Kuerten vs. Federer at RG - who would win? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Kuerten vs. Federer at RG - who would win?

hugo0
06-11-2009, 10:14 PM
This question came up in the brazilian press

Kuerten himself said that he believes that he would be the favorite if they had played each other in RG at their peak

I really like Guga,he's the reason why I started playing tennis,but I gotta go with Fed in this one

nanoman
06-11-2009, 10:15 PM
Guga

Dini
06-11-2009, 10:17 PM
He already beat Fed whilst Fed was peak-ish. :shrug:

roberthenman
06-11-2009, 10:17 PM
:haha: Guga far

Arkulari
06-11-2009, 10:17 PM
Guga, no question :shrug:

Roger would beat him at Wimbledon and the USO though ;)

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Probably Guga more often than not, but I actually believe Federer gets better on clay as the years role on in terms of the strategies he used.

Certinfy
06-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Kuerten!

Calidreth
06-11-2009, 10:28 PM
Kuerten easy

Matt01
06-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Guga in straight sets.

oliverbwfc
06-11-2009, 10:35 PM
Guga, but it's close, Fed would beat him anywhere else but Roland Garros

born_on_clay
06-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Guga in straight

scarecrows
06-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Guga in straight sets.

Guga in straight

:hug:

hope you guys got over it

:hug:

Matt01
06-11-2009, 10:41 PM
:hug:

hope you guys got over it

:hug:


Gotten over what? :confused:

scarecrows
06-11-2009, 10:44 PM
denial :worship:

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 10:47 PM
In straights? If they played 10 times Fed would have his fair share of wins more likely and prime vs prime these are probably gonna be 4 or 5 setters.

bounccer
06-11-2009, 10:50 PM
Nadal, who is far better than Kuerten, has won only once in straights sets versus Federer in 6 matches. In 2004, Federer was average on clay, and did'nt really fight versus Kuerten. Moreover, Federer had already won on clay against Guga, in Hamburg 2002. 60/40 for Kuerten in my opinion, both would have their chance

Matt01
06-11-2009, 10:51 PM
denial :worship:


So I guess you seriously think that Fed would stand a chance on clay against peak Kuerten? I call that delusion :worship:

GlennMirnyi
06-11-2009, 10:55 PM
Guga would win most of their matches, thought he'd hardly straight-set Federer all the time.

bounccer
06-11-2009, 10:58 PM
Kuerten was not a god on clay, between 1997 and 2004 (his peak), he lost versus Safin, Medveded, Costa, Robredo and Nalbandian. Federer is more regular, by far. If they had met several years, Federer would have inevitably won sometimes.

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:00 PM
He already beat Fed whilst Fed was peak-ish. :shrug:

Yeah, Guga prevented Federer from winning a the grand slam in 2004, I think, by beating him at the French in the third round, straight sets.

Beforehand
06-11-2009, 11:03 PM
Nadal, who is far better than Kuerten, has won only once in straights sets versus Federer in 6 matches. In 2004, Federer was average on clay, and did'nt really fight versus Kuerten. Moreover, Federer had already won on clay against Guga, in Hamburg 2002. 60/40 for Kuerten in my opinion, both would have their chance

This.

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:05 PM
So I guess you seriously think that Fed would stand a chance on clay against peak Kuerten? I call that delusion :worship:
Depends on the type of clay. Roger is one of the few players to have bageled Kuerten on the surface, which took place in Hamburg on slow, low-bouncing clay; on the other hand, if you limit the discussion to the Roland Garros clay, well, the advantage would be in Kuerten's corner.

People ought to be careful when making blanket statements which disregard key facts.

GlennMirnyi
06-11-2009, 11:05 PM
Kuerten was not a god on clay, between 1997 and 2004 (his peak), he lost versus Safin, Medveded, Costa, Robredo and Nalbandian. Federer is more regular, by far. If they had met several years, Federer would have inevitably won sometimes.

Not a god on clay? Hmmm so winning RG three times and being one of a few players to have won Monte-Carlo, Hamburg and Rome is comparable to anything Fed has done on clay? I don't think so.

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:07 PM
This.

