Sean,

In response to this comment of yours ” I don’t know the numbers but this has to be Federer’s worst loss in any final - has he ever won fewer than four games in any title bout? – or in any Slam match for that matter…” I read the follow statistics in an ESPN article a minute ago, so I’ve posted them for your reference. Pretty astounding win by Rafa - no doubt.

Love the Troy / “Is there anyone else” analogy b.t.w. — so true. Rafa is utterly heroic on the clay.

Per ESPN - “You have to go back 31 years here at Roland Garros, when Guillermo Vilas dropped a 6-0, 6-3, 6-0 bomb on Brian Gottfried (the name says it all), to find a beatdown this bad.

Put another way, Nadal won 18 of 22 games against the player many think will go down as the best in history. It was the fewest number of games won by a No. 1 seed in any Grand Slam final in the four decades of the Open era. Federer had 11 service games and won only three.”

I am confident Coria will take down Rafa next French Open.

So much doom and gloom. Agassi won the French at the age of 29. Federer still has time to win it. Andres Gomez also won the French late in his career after losing to Lendl for years. Every year is different. Eventually Nadal will lose. It’s just a matter of time. He may get injured or someone may catch him on an off day. No one is invincible.

Federer will right the ship at Wimbledon.

coriafan Says:
I am confident Coria will take down Rafa next French Open.
————————————————-

LOL. Keep Dreaming!

I have a feeling Roger’s time at Wimbledon comes to an end this year.Roger’s confidence is at an all-time low, he should give Jimmy Connors a call, he worked wonders for Roddick when he was suffering through a slump of his own and had no confidence. Those were dark days for Roddick fans. I hope they are well behind us now.

“How can someone be the greatest if he’s not even close to beating a single guy on one of the most important surfaces at one of the biggest events?”

Sean, then by your argument, Sampras can never be even close to the greatest, since he had tons of nemeses on clay, not just one. Roger is no 2 on clay, how can that be worse than being no 20 or 30 on clay in your time, as Sampras was?

Come on, 3 french finals in a row, tell me, how many players in the open era have done that? Most french champions haven’t.

Fed played really sloppy today, but give him credit for his incredible achievement of 3 french finals in a row.

The final was a bit shocking, wasn’t it? I was confident Nadal would win, but 6-1 6-3 6-0 definitely puts Almagro’s 6-1 6-1 6-1 pasting in perspective (at least he wasn’t bageled!) In fact, the only two people Nadal played who won fewer games than Federer were Verdasco and Almagro. All three of those matches could, theoretically, have been close. Djokovic did the best with twelve games, a very respectable total. Only Djokovic and Bellucci pushed Nadal in any set, but even Niemenin and Devilder did better than Federer.

Things are definitely starting to fall apart in the Federer Camp.

Agassifan,

I’m with you here. Sampras never even made it to one French final let alone 3 in a row. Roger has won 5 Wimbledons in a row and 4 U.S. Opens in row. Federer’s incredible consistantsy makes him #1. Rafa still hasn’t proved squat at the U.S Open or the Austrailian open.

This drubbing will do to Federer what Federer’s 2004 US Open Final beatdown did to Hewitt. Hewitt began a gradual decline in 2005. He reached AO Final, SF in US and Wimbledon in 2005. He never got past QF of any Slams after that.

Sean u forget the most important factor in the player that u think he can beat Nadal

Serve : Roddick

Forehand: Federer

Backhand : Djokovic

Patience : Ferrer

the thing you forgot is the

Heart : Lleyton Hewitt

Sean:

Your logic that Fed cant be the GOAT because he lost 4 times in a row at FO to nadal has no sense. It is not like Fe has lost these 4 times to belucci or devilder. Rafa is the greatest claycourter of all time. I dont think even borg at his very best would have stopped rafa from this rampage. Could you please tell me a few past greats who would have stopped Nadal in any of these 4 RG tournaments, please? Kuerten is the only player i can think of.

Are you telling me Federer does not make it to the top-10 clay courters of all time? 3FO finals and a semi and a quarter, 2 rome finals, 4 hamburg wins and a final, 3 MC finals. He is a great clay-court player and an unmatched (as of now) player on grass and hard-courts. Fed is the greatest player ever to have played the game up until this point. But for the Greatest clay-courter of all time, he would easily have had a couple of RGs not 2 mention a couple of Roger Slams as well.

Zaid:

You have completed the list. Hewitt- what a player. He is the most mentally tough player of this decade (ahead of federer and nadal).

Sean:

Your argument that Djokovic is the best bet to beat Nadal at RG has been proven, statistically, for this year. He was the closest to win a set this year from Nadal. Good call!

To Joker:

Hewitt ahead of Federer and (what’s even more ridiculous) Nadal in terms of mental toughness? Huh? That was one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long time! NOBODY beats Nadal in this department, not even Federer! Lleyton was one helluva fighter - no doubt about that, but he’s not even close to what Nadal brings to the court…

It is certainly disappointing to see Federer lose the match so badly. Hopefully, he will have his day as a champion in Paris one day in future. But, right now, he should forget Paris and go full throttle at Wimbledon. Hopefully, he meets Nadal again in final there and gives a fitting response back. Go, Roger.

“This drubbing will do to Federer what Federer’s 2004 US Open Final beatdown did to Hewitt”. I wouldn’t put it like that. Federer was somewhat fortunate to reach the final this week. He has not been himself since Shanghai, and I don’t think he’s going to win anything this year. My bet for Wimbie is Nadal, with Djokovic in with a good shout. Also, a little behind him, Roddick and Federer, nobody else.

