If Federer wins the French Open...

... would you consider him the greatest of all time?

i already do, looking at the all-round-perfection. but nevertheless: if he gets his 15th shield, he'll be the definitely the greatest, even if he just wins 5 more wimby trophies.

Yes.

Yes.

I would also consider the greatest of all time if he doesn't win Roland Garros but keeps continuing this play for the next couple of years.

As some journalists claimed before Wimbledon 06, he's maybe only the second best of his generation beside buttzilla...

:o

he is already there, but winning RG will elevate him even FURTHUR

this thread is one of the greatest of all time :yeah:

its a stupid thread he has been the best for at least 2 years now and nothing will change!!!! pointless thread.

this thread is one of the greatest of all time :yeah:

I agree! Its perfectly fresh in content. WE've never had discussions like this before in MTF, no?;)

He won't win the FO. Case closed.

He won't win the FO. Case closed.

I wish I had a crystal ball too...

yes

Yes

Yes. If he wins the French Open, he would become the first man in the history of the sport to have held all 4 grand slams simultaneously but on 4 different surfaces. That would be enough for me.

He won't win the FO. Case closed.

He will. Case reopened and closed again. :cool:

I wish I had a crystal ball too...
Sorry mate, just common sense.

Sorry mate, just hater common sense.

:worship: :o

He's Not Able To Get Past Rafa In The Fo Event,even If He Reaches The Finals...this Year,i Promise,he Won't Reach Even The Final... So The Dream Finishes Unfulfilled!

:o
Agreed.

Some day he will win it, he´s just too good not to

Since he's never going to win the most important tennis event (Davis Cup) he will forever remain far from being the GOAT, no matter how much slams he gets under his belt :)

:worship: :o

Yup. Let's face it, the guy sucks balls big time on clay. He will lose in the first round to Wayne Arthurs in straight sets.

VAMOS RAFA!!!!!!! :rocker2:

If he does, he reached his prime ;)

Federer have clay court wins too, he can win on clay, last time he reached FO final, he is going there this year too i m sure

thats his beauti, no surface makes him loose, he can play on any

regarding Nadal, yup Nadal is better on clay but who knows, this year, may be the cup go to Federer

If he wins it, then yes, but ill like to see how the rest of the years grand slams pan out for him to see if he does all 4, that would be special.

He just needs the FO to be the undisputed greatest tennis player of all time.

If he doesn't there will be long arguements on who is.

He just needs the FO to be the undisputed greatest tennis player of all time.

If he doesn't there will be long arguements on who is.

Be realistic. Even if he gets the Calendar Grand Slam, 30 total slams, DC cup and Olympic Gold, there will still be some who will say it doesn't count because of weak competition!

Be realistic. Even if he gets the Calendar Grand Slam, 30 total slams, DC cup and Olympic Gold, there will still be some who will say it doesn't count because of weak competition!

True there will always be doubters... but if he wins 30 slams .... he would be the greatest hahaha no matter what ppl say.

No. He would have to at least win two more wimbledons and a couple of more Roland if he's to win this years Roland Garros which will be a daunting task; for me to give some serious consideration of Roger as the all time greatest player.

He's got quite a long way to go in order to surpass Borg and Laver. He's slowly but surely catching up with Pete.

Uncle Toni said as much

noooooooooooo fed wont win french open till rafa is there :( . rafa is still the best clay court player ever . if u look at indian wells u can see tht when rafa surves at 80% first serves in , and hits those topspin forehands deep , there is no one who can defeat him . so once the clay season begins it will be the same as the last two years . rafa is still the best player on slow surfaces miles ahaed of federer .
so in my opinion rafa should win the next 3 french opens in a row .:)

^^ Can't you READ? This thread is not about WHO will win RG, but if Fed could be considered to be the GOAT if he does.

Something completely different.

I like Federer. But its very important that Rafa wins the Roland Garros at least once more. You know why: Because it makes him the youngest triple world champion! Isn't that a whole lot more important than Fed winning the French this year. He can win next year, no?

Regarding Rafa, if he wins the French Open again this year, in my opinion that would make him as the 2nd greatest claycourter ever after Borg.