Well, from what I understand, Guga's hip was already bothering him. So Guga wasn't playing 100% either. :shrug:

oliverbwfc
06-11-2009, 11:09 PM
Not a god on clay? Hmmm so winning RG three times and being one of a few players to have won Monte-Carlo, Hamburg and Rome is comparable to anything Fed has done on clay? I don't think so.

To be fair, Since Federer has properly come to terms with clay , Nadal has been around. Guga's generation didn't have nearly as many great clay-courters

luie
06-11-2009, 11:09 PM
At RG,Guga but it seems the federer bandwagon is gathering steam if he being compared to guga at this point in his clay career.

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:11 PM
Depends on the type of clay. Roger is one of the few players to have bageled Kuerten on the surface, which took place in Hamburg on slow, low-bouncing clay; on the other hand, if you limit the discussion to the Roland Garros clay, well, the advantage would be in Kuerten's corner.

People ought to be careful when making blanket statements which disregard key facts.

That's true, but Guga won the second set with Federer only winning one game. Guga ended up losing the match though--I think with 6-2 Federer?

dijus
06-11-2009, 11:13 PM
Guga EASY

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:14 PM
Rome is comparable to anything Fed has done on clay? I don't think so.
Are you capable of making a point without undermining another player's achievements ? Moreover, individual accomplishments are irrelevant when analyzing individual match-ups. Nadal has two titles on grass; Fed has ten titles on grass, five of which are Wimbledon titles. Didn't seem to have much of an effect on the outcome of last year's Wimbledon final.

That being said, Kuerten is the better clay court player.

GlennMirnyi
06-11-2009, 11:17 PM
To be fair, Since Federer has properly come to terms with clay , Nadal has been around. Guga's generation didn't have nearly as many great clay-courters

:haha:

You've got that wrong by a few light-years.

Guga's generation had much more depth on clay.

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:19 PM
That's true, but Guga won the second set with Federer only winning one game. Guga ended up losing the match though--I think with 6-2 Federer?
Doesn't matter, a player of Guga's stature doesn't get bageled by just anyone on clay. Same goes for Nadal, even though many will argue that he was exhausted in the 3rd set of the '07 Hamburg final, which may be true to some extent, but I seriously doubt that a player of his stature wouldn't do everything possible to at least get on the board.

How many times has Fed been bageled on grass or hard courts ? Both of which are easier tasks to accomplish in this age of slow to moderately paced courts.

GlennMirnyi
06-11-2009, 11:20 PM
Are you capable of making a point without undermining another player's achievements ? Moreover, individual accomplishments are irrelevant when analyzing individual match-ups. Nadal has two titles on grass; Fed has ten titles on grass, five of which are Wimbledon titles. Didn't seem to have much of an effect on the outcome of last year's Wimbledon final.

That being said, Kuerten is the better clay court player.

That didn't make an impact because Fed just gave away the match.

Why are you being so defensive, mate? Fed doesn't have much more to prove right now. You still can't compare him to Guga on clay. It's a whole different league.

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:21 PM
Guga would win most of their matches, thought he'd hardly straight-set Federer all the time.

Concur.

dijus
06-11-2009, 11:22 PM
To be fair, Since Federer has properly come to terms with clay , Nadal has been around. Guga's generation didn't have nearly as many great clay-courters

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you can't be serious man...

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:23 PM
Doesn't matter, a player of Guga's stature doesn't get bageled by just anyone on clay. Same goes for Nadal, even though many will argue that he was exhausted in the 3rd set of the '07 Hamburg final, which may be true to some extent, but I seriously doubt that a player of his stature wouldn't do everything possible to at least get on the board.

How many times has Fed been bageled on grass or hard courts ? Both of which are easier tasks to accomplish in this age of slow to moderately paced courts.

So what are you trying to say? To me, the scores of that match were particularly odd. It was 6-0-Roger; 1-6-Guga; and finally 6-2 for Roger. To me it was just a weird match, looking at the scoreline.

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:27 PM
That didn't make an impact because Fed just gave away the match.

Why are you being so defensive, mate? Fed doesn't have much more to prove right now. You still can't compare him to Guga on clay. It's a whole different league.
I'm not at all being defensive. I just don't understand why the focus is on how little Roger has accomplished on clay (4 successive Roland Garros finals, 1 Roland Garros title, only player other than Ferrero to beat Nadal on the surface) as opposed to how great of a clay courter Kuerten was.