I always thought - and said -that this idea that Fed would automatically overtake Sampras was foolish, and sort of disrespectful, too, to all the players, including Federer himself. It does not come lightly, to win a grand slam.

Is Federer finished, then, a la Hewitt? Too early to say. I wouldn’t put it past him to come back next year, and to win a slam. Not three, though.

Meanwhile, I think it is pretty infantile, this gloating over the travails of a man who has given such unalloyed pleasure to so many. But smallmindedness is ever with us.

couldn’t agree more with agassifan although i do believe that a win at roland garros will settle all questions about fed being the goat.there will always be a question mark and lack of unanimity if fed were to finish without winning the french open.i believe fed is way ahead of sampras and is right up there with laver and borg.reaching three straight fo finals is no mean achievement.rafa is probably the goat on clay and i don’t think even the mighty borg would stand a chance of beating him.kuerten would do much worse.i say this due to the fact that rafa is a leftie and one needs a super double-handed backhand and a variety of other skills to even compete with rafa.having said that i do think that djoker has time on his side to refine his game in order to challenge rafa on clay.he has a big serve,very good return,a good backhand(esp the one up the line)and,crucially, the belief that he can beat rafa.he showed in the third set in that sf that he could punish rafa if rafa’s level went down a bit.
i feel very sorry for fed because he was humiliated in the final and i wonder if he will get another chance to win the fo.rafa appears to be entering the prime of his career and djoker could be joining him very soon.fed’s game has stagnated while his main rivals,esp djoker, are improving.it’d be a real pity if fed were to fade away quietly because i can’t think of any other player who makes modern power tennis appear so beautiful.i just can not imagine anyone lifting my senses the way fed does when he is in full flight.

Well, you’ve vindicated yourself this time Sean.

Gosh, Jose Higueras must be even redder faced than I am. I at least expected Fed to make it competitive, winning 4-6 games per set, and taking one set. But he ended up winning only one game more than Verdasco and Almagro. When was the last time someone bagelled Federer? I don’t think it has happened since he won his first Wimbledon in 03.

I was definately NOT expecting a rout.

Higueras probably expected Fed to win the match, not just keep it competitive. If I’m embarassed, I can’t imagine him. Fed has gotten worse not better. In the 4 attempts on Nadal, this was the worst.

If Fed didn’t play Estoril this year, he’d have 0 titles to his name for 2008. He only went to that easy tournament (he never enters Estoril normally) to get the monkey off his back. The second half of the year will be interesting. Fed and Djokovic both have a lot of pts to defend, while Nadal doesn’t have much apart from Wimbledon. Fed really has to pick up his form, because if he continues going title-less, he’s going to lose the #1 ranking either to Nadal or Djokovic. I never thought that would happen since his margin is always so clear that he could get upset a few times early and still be safe.

Firstly, I think the GOAT comparison is skewed, you cannot compare players from different eras and circumstances. No doubt that Nadal is one of the best clay players ever alongside Borg and Vilas. And there is no doubt that Fed is one of the best to have played on grass. That said, Fed won 11 grand slams in a space of 3.5 yrs which means that he was way ahead of his peers (which he was, he mauled everyone else in the top 10) or that there was no one at his level to compete against him. Fed arguably hit his prime a couple of yrs ago and still has 5 yrs of tennis left in him. Nadal and Djokovic have not reached their prime yet but they both seem capable of going toe-to-toe with him. Sampras accumulated his 14 GS titles against different generations after 13 yrs on tour while Fed won his 12 from mid 2003-07 agasint more or less the same bunch (Agassi and Hewitt were probably the only other multi-slam winners in the fray). Is it just me or doesent anyone else think that Federer was a bit fortunate in terms of timing? He’s only 26 but I cant imagine him winning 11 slams(or even close) in the next 4 yrs with players like Nadal and Djokovic. That said, I think Federer has plenty of yrs ahead of him and will win at least 3-5 more slams by the time he retires. Its just that now finally he will have to earn them. I do hope he wins the French at least once, otherwise he’d be on the best clay courters not to have won it.

when is federer going to refund the crowd’s money? he didn’t even come to play. what a pitiful performance. at least the GOAT talk is now dead.

Hmmm,

The best players never to have won the French Open. All are multiple Slam winners.

1)Roger Federer
2)Pete Sampras
3)Jimmy Connors
4)John McEnroe
5)Boris Becker
6)Stefan Edberg
7)Leyton Hewitt

“having said that i do think that djoker has time on his side to refine his game in order to challenge rafa on clay.”

Rafa is only 2 years older than Djoker you know… From the math it sounds like Djoker will have to wait till age 28 to beat him.

“Are you telling me Federer does not make it to the top-10 clay courters of all time? 3FO finals and a semi and a quarter, 2 rome finals, 4 hamburg wins and a final, 3 MC finals. He is a great clay-court player and an unmatched (as of now) player on grass and hard-courts. Fed is the greatest player ever to have played the game up until this point. But for the Greatest clay-courter of all time, he would easily have had a couple of RGs not 2 mention a couple of Roger Slams as well.”

IMO, you can’t even be in the discussion for greatest clay courters of all time without winning RG at least once. You either win it or you don’t. A final gets your name on the cup no more than a first round defeat. Making 5 finals is still inferior to winning it once, when all is said and done.

There’s a difference between ’skill’ and ‘achievement’.

If the list was Top 10 Skilled clay courters of all time, then Fed would be on the list. If it’s for greatness or achievement, he’s out of the discussion. The top two spots will be between Borg and Nadal, followed by Kuerten.

