Who is the Greatest player on clay never to win the French Open?

[saram]

Roger Federer....

 

[veroniquem]

If Roger wasn't such a great clay courter, why does it take an all time clay great to deny him a French Open title?

My point was that it doesn't! At RG he got beaten by Patrick Rafter, Alex Corretja (twice), Hicham Arazi, Luis Horna and Gustavo Kuerten before losing to Nadal. In Rome he got beaten by Andrei Medvedev, Wayne Ferreira (lol), Andrea Gaudenzi, Felix Mantilla, Albert Costa, Rafael Nadal, Filippo Volandri and Radek Stepanek. For an all time great on clay, he sure has lost to a lot of people!

 

[veroniquem]

I KNEW what you are saying here would be something used by someone. I just wasn't expecting it from you, and was expecting Fintendo to say it, in a last ditcheffort.

Federer was not Federer until 2004 after the 03 Wimbledon and the 03 Masters Cup. So before that it was moot. Federer was a late bloomer. He had so many pieces of his game to put together it took him a while to mature to handle all his capabilities.

IN the 2004 French Open Federer lost to 3 time FO champion Gustavo Kuerten, who was able to pull off a performance at a level indicative of his former great form, and Federer was not playing at his best.





Here watch the match yourself Veroniquem:
Kuerten - Federer 2004 French Open part 1

Kuerten - Federer 2004 French Open part 2

Kuerten - Federer 2004 French Open part 3

There are more parts but im to lazy to link to all 9. Go here to watch them all: http://ca.youtube.com/user/steffanofanderoger

The late bloomer excuse doesn't work for 2005. Federer started his extreme domination toward the middle of 2003. By the end of 2004 he was , #1 rolling and with 4 slams won already. Why didn't he play well against Kuerten in 2004? Could it be for the same reason why he didn't play well vs Nadal in 2008? Could it be that he's not very comfortable on RG's surface? At least not as comfortable as a great clay courter would be and less comfortable than he is on other surfaces?

 

[saram]

My point was that it doesn't! At RG he got beaten by Patrick Rafter, Alex Corretja (twice), Hicham Arazi, Luis Horna and Gustavo Kuerten before losing to Nadal. In Rome he got beaten by Andrei Medvedev, Wayne Ferreira (lol), Andrea Gaudenzi, Felix Mantilla, Albert Costa, Rafael Nadal, Filippo Volandri and Radek Stepanek. For an all time great on clay, he sure has lost to a lot of people!

Who was the last person to take a set off your king of clay at Paris?

 

[TheMusicLover]

If Roger wasn't such a great clay courter, why does it take an all time clay great to deny him a French Open title?

Of course Roger is a great clay court player. He merely had to endure the fact that there was someone around that was even BETTER.
**** happens. Such is life.

 

[AprilFool]

Mardy Fish and Serena Williams.

 

[veroniquem]

Who was the last person to take a set off your king of clay at Paris?

Well Djoko also took a set off Nadal in Hamburg and Mathieu did it at RG as well as Hewitt, Grosjean and Puerta. Davydenko, Moya, Stepanek and Ferrer took a set off him at Rome. The problem is not winning sets so much as winning matches with Rafa on clay! I'm not saying Federer is not great on clay, he won that final in Hamburg and that was remarkable. I'm just questioning whether Nadal is the only reason why Federer has never won RG, that's all. To me Federer is more vulnerable on clay than he is on other surfaces.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

Geez, you can tell that the OP just made this thread with Federer in mind.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

My point was that it doesn't! At RG he got beaten by Patrick Rafter, Alex Corretja (twice), Hicham Arazi, Luis Horna and Gustavo Kuerten before losing to Nadal. In Rome he got beaten by Andrei Medvedev, Wayne Ferreira (lol), Andrea Gaudenzi, Felix Mantilla, Albert Costa, Rafael Nadal, Filippo Volandri and Radek Stepanek. For an all time great on clay, he sure has lost to a lot of people!

Stop it Veroniquem.

Seriously.

Its getting tiresome.

Federer lost to most of these people before he became the Federer we know. Before 2004.

He lost to #3 Ranked Rafter in 1999. He was 17 1/2 years old for christ sakes!!! 7-5 3-6 0-6 2-6

He lost to Alex Corretja, a fabulous claycourter 2 years in a row at age 18 & 19 5-7 6-7(7) 2-6 and 5-7 4-6 5-7

'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

 

[NamRanger]

My point was that it doesn't! At RG he got beaten by Patrick Rafter, Alex Corretja (twice), Hicham Arazi, Luis Horna and Gustavo Kuerten before losing to Nadal. In Rome he got beaten by Andrei Medvedev, Wayne Ferreira (lol), Andrea Gaudenzi, Felix Mantilla, Albert Costa, Rafael Nadal, Filippo Volandri and Radek Stepanek. For an all time great on clay, he sure has lost to a lot of people!

At Roland Garros for the past 4 years he is undefeated if you subtract Nadal losses. If you think he isn't one of the best clay players to never win the FO, I seriously think you need some help.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

Geez, you can tell that the OP just made this thread with Federer in mind.

wow genius. Obviously....

I made this thread because I'm tired of hearing people continuously underrating Federer's clay capability.

I would have done the same thing with Nadal and Grass, but suprisingly i don't see as much under recognition. The fact is Nadal is one of the grasscourt greats. The surface suits Nadal perfectly. One should expect Nadal to reach the 2009 Wimbledon Final and be an immense challenge for Federer (who is unquestionalby one of the grasscourt greats).

 

[R_Federer]

If Federer had played Sampras on Clay he would have eaten him for breakfast bagels. So when Federer gets to 14 Slams, he has to be considered the Greatest.

There is no doubt about Federer being better than Sampras. Thats simple. But it just comes down to Laver or Federer as GOAT...at the moment I think it's Laver and Federer is second. If Federer can get 1 French he'll officially be GOAT.

 

[veroniquem]

At Roland Garros for the past 4 years he is undefeated if you subtract Nadal losses. If you think he isn't one of the best clay players to never win the FO, I seriously think you need some help.

He's good but he's not "great". The problem I have with the op's question is that for me, you're not "great" on a surface unless you win a slam, you may be good, even very good, but "great" doesn't qualify. Nadal is great on grass because he has won Wimbledon (on top of his finals). For Federer to be seen as great on clay he would have to grab 1 RG. There's no such thing IMO as a great clay player with no RG title, it just doesn't exist. For the same reason I would never say that Lendl was great on grass (even though he made finals on it) and I would never say that Borg was great on hard courts (even though he made several USO finals). The only way Federer could prove that he's great on clay is by beating Nadal (or whoever else is in the final) at least once. Nadal did it to Fed on grass, now the ball is in Fed's camp so to speak...