It's nonsensical to degrade the aforementioned accomplishments when there are players like Michael Russell who play professional tennis just to put food on the table, literally. What's next ? Donald Trump is a loser because Bill Gates has a bigger fortune ? In truth, both are wildly successful individuals.

sheva07
06-11-2009, 11:28 PM
H2H at RG: 1-0 Kuerten in straights. Asking the question is answering it.

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:28 PM
So what are you trying to say? To me, the scores of that match were particularly odd. It was 6-0-Roger; 1-6-Guga; and finally 6-2 for Roger. To me it was just a weird match, looking at the scoreline.
Have you actually seen the match ? If not, here you are:
x7zC5nc5IQU

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:30 PM
H2H at RG: 1-0 Kuerten in straights. Asking the question is answering it.

Federer beats Sampras 10 times out of 10, all in 5 sets... the proof - Wimbly 2001.

Asking the question is answering it. :lol:

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:31 PM
Have you actually seen the match ? If not, here you are:
x7zC5nc5IQU


I can't recall. I may have.

But when did Guga start having hip trouble the first time? Wasn't it around 2002? Then didn't he leave the tour in 2003?

I can't recall the timeline.

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:34 PM
I can't recall. I may have.

But when did Guga start having hip trouble the first time? Wasn't it around 2002? Then didn't he leave the tour in 2003?

I can't recall the timeline.
Okay, so your original premise was disproved, so now you're blaming injuries.

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:35 PM
Some great speed of foot displayed by Federer in those highlights, love the Guga backhand, of course.

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:38 PM
I can't recall. I may have.

But when did Guga start having hip trouble the first time? Wasn't it around 2002? Then didn't he leave the tour in 2003?

I can't recall the timeline.

:lol:


You are a well disguised troll?

Dini
06-11-2009, 11:40 PM
That's one hell of a MP. :worship:

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:41 PM
Okay, so your original premise was disproved, so now you're blaming injuries.

Ya know what? I'm not "blaming" anything. The guy had hip problems which resulted in two surgeries. It limited his mobility. To me at this level, it just doesn't take much to affect a player's game both physically and mentally. But my policy is a loss is a loss. So for whatever reason, Federer beat him at Hamburg. I don't recall the match. But just looking at the scoreline it was odd for both players.

I'm just asking a question regarding when these injuries started to trouble him. As I recall it was in 2001.. maybe 2002?

It's not an exuse. It's just fact Guga had hip problems. Those problems really affected his game to where he couldn't compete at the level he once did.

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:43 PM
:lol:


You are a well disguised troll?

Whatever you say. :shrug: I don't care.

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:44 PM
I'm gonna watch myself some more Guga highlights, it's been a while.

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:44 PM
Whatever you say. :shrug: I don't care.

I didn't ask if you did care, but thanks for letting me know babe. :cool:

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:48 PM
Ya know what? I'm not "blaming" anything. The guy had hip problems which resulted in two surgeries. It limited his mobility. To me at this level, it just doesn't take much to affect a player's game both physically and mentally. But my policy is a loss is a loss. So for whatever reason, Federer beat him at Hamburg. I don't recall the match. But just looking at the scoreline it was odd for both players.

I'm just asking a question regarding when these injuries started to trouble him. As I recall it was in 2001.. maybe 2002?

It's not an exuse. It's just fact Guga had hip problems. Those problems really affected his game to where he couldn't compete at the level he once did.
How about his loss (bagel included in the equation) to Roger had to do with the Hamburg clay being congenial to Fed's game ? Also, the fact that Federer is in the top 15 or top 20 of all-time best clay courters ?

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:49 PM
How about his loss (bagel included in the equation) to Roger had to do with the Hamburg clay being congenial to Fed's game ? Also, the fact that Federer is in the top 15 or top 20 of all-time best clay courters ?

You didn't answer my question: when did Guga start having hip problems?

Does anyone else know?

Dini
06-11-2009, 11:51 PM
What relevance does his hip problems have to do with this thread if you don't want to use it as an excuse? :scratch:

prima donna
06-11-2009, 11:51 PM
You didn't answer my question: when did Guga start having hip problems?

Does anyone else know?
If I had an answer to your question, I would answer it.