I still think Fed will be the overall GOAT. He can achieve this without ever winning RG, as long as people currently consider Pete the GOAT. (I don’t). Roger is a better player than Pete, easily, and I think he will exceed 7 wimbledon titles, so he shouldn’t feel too bad about this loss.

“Sampras accumulated his 14 GS titles against different generations after 13 yrs on tour while Fed won his 12 from mid 2003-07 agasint more or less the same bunch (Agassi and Hewitt were probably the only other multi-slam winners in the fray). Is it just me or doesent anyone else think that Federer was a bit fortunate in terms of timing?”

No way. The reason there aren’t multiple slam winners is because Fed was just too good, he didn’t give anyone a chance (except Nadal). If he played during the time of Edberg, Becker, Agassi, (basically Sampras’s peers), they would not be multi slam winners either, and people will again be using the ‘lack of depth’ excuse. The reason it seems his competition is sub-par, is because he’s too good, not because they are actually sub-par.

“The best players never to have won the French Open. All are multiple Slam winners.

1)Roger Federer
2)Pete Sampras
3)Jimmy Connors
4)John McEnroe
5)Boris Becker
6)Stefan Edberg
7)Leyton Hewitt”

I’m surprised Hewitt is on that list. If he can be on it, so should Safin.

You could also do a list of guys who never won wimbledon, and Wilander, Llendl would be on it.

fed is afraid

“when is federer going to refund the crowd’s money? he didn’t even come to play. what a pitiful performance. at least the GOAT talk is now dead.”

________________________________________________
At least he reached the finals the last 3 years in a row. Who else has accomplished that in tennis open history? Hmmm? It’s a very short list.

Borg
Nadal
Lendl
Federer

I don’t see Sampras on that list.

Federer is either #1 or #2 on any surface on the planet. Statistics bare that out. That’s what makes him the GOAT.

JCF - “I was definately NOT expecting a rout.”

Me neither - even though Roger’s not been at his best this year, I thought this might be his best chance to win it; I did have a few reasons to think this:
1.) He came so close at MC & Hamburg.
2.) He hired a coach, with clay prowess.
3.) He seemed keen to try new strategies and used both the drop shot and net play a lot this tournament to suggest he was ready to really give it a fight this final.

That’s why I am still so surprised at the lop-sided result. I can see, as we all can, that Rafa is an utter terminator on the clay, but I really thought Roger would put up more of a fight / challenge.

Is it me or did others think he didn’t fight that hard, like he did, for instance, in the Wimbledon final last year?

Only for that patch in the second set did I sense he was in it, and after he was broken he did what so many others have done against him in the past, he kind of went away. Maybe he just knew after that break in the second that there was no hope.

The closest parallel I can think of to today’s scenario is the 2007 Australian Open semi-final between Roddick and Roger. Remember all the hype leading up to that? Andy had played a tight final at the USO in 2006, he’d come close to beating Roger at the Masters at the end of that year, and then he’d beaten him in the lead up exhibition tournament to the AO, and of course, he’d hired on that famous coach. What happened? Andy was beaten in a rather humiliating fashion.

Of course Fed’s fans can take from this what they want, but guess what Andy did this year?

He beat Roger.

To quote Novak again, “everything is possible”; one day Roger will beat Rafa on clay - maybe not at the FO. But you never know.

JCF,

I agree about Safin. I forgot about him. Maybe because he’s become such an under achiever over the last couple years.

Your right about Wilander and Lendl at Wimbledon. I’d also throw in Courier and Vilas. Vilas actually won 2 Ozzy opens on grass. He could play on the stuff.

Another parallel between the AO 07 and the FO 08 is that Roger & Rafa both won their titles without losing a set. Novak came awfully close to that at the AO this year too.

3 great guys at the top, really.

Lol, Why is Coria not on that list?

1. McEnroe (1984, the most dominant season of any player. McEnroe won the first two sets against Lendl easily, but lost the last three 6-4 7-5 7-5. He went on to defeat Connors at wimbledon 6-1 6-1 6-3)

2. Coria (Leads 2-0 against Gaudio, having several match points and loses)

3. Edberg (Plays a beautiful serve and volley tournament up until the final where he meets a 17-year old Chang. Takes him to five sets, but should have won the fourth, when he was leading 2-1)

4. Federer (Reaches three finals, but never really close to winning it)

5. Connors (Had beaten Borg at the US Open on clay, i forget what year, then he was forbidden from competing at the French, a perfect time to take the title)

Thats pretty much those who deserve a title but never got one.

Hi everyone, after being reading this blogue for months this is my first post.

As a Federer supporter, it´s dificult to keep heart during the clay court season, specially after the pounding Federer took at the hands of Nadal in yesterdays French Open final.

In the finals of Hamburg and Monte Carlo, he also lost to Nadal (much closer matches that were highly frustrating and nerve-racking to watch, because of all the lost opportunities) and, even worse, in Rome, after Nadal was injured and defeated, he blew an incredible chance to win the title by loosing to Stepanek in the quarters after having set point.

I once read somewhere that, on average, a tennis player spends around four years playing his very best. What makes a tennis player a legend is not playing incredibly well for one or two years (Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Courier, etc) but being able to extend his career longer than those four years (Connors, Sampras, Agassi, Borg, etc)

Federer took 4 years to “warm up” (1999 to 2003), has had an amazing 4 years at very top of his game (2004 to 2007) and now seems slowly to be winding down. I’m really sad to say this, after all he is still only 26 years old, but at this particular moment he doesn’t look like Superman anymore, he seems like a “normal” tennis player, still a top 3 player, but without the aura of invincability of the last 4 years.

