to #7 than he is to #5. If not for Nadal, he might have been #2 on this list, but Nadal existed, so he is #6.

 

[Anaconda]

The

I'm a huge Federer fan, but this list looks pretty accurate. Federer is clearly behind the top 5 players. You might be able to make a case for Federer over Kuerten if Federer had managed to win the French 2 times, but 3 slams vs 1 is just too vast of a difference. Federer is at #6 and much closer to #7 than he is to #5. If not for Nadal, he might have been #2 on this list, but Nadal existed, so he is #6.

How does 2 FO titles trump 3? Runners up are used as a last resort if the amount of wins becomes a tie. 3-2 is still in favour of Kuerten. Not to mention Federer being healthy at every single FO, and Kuerten is pretty much the opposite. It would have been easier for Federer to win the FO in this era, with just one tough opponent in his prime. In the 90's, you had a whole host of clay courters who could have taken care of Federer. I think Bruguera would have been a nightmare matchup for Federer, that dude could generate nearly as much spin as Nadal (even with the older rackets). Federer is a good claycourter, and I think 6 is a place he could be proud of considering most guys above him are clay court specialists.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

How does 2 FO titles trump 3? Runners up are used as a last resort if the amount of wins becomes a tie. 3-2 is still in favour of Kuerten.

That's just your judgement, though. There is no objective basis to say nothing else matters if you have more titles. Personally, I'd definitely take 4 runners-up over 1 title.

 

[jhhachamp]

The


How does 2 FO titles trump 3? Runners up are used as a last resort if the amount of wins becomes a tie. 3-2 is still in favour of Kuerten. Not to mention Federer being healthy at every single FO, and Kuerten is pretty much the opposite. It would have been easier for Federer to win the FO in this era, with just one tough opponent in his prime. In the 90's, you had a whole host of clay courters who could have taken care of Federer. I think Bruguera would have been a nightmare matchup for Federer, that dude could generate nearly as much spin as Nadal (even with the older rackets). Federer is a good claycourter, and I think 6 is a place he could be proud of considering most guys above him are clay court specialists.

I didn't say that 2 French Opens would trump 3, just that it would be something that could be debated. 3 does not always trump 2 in my book (but nearly always), but 3 always trumps 1 in my book.

 

[mattosgrant]

That's just your judgement, though. There is no objective basis to say nothing else matters if you have more titles. Personally, I'd definitely take 4 runners-up over 1 title.

An interesting example might be Murray vs Wawrinka at the Australian Open. Doesn't Murray have 4 runner ups there and isn't Wawrinka's title his only final? Just thinking roughly I tend to rather be Wawrinka at the event, but maybe that is because the memory of his 3 incredible matches against Djokovic stick in my mind (while Murray only has 1 vs Djokovic anything like that, in 2012).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

In terms of achievements (what this thread is presumably about), Federer is about #5 or #6.
In terms of level, #3 at least.

 

[cc0509]

I love Federer but he is outside the top five when it comes to Open Era FO players.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

An interesting example might be Murray vs Wawrinka at the Australian Open. Doesn't Murray have 4 runner ups there and isn't Wawrinka's title his only final? Just thinking roughly I tend to rather be Wawrinka at the event, but maybe that is because the memory of his 3 incredible matches against Djokovic stick in my mind (while Murray only has 1 vs Djokovic anything like that, in 2012).

My evaluation is more about who has been "better". Not what I'd want. I think Murray has been the better AO player than Wawrinka.

 

[mightyrick]

I love Federer but he is outside the top five when it comes to Open Era FO players.

No question about it. Federer couldn't even sniff any amount of success for his first SIX FOs. That is not even close to Top-5 material. It probably isn't even Top-10 material. It wasn't until everybody decent on clay retired that Federer started to have better performances at the FO. And even then, Federer (during his prime) ran into Nadal four times and could not pull out one single win. In 2010, Federer couldn't even get through Soderling like he did in 2009.

Federer has had one of the best careers ever, but anybody placing him within the Top-5 FO players in the Open Era is absolutely delusional. He's not better than Brugera. He's not better than Vilas. He's not better than Courier. I'm not even sure he's better than Agassi at the FO, but I'd probably be willing to give him the nod on that.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

He's not better than Brugera. He's not better than Vilas. He's not better than Courier. I'm not even sure he's better than Agassi at the FO, but I'd probably be willing to give him the nod on that.

He is absolutely better than Vilas and Agassi at the French Open. There is no argument to be made otherwise.

 

[cc0509]

No question about it. Federer couldn't even sniff any amount of success for his first SIX FOs. That is not even close to Top-5 material. It probably isn't even Top-10 material. It wasn't until everybody decent on clay retired that Federer started to have better performances at the FO. And even then, Federer (during his prime) ran into Nadal four times and could not pull out one single win. In 2010, Federer couldn't even get through Soderling like he did in 2009.

Federer has had one of the best careers ever, but anybody placing him within the Top-5 FO players in the Open Era is absolutely delusional. He's not better than Brugera. He's not better than Vilas. He's not better than Courier. I'm not even sure he's better than Agassi at the FO, but I'd probably be willing to give him the nod on that.

Let's not get carried away.

But people do tend to become delusional or blind when it comes to Federer. He is the closest player out there to being the greatest of all time overall and on grass and hc he is at the very top if not the absolute top of the list but at the FO, there is no way he is top five of all time. It is a blind fanboy fantasy.