Thiem: Federer would have won 7 French Open if it wasn't for Nadal

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
#1
Dominic Thiem: Roger Federer would have seven French Open titles if it wasn’t for Rafael Nadal

“First of all he is amazing on all surfaces and his record on clay is pretty stunning. He reached so many semi-finals and finals.
“If there wouldn’t be Rafa he would be on six or seven French Open titles. That was his only problem, I would say."



Even at 37 and haven't play on clay since 2016, Thiem believe Federer is the top 3 favorite this clay season.
“He’s one of the three top favourites [along with Nadal and Novak Djokovic],” he is quoted as saying by Metro.co.uk.
 
#11
I don't like this type of thinking. I feel that Rafa's intial surge in 2005/2006 fueled Federer to be super-focused on 2 things:

1. improve his backhand
2. Lock down grass & hard

Look at what happened in those early Fedal years. Fed doesn't win Monte Carlo/Rome/RG, but he's sweeping everything else with EASE because Rafa is sharpening his skills to the point that he's now utterly destroying the rest of the tour(except Rafa).

To me in that period(June 2005 to end 2007), Rafa was that 'dread' figure in Federer's rear view mirror keeping him ultra focused on the task at hand. The only thing that derailed his off-clay dominance was f-en mono.

In fact, 2005 Miami was the first shot across the bow that got Fed's attention.
 
#13
it's not even relevant to discuss whether Fed is top 3 threat on clay this year. The Slice has Fed at #5 out of top 6 threats this year, which I think is reasonable.
 
#18
I always wonder if Roger would've gotten burned out if he was winning literally every major year after year.

Nadal made him stay sharp and keep improving.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. One never knows the knock-on effect of changing a prior result. This is why time travel stories in science fiction are so interesting.

The fact is we don't get the Federer backhand of 2006-present w/o Nadal destroying it first in 2005 and causing Fed to build it up.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#21
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. One never knows the knock-on effect of changing a prior result. This is why time travel stories in science fiction are so interesting.

The fact is we don't get the Federer backhand of 2006-present w/o Nadal destroying it first in 2005 and causing Fed to build it up.
Nadal didn't "destroy" Federer's BH in 2005, and the Major "buildup" that happened was the racquet change that happened because Federer stopped winning at a respectable age, so you are narrating stories that never were.

:cool:
 
#23
I don't like this timeline altering stuff. Take Rafa Nadal out and maybe Roger Federer is not born. I once imagined Roger serving coffee if Nadal did not exist.
 
#31
Obviously in reality his career could have panned out differently had he won those, he may have retired earlier or lost other matches etc, but if we isolate each of those tournaments, Fed is winning each of them with no Nadal. For what it's worth.
True. I see him with less than 8 or 7 Wimbledon titles had he won 5 RGs. It's too tough winning these two Slams in a row even for all time great players. He'd probably get to 'only' 6 Wimbledon titles had he also become the king of clay, along with grass and hard court.
 
#37
Thiem gives Federer 1 more RG on the simple fact that he would be an absolute favorite to beat the all time record of 6 Rg wins. Maybe he's right or maybe he just likes to throw Djokovic under the bus
 
#38
I'd say a man with 20 majors has no problems in his chosen sport. Dom needs to focus on winning his first at RG in a couple months. His chances hover around 4%, but crazier things have happened.
Uhm , Thiem is absolutely right. In the context of French Open titles , Nadal was Federer's only problem. The fact that Fed went on to win 20 slams has absolutely nothing to do with what Thiem was saying.

For arguments sake you could say Federer had problems @ every slam that he didn't win also.Problems with whomever beat him.
 
Top