From now on, he will have to fight daily for every win and, unlike Nadal on clay, everyone else will step into court with him having the belief they could beat him and, sooner or later, they will.

Also, his number 1 ranking will be up for grabs on a weekly basis from now on, because he had a virtually perfect second half of 2007 and, unless he is able to repeat that, he won’t be able to maintain the top spot when the american hard court season begins (and if all goes horribly wrong at Wimbledon, an unthinkable tought last year, he could fall down to number 2 or 3 by the end of the tournament).

Maybe he will bounce back like in 2007, after his losses to Canas and Nadal, but that would take someone with a superhuman mental toughness to just put behind him what happened in the last two months and believe in himself again just as if it never occured…

If it doesn’t happen, then this is like watching the end of an era, which had to come at some point, but sadly for him and us all his fans, is arriving much sooner than we expected…

By the way, after last years Australian Open I organized a blog (http://federer-records.blogspot.com/)to help myself and anyone interested in keeping track of all the records Federer was accumulating. The text in the comment is the same i posted on the blog just now.

At this point I’m considering organizing one for Nadal too… I can only stand in awe at his performences every time he steps on a clay court…

fed is afraid Says: “at least the GOAT talk is now dead.”

I disagree, the Goat talk will start up again when Wimbledon and the USOpen roll around, those are Roger’s best chances of tying Sampras’ record.

FEDERER …….. is the greatest!! no question there I’m afraid. Pete Sampras and others beat great champions in tight battles, Federer has beaten great champions easily except Nadal at the french, my opinion is there are many great players (the last 5 years) that will simply not have the great records they deserve because of Federer, example: Andy Roddick for me could have been (still might) a 5-7 slam winner if not for FEDERER. there are others!

“IMO, you can’t even be in the discussion for greatest clay courters of all time without winning RG at least once. You either win it or you don’t. A final gets your name on the cup no more than a first round defeat. Making 5 finals is still inferior to winning it once, when all is said and done.”

JCF, who did federer lose to in those 3 Finals? Nadal. Do you seriously think anyone other than nadal would have beaten federer in those 3 finals among the present crop. Remember fed is 12-0 in non-nadal GS finals. Look at the players he has lost to FO since 2004 - kuerten and nadal a 3 time FO and 4time (surely more) champion. How could you equate those losses to someone who lose to, say mark phillippousis or richard krajicek in the 1st round?

Even the atp gives 700 for a final and 1000 for a win. If final and 1st round were the same why not give the same prize money and points. Call me foolish, but I think there is a difference in having lost to nadal thrice in a final as opposed to beating martin verkerk and winning a FO.

Another way to look at it. Take nadal out of the equation. Who has the most clay court achievements in this decade. Not ferrero, not gaudio, not costa, not kuerten, not coria, not moya, not ferrer - It is federer and it is not even close. You think federer would have lost to verkerk or coria or gaudio in a final? Not in a 1000 yrs.

Who would have stopped the Roger slam in 06 and 07 if not Nadal?

one more thing …..I do fear that Federer may do a Borg (when Mcenroe arrived) and just retire once he has one more slam! maybe this year….I really hope I’m wrong and would have no problem in him going the path of Agassi and retiring as an elder statesman with 20-30 slam titles! including 2+ french one against Nadal at his peak! well enything is possible? Maybe Federer was using this as a practice match to test some ideas for next year! hmmmm I could be wrong then again ??

Fed is in the top 10 on clay in the open era - but for nadal, he would have 4 french titles and 5 more masters titles on clay (more than lendl or wilander or guga). Nadal may even be better than Borg on clay, maybe the best clay courter ever, so Fed losing only to him on clay is nothing extra ordinary.

Again, Sampras, becker etc don’t even come close to fed on clay. 3 french finals, in a row - that’s something.

As far as clay court is concerned ,it is virtually impossible for federer to win the french open until nadal is playing tennis .
federed might won few more grand slams in future and topple pete sampras all time record of 15 grandslams,its difficult to emulate the form he has now in future

OUCH! so much for the dream final…turned into a nightmare for federer.

poor broadcasters scrambling to suddenly fill the other 3 hours they had blocked off for this ‘blockbuster’ final. over in two!

a bagel is pretty bad news for roger but against the stupidly clay-dominant nadal, maybe not so bad. we were debating whether nadal was actually getting better (what an insanse idea) and the writing is obviously on the wall.

too many errors yet again from fed. bit of a letdown. but the stunned silence that enveloped everyone from the crowd, commentators and even nadal’s quiet realization that he won his fourth straight final, pretty much said it all.

did i say OUCH?

Joshua, maybe Belluci is the guy. I read he beat Berdych on clay en route to yet another Challenger title. The guy actually gave Rafa a tougher match than Fed did. I look forward to bigger things from him in the future…

Zaid, as I wrote “there’s more to it.” But if I continued I would not have included Hewitt’s heart. Fed’s heart is just fine. Nadal’s No. 1 though.

Joker/Agassifan, I am just speculating that if these beatings administered by Rafa at the French Open continue that it will harm Roger’s legacy. If Roger’s so great why can’t he beat Rafa on clay? Maybe Rafa’s the real GOAT? Hell, he’s a third of the way to Federer in terms of Slams and he just turned 22. Who knows. We’ve seen Roger’s best – a few years ago – question becomes when will see Rafa’s best, and just how much damage will he do when he reaches that peak.