Regarding Rafa, if he wins the French Open again this year, in my opinion that would make him as the 2nd greatest claycourter ever after Borg.

Hahahaha.

Hahahaha.

Glad you found it so funny :) . See many other players with 3 consecutive French Open titles around do you?

Regarding Rafa, if he wins the French Open again this year, in my opinion that would make him as the 2nd greatest claycourter ever after Borg.

Now where are all those people who say this is the weakest competition era when they are needed? :)

Glad you found it so funny :) . See any other players with 3 consecutive French Open titles around do you?

This is about Federer and if he wins RG, then his claims get a lot stronger.

Wait til Nadal's career is over before giving that claim, then again it's not surprising you are missing 3 others that are better besides Borg. It has been done before to death that topic.

I take it the other 3 players you mean are Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten? Yes I agree that they are all ahead of Rafa at this moment in this time, but if he joins their club of players with 3 French Open titles this year, he would surpass those 3 IMO, even at this early stage of his career, because I personally think he has been more dominant on the surface. All subjective of course, but certainly not a ludicrous claim to make.

noooooooooooo fed wont win french open till rafa is there :( . rafa is still the best clay court player ever . if u look at indian wells u can see tht when rafa surves at 80% first serves in , and hits those topspin forehands deep , there is no one who can defeat him . so once the clay season begins it will be the same as the last two years . rafa is still the best player on slow surfaces miles ahaed of federer .
so in my opinion rafa should win the next 3 french opens in a row .:)


Then tell Rafa to withdraw from Miami/DC instead of risking burnout/injury.

I take it the other 3 players you mean are Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten? Yes I agree that they all ahead of Rafa at this moment in this time, but if he joins their club of players with 3 French Open titles this year, he would surpass those 3 IMO, even at this early stage of his career, because I personally think he has been more dominant on the surface. All subjective of course, but certainly not a ludicrous claim to make.

Yes, it is still way too early to make the call. Did Lendl win everything on clay and who did he lost 2 in those finals Borg and Wilander? No way he'd surpass them now, it is ludicrous, you have to look at all the major events on the surface, the respective times that they played and what the overall level of opposition is. If you look at all of that and say Nadal already is better than the other 3, then that is just fanboyism. This thread is not about Nadal and bump the one that is and you can take it there.

RFederer, well your comment is true actually 93-03 were very good times in claycourt tennis as for overall depth.

He is already the GOAT.:worship:

Yes, it is still way too early to make the call. Did Lendl win everything on clay and who did he lost 2 in those finals Borg and Wilander? No way he'd surpass them now, it is ludicrous, you have to look at all the major events on the surface, the respective times that they played and what the overall level of opposition is. If you look at all of that and say Nadal already is better than the other 3, then that is just fanboyism. This thread is not about Nadal and bump the one that is and you can take it there.

RFederer, well your comment is true actually 93-03 were very good times in claycourt tennis as for overall depth.

Kuerten is #4.

He had excellent competition on clay, including the likes of Moya, Corretja, Norman, Ferrero, Agassi, Coria and more. If we look at years 97, 99, 00, 01 - those are fantastic results in a very balanced era for clay court tennis.

Lendl and Kuerten in particular shared the ability to hit deep with good topspin and exceptional power (I don't need to say the obvious about Borg). The kind of effect they achieved with their groundstrokes was fantastical - I just can't imagine Nadal being able to keep up with them and I do acknowledge that Rafa is a clay machine of sorts.

The greatest logical fallacy on tennis boards is to look at statistics alone (or slam results) as indicators of greatness. This is plain lazy and devoid of insight.

^^^^
Still, titles are a fair criterion in a history-centered sport like tennis, especially when it comes to majors. The alternative is comparing the clownness of eras..

It comes down to whether 11 slams including all 4 > 14 slams including 0 RG. To me he would be, no question asked.

Kuerten is #4.

He had excellent competition on clay, including the likes of Moya, Corretja, Norman, Ferrero, Agassi, Coria and more. If we look at years 97, 99, 00, 01 - those are fantastic results in a very balanced era for clay court tennis.

Lendl and Kuerten in particular shared the ability to hit deep with good topspin and exceptional power (I don't need to say the obvious about Borg). The kind of effect they achieved with their groundstrokes was fantastical - I just can't imagine Nadal being able to keep up with them and I do acknowledge that Rafa is a clay machine of sorts.