Grendel, true, Federer is not finished. It would be a great mistake to start shoveling dirt on this guy after one loss. The 18-20 Slam range however is looking rather lofty right about now though. But I do think he’ll bounce back a collect 4-5 more Slams when all is said and done.

And getting back to the GOAT talk, again, just imagine Rafa winning Wimbledon, then winning the French against next year. That would give him SIX slams by age 23. With five years of good tennis left ahead of him and with Roger/Roddick in decline thus opening the door wider for future Wimbledon, Australian and US Open titles, could Rafa be in fact the guy who becomes the greatest? Just a thought. While we are all looking at Roger in awe of his achievements, maybe the real GOAT is playing right before our eyes and we don’t even recognize it. Not out of the crazy realm of possibility.

Jane,
Yes, ESPN has it right about the lowest games allowed record, as far as Roland Garros goes. Vilas allowed Gottfried only 3 games in 1977. But the following year in 1978, Borg def. Villas almost the same way (6-1, 6-1, 6-3).
At US Open in 1974, Connors def. Rosewall, allowing only 2 games. This is the lowest record of all times, though there are two more in pre-Open era, but you will have to go back to Wimbledon 1936 and 1881.
In our time, Roger’s is the worst. A little better than this one was Agassi’s defeat of Schuttler, allowing only 5 games at Aussie 2003.

Mike, welcome!

Although this days are hard to keep faith in Fed, I still don´t see anyone beating him in Wimbledon or US Open other than Djokovic (I also don’t believe Nadal would make a third final at Wimby). It´s very hard to win 3 sets out of Fed in a best of 5, the only ones who made it in last years were Kuerten (RG 2004), Safin (AO 2005), Djoko (AO 2008) and Nadal (RG 2005/06/07/08), all the most gifted players in the last decade. See how hard it is! And when he loses is in semis which is an excelent result that any other ranked below 4 would kill for it.

Fed will regroup himself in two weeks (after Halle) and this lost, even being the ugliest he had in 5 years, won´t cause a lot of mental damage since he entered the court already 80% defeated.

“won´t cause a lot of mental damage since he entered the court already 80% defeated.”

Even though no Federer or tennis fan wants to admit this, it’s too true. Last year Federer was devastated after his loss. He wouldn’t even give Bud Collins the traditional post match interview. He just stormed off the court and went into hiding until Wimbledon pretty much. This year he looked like he didn’t even care in his interview. I mean he looked pretty bummed out with the runner-up plate in his hands but I don’t think this loss is gonna destroy him.

The hard court season was pretty bad. The clay court season got better. Following this trend the grass court season should be great. And it’s Federer’s surface. Everyone talks about Nadal and how great he is on clay. Don’t forget Federer has dominated the grass for longer than he’s even been number 1 for. When Federer starts losing on grass, then he should retire. But if he wins Wimbledon, then order will really be restored. You gotta have faith in someone who’s won 12 grand slams.

About Nadal being the eventual GOAT. No chance. He’s improved on clay but he’s still got a ways to go on the fast surfaces. And hard courts blow so his body won’t be able to handle it. And once Roddick and Federer are gone, then I’m pretty sure Djokovic will be racking up the fast-surface tournaments.

As I am a futurist of some sort, I am inclined to agree with Sean’s assessment: “[M]aybe the real GOAT [Rafa] is playing right before our eyes and we don’t even recognize it.” If Bjorn Borg is right, and I think he is, Rafa will win a couple of Wimbledon, beginning with this year to become a new No. 1, finally.
From a futurist perspective, it is illogical to be regressive, i.e. recall the past to cover up the present. Fed lost, lost miserably with one of the worst scores ever, at a time when he was claiming to have been ready more than ever. Plain and simple. His being GOAT or not or his record of the past is not going to make up this loss in the present. Let’s accept the defeat gracefully and let Rafa enjoy his victory.

Sean, (I posted this point once but it disappears - please delete doubles if it shows up again)

In response to this point:

“could Rafa be in fact the guy who becomes the greatest? Just a thought. While we are all looking at Roger in awe of his achievements, maybe the real GOAT is playing right before our eyes and we don’t even recognize it. Not out of the crazy realm of possibility”

This is a very salient thought.

While Roger’s loss was shock Rafa’s win was historical.

Most of the posts on this thread, however, are about Roger. Maybe we should be discussing Rafa’s future after that win. It was something else. And he speaks of himself now in measures of perfection; that says something about how determined he is. He is only improving. On hardcourt this year, his efforts at IW & Miami were balanced out or close to his efforts last year, and he went deeper at the AO than he ever has. On clay, he was better, in taking Hamburg and not losing a set at RG - we know why he lost Rome.

What’s next for Rafa? That’s what I want to see.

What’s next for Rafa? That’s what I want to see.

Knee injuries, ankle injuries, getting whipped by anyone with decent game on a hard-court.

The honeymoon has ended for Nadal and his dirty fans.

I believe that fed is slowly declining no matter how sad that may sound.Wimbledon is up for grabs and fed better watch out.Its not as simple as serve and volley on grass anymore.By the way this time around if djok gets his chance against nadal in wimby then nadal is finished.Thats 4 sho.

YES NADAL WON THE FRENCH OPEN AND HE IS SO CALLED AS THE KING OF CLAY..BUT REMEMBER…FEDERER IS THE KING OF GRASS..REMEMEBER THAT…GO FEDERER GO…CRUEZI!

Ryan,

I’d be thrilled if Djoko won Wimbledon. I agree that it’s up for grabs. We’ll see tho.

I just watched the highlights, and Nadal’s reaction after winning match point was very subdued, which was unusual. All he did was raise both arms in the air briefly, then march toward the net to embrace Federer. He normally rolls onto the ground and gets clay all over him, or at least gets on his knees, and leaves the other person waiting a bit. This time he was sensitive to Roger’s loss, knowing that the drubbing would have hurt enough without rubbing it in further. He is a class act.

If the match was close though, he would have let out that feeling of relief by prostrating himself I am sure. He was just trying not to hurt Roger’s feelings.

Good on him for that.

This may raise the ire of many to say that Federer was indeed lucky to even be a finalist at this year’s FO. As most will agree he has had the easiest draw as compared to many Nos.1 in the past. He barely eeked out wins from unseeded opponents until the QFs. Additionally, his matches against Gonzalez and Monfils were not in the stellar performance category either.

Beginning with Federer’s first match against Sam Querrey, it was apparent that Federer was not playing the way he should if he indeed wanted to win the trophy. I made mention of this and my comment met the response that we’re in for the ‘long haul, not a short sprint’, by one who is always eager to cast aspersions on whatever is written by me regarding Federer, regardless of the objectivity of my statements. The subsequent matches Federer played showed small improvements, but nothing drastic — not drastic enough improvement to win the trophy. Had Monfils not played so loose a match he most probably would have won his SFs match.

What does one make of all of this? Simply put, due to such an easy, uncompetitive draw, Fed was not really tested and could not hone/sharpen his skills which left him vulnerable at the finals. There was a lot of talk concerning the draw being lopsided. That lopsided/too easy draw worked to his disadvantage and deprived Federer the much needed competition to be on even keel with Nadal or to enable him to put up a good defense on his behalf.

There was mention by a poster prior to the FO to the effect that if Federer were to win the FO, it would be sickening to listen to the media, read the news articles, and blogs, etc. This is so true. He lost, and instead of there being some glory for Nadal in all of the commentaries, news articles and blogs, it’s atill this great deliberation of how good Federer really is, the couldas, shouldas, wouldas, whch detracts from Nadal’s triumph. There’s one poster who’s talking about not much respect given for Federer’s greatness, blah, blah, by what he terms ‘infantile and smallmindedness for a man going through travails’. Federer ‘haters”, etc. Put a sock on it! It should be borne in mind that we are ALL entitled to our opinions. What respect is ever given by most of Federer fans for those winning or losing against Federer. For the winners, there’s always an excuse, as to why Federer lost, and for the losers, the sick taunts, and unkindness would be alright if it were only small-mindededness but in those cases tantamount to gleeful cruelty in the worst proportions. The comments today are 8 of every 10 bemoaning Federer’s loss Federer, Federer, and Federer.

Nadal was less jubilant in winning the FO this year as in previous years. The partisan froggy crowd ensured they detracted from his joy. Why leave his heart out on the court for them? They don’t deserve it. The same was true for Hamburg, however, at Hamburg, it was noted by some Fed fans that Nadal didn’t display a showing of happiness at winning the title due to some niggling guilt, which the mind readers perceived was due to his call for a trainer. Will there ever be any kind of fairness to any player who beats Federer on these threads? I’ll say not!!

CONGRATULATIONS TO NADAL ON A WELL-EARNED AND DESERVING VICTORY!!

I also like Nadal’s answer when he was asked “the way you’ve been playing, do you feel like number 1?”

He said “No. I don’t feel like number 1. I feel like number… 2. Closer to number 3 than number 1. Federer is number one definately.”

I applaud his modesty too.

To all the hardcore bloggers VON,SHITAL GREEN,JANE,SENSATIONAL SAFIN,GRENDEL,AGASSIFAN,SKOROCEL

Nadal is the man right now.He’s a guy who believes in the saying “ACTIONS speak louder than words”.Fed and djok yaps a lot but does not do as much.Djok was like I’m not going on the court to play well against nadal.I’m going on the court to win. Sure. He did win by a very comfortable margin as the score shows…..As for federer “This is my year…this is my chance…I’m the one taking the risks blah blah” He’s right.This is his year TO LOSE TO NADAL IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE.
I agree with anyone out there who says that tough draws are essential for the big seeds for the confidence and skills that they get out of winning.Otherwise they’ll get it whipped when they face some real guys.So I think federer should be given a really tough draw in wimbledon and us open.Otherwise he might lose there as well.What do y’all think?

A commentator made an interesting point: Federer’s #1 rival had always been Nadal, but now the two of them have another guy breathing down both their necks — Djokovic. This time Fed was lucky that Djokovic landed in Nadal’s half, and Fed only had to deal with one of them. Soon he’s going to start having to deal with two of them. It’s going to be a lot harder for him now. I totally expect one of them (if not both) to make a semi final at Wimbledon. And this is where the #2 rank could change hands… If Nadal plays Djokovic again, it will be a battle for #2… again. And Federer could start playing Nadal in the Semis from here on out. Even on clay!

It’s entirely plausible that he won’t make the finals of RG next year, because he’ll draw Nadal in the semis, and then have to play Djokovic in the finals if he wins.

This article - “Federer lacked pop against thoroughbred Nadal” - says Federer might be only number 3 in the world right now. But what I liked best in it is what he has to say about throwing around labels like “greatest”.

He spends most of the article discussing Rafa’s accomplishments, for example:

“Consider this fact: Nadal’s fourth French Open title came when he was 34 days older than Federer’s age in 2003 when Federer captured his first Grand Slam title by winning Wimbledon.”