The greatest logical fallacy on tennis boards is to look at statistics alone (or slam results) as indicators of greatness. This is plain lazy and devoid of insight.

As I said before I will find the thread where this spoken about, if not start a new one in the clay season. I meant the other 3 besides Borg and of course Guga is there.

Here is the problem Agassi had a better overall record at RG than Muster, but no one could suggest except a delusional person that he was better than Muster on the surface.

The moment he sprouts wings and starts to fly is when he will be the consensus GOAT (and Rafa will be the consensus GOAT when pigs fly:) )

Seriously, just say that he did win The French this year and never won another tournament (for whatever reason...injury, sudden fear of yellow felt, whatever). He would not be considered the GOAT.

The moment he ties / beats Sampras's Grand Slam record is the moment he will be considered (and will in fact be) the GOAT. But not before.

As I said before I will find the thread where this spoken about, if not start a new one in the clay season. I meant the other 3 besides Borg and of course Guga is there.

Here is the problem Agassi had a better overall record at RG than Muster, but no one could suggest except a delusional person that he was better than Muster on the surface.

Yes, Muster is another guy I'd rate above Rafa. He was a strange one - one almost senses that when he won at the French in '95 it was almost enough for him. For that stretch 95-96 he was absolutely lights out - some of the greatest clay court tennis ever maybe, save for Borg's two French titles without giving up a set. He should have won in '96 (with two clay tms under his belt) - I don't recall how he lost, but in 97 he wasn't the same.

Many forget the injuries Muster went through early in his career as well. Fantastic, candid guy too.

P.S. As for Agassi, we all know that he 'baby-stepped' his way to the RG title in '99. He was very fortunate in the final. For a guy with a grand slam on both grass and clay he was certainly capable at best on both. He could have easily won neither.

Yes, Muster is another guy I'd rate above Rafa. He was a strange one - one almost senses that when he won at the French in '95 it was almost enough for him. For that stretch 95-96 he was absolutely lights out - some of the greatest clay court tennis ever maybe, save for Borg's two French titles without giving up a set. He should have won in '96 (with two clay tms under his belt) - I don't recall how he lost, but in 97 he wasn't the same.

Many forget the injuries Muster went through early in his career as well. Fantastic, candid guy too.

There is a thread Rafa = faster Muster do a search and you will find it. In 96, he played Stich and the court was a bit quicker than on Chatrier and we all know Thom didn't like S/V players.

There is a thread Rafa = faster Muster do a search and you will find it. In 96, he played Stich and the court was a bit quicker than on Chatrier and we all know Thom didn't like S/V players.

Thanks. I'd like to see those two and their beer bellies go at it on clay now.:)

Thanks. I'd like to see those two and their beer bellies go at it on clay now.:)

Here it is.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=86985&page=5&highlight=Muster

Here it is.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=86985&page=5&highlight=Muster

ew... You were trying to have a logical conversation with posters like "RonE";)

Yes, Muster is another guy I'd rate above Rafa.

Um. Muster is on record as saying that, even at his peak, he would not have a hope against Rafa on clay. Too big, strong and fast. Admittedly, the standard goes up over time - but I think you are rather too quick to dismiss Rafa's claim to claycourt greatness.

Um. Muster is on record as saying that, even at his peak, he would not have a hope against Rafa on clay. Too big, strong and fast. Admittedly, the standard goes up over time - but I think you are rather too quick to dismiss Rafa's claim to claycourt greatness.

He's 'on record'?

It's nice to know he's humble.

Either way, I don't deny Rafa's clay court greatness. He is a clay great no matter how any of us spin it. However people will disagree as to where exactly he ranks.

I think people forget that neither Fed or Rafa are at the end of their careers yet, and all anyone talks about is their career and game like it's actually to be compared to the greats, as if theirs had already ended.

Isn't it fair to say that you can't compare a man to a boy because a boy isn't done growing yet. You can say what you think he will be, or what qualities he shows that might develop into this or that. But to judge Fed and Rafa based on accomplishments that they haven't achieved yet but are more than fully capable of achieving seems a little pointless to me.