Ryan - likely a tougher draw is better, but you never know how a draw will play out, with upsets and the like.

JCF - Roger and Rafa can only benefit from having Djoko in the mix - especially Rafa. Because Djoko makes them raise their games more, add different elements for dealing with him, not just each other. I can see how they’re both hitting deeper, going down the line more, ripping returns. These are trademark Djokoisms. More competition is better and the players get better. I think.

“JCF, who did federer lose to in those 3 Finals? Nadal. Do you seriously think anyone other than nadal would have beaten federer in those 3 finals among the present crop. Remember fed is 12-0 in non-nadal GS finals. Look at the players he has lost to FO since 2004 - kuerten and nadal a 3 time FO and 4time (surely more) champion. How could you equate those losses to someone who lose to, say mark phillippousis or richard krajicek in the 1st round?

Even the atp gives 700 for a final and 1000 for a win. If final and 1st round were the same why not give the same prize money and points. Call me foolish, but I think there is a difference in having lost to nadal thrice in a final as opposed to beating martin verkerk and winning a FO.

Another way to look at it. Take nadal out of the equation. Who has the most clay court achievements in this decade. Not ferrero, not gaudio, not costa, not kuerten, not coria, not moya, not ferrer - It is federer and it is not even close. You think federer would have lost to verkerk or coria or gaudio in a final? Not in a 1000 yrs.

Who would have stopped the Roger slam in 06 and 07 if not Nadal?”

That wasn’t the point. If you read on, I did say that Federer was one of the “best” clay courters of all time, but not one of the “greatest”. “Greatest” has subjective meaning, but it has something to do with the silverware you collected. Pete Sampras is still regarded as the current “greatest” of all time, solely because he won more majors than any one else. Pete in my opinion however, is far from the “best” player of all time. Laver had 13 slams I think? And he was banned from competition for a few years. If he wasn’t, he’d have surpassed 14 easily. Borg had 11 slams and he retired at 25 (his comeback was a joke), plus he never bothered going to Australia. If Borg had a better work ethic and didn’t just retire after McEnroe beat him at Wimbledon, he too would easily surpass 14 slams. And what else did these two guys have over Pete? They won grand slams on clay… even in the same year as winning Wimbledon. And they did this multiple times. It still doesn’t change the fact that Sampras is regarded as the GOAT, until Federer surpasses 14 slams (which I think he will).

If we’re going by that definition, then Federer is not one of the greatest clay courters of all time. However I wouldn’t argue that he is one of the best.

It’s a matter of semantics.

Sean:

You make an interesting case for nadal. In one way nadal-rolandgarros relation is like sampras-wimbledon. The main base for Sampras’ 14 were the 7 at W. Nadal could quite possibly achieve similar results. Time will answer that.

Right now, however it is federer’s record we are looking at and how could you hold him not being able to beat the greatest clay-courter of all time against his achievements? It is like saying becker was not an all-time great on grass because he could never beat sampras at wimbledon once sampras started his Wimbledon run.If nadal was a late bloomer like sampras and won his 1st RG when he was 21 federer would have sealed the GOAT argument with 2 Roger slams and 14slams already.

Who do you think is the no.2 clay-court player in the past 4yrs after nadal? Is it a stretch to imagine that player being the no.1 clay courter of his generation if nadal was not there? Where would you put roger with 2RGs and 14 slams (the scenario if nadal did not exist)?

JCF:

I got your point! We are on the same page now, if not on the same line.

Also, your point regarding fed having to play nadal in the semis is one I, have wondered about. To me, nadal is just a tougher match-up for Fed than djokovic at this point. Hence nadal not losing the no.2 ranking is as much in federer’s interest as it is in nadal’s if not more. For the last few years, youzhny, blake and co have been taking out nadal and fed would handle any other player on tour with aplomb. If nadal and Federer are not no.2 and no.1 fed will most likely have to deal with nadal himself.

Anyways, right now nadal is in more danger of losing his no.2 ranking more than federer losing his no.1 (fed has 1000+ points over nadal with 3 fewer tournaments played than nadal) It is a testament to Feds domination that he has had his worst 6 month span and he is still so well ahead of the no.2. Feds borrowed time has ended and any further slips will result in his giving up that coveted no.1 position.

“Fed’s heart is just fine. Nadal’s No. 1 though.” What exactly is the basis for this assessement? 5-set wins? Personal problems? Comeback wins? Or just a pure preference for Nadal?

“Joker/Agassifan, I am just speculating that if these beatings administered by Rafa at the French Open continue that it will harm Roger’s legacy.”

Does it harm Sampras’ legacy that he never even reached a final at RG? Does it hurt Laver’s legacy that 8 of his 11 slams came in 2 years? Or that one of them came against amateurs? Does it hurt Borg’s legacy that he never won the US Open, even when it was on clay?

You’re really grasping at straws on that one.

“If Roger’s so great why can’t he beat Rafa on clay?”

This too makes little sense…he can’t beat Rafa on clay, because Rafa’s better than him on clay. Every player has players they have trouble with: Laver had Gonzales, Gonzales had Hoad, Borg had McEnroe and Federer has Nadal. This has no bearing on their overall greatness, as measured by something objective like years at #1 and grand slams won.

“Hell, he’s a third of the way to Federer in terms of Slams and he just turned 22.”

This one I find the most outlandish…Borg was 25 and had 11 slams when he just quit. McEnroe won 2 slams and 82 matches in 1984 - never won another slam after that. Becker was 23 when he won 2 slams in 1 year and went on to win two more over the next 7…both at the AO.

Predictions of how many slams a player will win based on their age are about as reliable as the metrobus in Washington, DC. Just as quickly as it appeared to go south for all the greats when it eventually did, the same can/will happen to Fed, Rafa, the Djoker, anyone.

Let’s at least wait until Nadal reaches double digit slams before we entertain this notion, at the risk of sounding a little high on the delight at Nadal’s comprehensive victory today.

And can anyone explain why if Federer’s dominance everywhere but against Nadal on clay, is down to the weakness of contemporaries, why isn’t that also the case for Nadal’s dominance on clay? They are playing the same players, aren’t they?

Finally, let’s stop this argument that, “if it weren’t for [enter nemesis here], [enter favorite player here] would certainly have won more [enter bogey-tournament here].

Who’s to say that if Federer hadn’t lost to Nadal in 07 and 08, he wouldn’t have lost to Djokovic instead?

We’ll simply never know, and we should leave it at that - the great thing about tennis is you either win, or you don’t win - no penalty shoot-outs, no sudden death over-times, etc. You either win or you don’t.

Nada did, and Fed and 126 other players didn’t.

Ryan:

“So I think federer should be given a really tough draw in wimbledon and us open.Otherwise he might lose there as well.What do y’all think?”

I’ve been vociferous in the past regarding Federer’s easy draws, and have met with very fierce opposition. My feeling is one that if a player is the No. 1 player, then a tough draw should not matter. He’s No. 1 and should, or can beat any other player — that’s why he’s No. 1. This nonsense whereby the No. 1 player draws qualifiers and unseeded players until the QFs is ridiculous and unfair to the other players. Why should the top seeded players have it easy until the QFs, as opposed to the rest of the field who have to put out an overwhelming amount of energy and time on the court, beat insurmountble odds, and, if those lower ranked players are lucky to get to the QFs, be utterly drained from exhaustion only to lose to one of the higher ranked players who’ve had it easy? It defies all logic to me and speaking from my coign of vantage, grossly unfair. Some say the top seed deserves easy draws because they’ve earned it. Poppycock! I want to see them sweat, scramble and fight it out, to emerge the victor, and then they can feel within their hearts that it was a job well done, and a trophy well deserved. This easy draw stuff is bereft of logic, and this system only ensures that the top seeds will remain the top seeds. The lower ranked players have very few possibilities of getting out of their lower ranked positions. Shake em up guys!

Additionally, I agree with Shital, that the carrying over of points system from calendar year to calendar year should be outmoded. The slate should be wiped clean at the end of the season and a new one begun at the beginning of the next season. That would give us a truer picture of who’s doing what — it shouldn’t be that the top seeds can have a bad year and be bailed out by the excess points carried over from previous years, thus retaining their ranking.

“Additionally, I agree with Shital, that the carrying over of points system from calendar year to calendar year should be outmoded.”

I’ve never understood the point of this rolling ranking system. I agree: a clean slate each year.

Because with the system as it is, why is there even a “race” - at one time I thought it was to decide who goes to the Masters Cup. But it’s not; I believe that goes by the “rankings.”

Has it always been a rolling ranking system like this; does anyone know why it is? Or also what purpose the race serves? Who cares if you’re called “year end no 1″ when you still don’t get to be no 1.

I was stunned to see such a rout - especially the bagel. I thought that Federer looked great with the serve and volley, it was so fun to see it! And every time Nadal was on fire, I just assumed that Federer would turn things around, even at 5-1 in the first set and 5-3 in the second set.

I’m thrilled beyond pieces that Nadal won, because their relationship is so connected - Nadal may never be #1 because of Federer, and Federer may never win Roland Garros because of Nadal. I still can’t see how Federer can’t be GOAT - he’s so dominant and even if he hasn’t won RO, he’s at least made 3 straight finals. All the other great players who failed to win a specific major usually barely made it to the finals, except Lendl and his multiple Wimbledon finals.

I love the idea that Federer hasn’t achieved the one feat that Agassi achieved, but even still… of course, if Federer doesn’t make it to the FO final again, then both he and Agassi share 3 FO finals, except of course Agassi won one

But what got me really excited (as a bonus) was Borg’s presence and the McEnroe interview, where they talked about playing seniors doubles at RO in 2009. Whether or not it happens is another story, but when Borg said he’d play “only with you, John,” I got so teary-eyed. It would be so sweet if Borg played doubles at a Grand Slam and not just on the senior doubles circuit.

It’s great that tennis history was achieved (or at least replicated today), no matter who won. It’s almost as sweet as when the finalists have never before won a GS title.

Mike

jane:

“Has it always been a rolling ranking system like this; does anyone know why it is? Or also what purpose the race serves? Who cares if you’re called “year end no 1″ when you still don’t get to be no 1.”

From as far back as I can remember it’s been that way. At the end of the year the race and ranking points become melded, ergo the year end ranking is a true indicator as to who’s No. 1, but if it weren’t for the rolling over of the points, and the institutiion of a new slate, we probably could have a new No. 1 each year. I don’t think any other sport has this rolling over of points aside from tennis. I suppose if there weren’t a roll over of points at the beginning of the year then the AO seeding would be a problem.

“MMT Says:

Does it harm Sampras’ legacy that he never even reached a final at RG? Does it hurt Laver’s legacy that 8 of his 11 slams came in 2 years? Or that one of them came against amateurs? Does it hurt Borg’s legacy that he never won the US Open, even when it was on c