Roger lost to Kuerten in 2004 at Roland Garros, so this should absolve you of the need to dig for excuses, unless the hip problems just disappeared on the day in question. Injuries only count when we don't like the results.

MatchFederer
06-11-2009, 11:57 PM
What relevance does his hip problems have to do with this thread if you don't want to use it as an excuse? :scratch:

If I had an answer to your question, I would answer it.

Roger lost to Kuerten in 2004 at Roland Garros, so this should absolve you of the need to dig for excuses, unless the hip problems just disappeared on the day in question. Injuries only count when we don't like the results.

Sorry to be annoying and childish (i'm not actually), but Andylovesaustin has just been owned (I thought about using pwned, and the fact that I thought of using it I guess makes me twice the loser). Absolutely owned. :devil:

luie
06-11-2009, 11:57 PM
What relevance does his hip problems have to do with this thread if you don't want to use it as an excuse? :scratch:
I call this the nadull syndrome,if one loses there must be something physically wrong with the person,be it fatigue,tiredness,injury etc.:o

andylovesaustin
06-11-2009, 11:57 PM
What relevance does his hip problems have to do with this thread if you don't want to use it as an excuse? :scratch:


Well, I'm just saying it could have been a combination of factors. It could have been the surface. And maybe Guga's mobility was affected just slightly to where all that made a difference. That's all I'm saying. I mean, it's I just don't think Federer beating Guga at love was all about Federer or the surface, necessarily.

I mean, if Federer lost at love on grass, for example,--with an odd score like that, then maybe a year later had to leave the tour for hip surgery, it's not out of the ballpark to conclude there might have been something else bothering him besides his opponent and the surface.

It's not so much of an "excuse" as a reality. To me "excuse" implies something made-up. Well Guga's hip problem wasn't made-up. To me, Guga's hip problem is more of a REASON his game went progressively downhill.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Sorry to be annoying and childish (i'm not actually), but Andylovesaustin has just been owned (I thought about using pwned, and the fact that I thought of using it I guess makes me twice the loser). Absolutely owned. :devil:

Why are you apologizing? Seriously, I don't care.

You don't have to apologize. The upside is Guga beat Federer at RG, preventing the GOAT from winning the Grand Slam that year in 2004. Revenge is sweet.

prima donna
06-12-2009, 12:03 AM
Well, I'm just saying it could have been a combination of factors. It could have been the surface. And maybe Guga's mobility was affected just slightly to where all that made a difference. That's all I'm saying. I mean, it's I just don't think Federer beating Guga at love was all about Federer or the surface, necessarily.

I mean, if Federer lost at love on grass, for example.
How about Guga was bageled by a 4-time Hamburg champion ? He's not the only clay court maestro guilty of having lost to Fed at the venue in question.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:03 AM
Why are you apologizing? Seriously, I don't care.

You don't have to apologize. The upside is Guga beat Federer at RG, preventing the GOAT from winning the Grand Slam that year. Revenge is sweet.

:D

Why would that be an upside? You no like Federer??????????????????????
EDIT:

Oh, i was more apologizing to infinity and prima donna for being tempted to use the word pwned against you.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 12:07 AM
:D

Why would that be an upside? You no like Federer??????????????????????
EDIT:

Oh, i was more apologizing to infinity and prima donna for being tempted to use the word pwned against you.


That's good to know.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:10 AM
That's good to know.

You keep avoiding questions :scratch:

I was asking if you don't like Federer? You seem real pleased about Guga's 2004 victory and also I don't know who you support.

propi
06-12-2009, 12:13 AM
To be fair, Since Federer has properly come to terms with clay , Nadal has been around. Guga's generation didn't have nearly as many great clay-courters
WTF???
Oh, wait if your profile is true you're 15:rolleyes:

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 12:15 AM
How about Guga was bageled by a 4-time Hamburg champion ? He's not the only clay court maestro guilty of having lost to Fed at the venue in question.

But you still haven't answered my question: when did Guga's hip start bothering him?

As far as I'm concerned, a loss is a loss. If you think it's a big deal--like it "means" something about Guga's play or Roger's domination over him, that's fine with me.

But in my opinion, there may have been other factors involved to where Guga wasn't playing at his best. I mean---yeah Roger may have won the match anyway. But for Guga to be bageled and then knowing what we know now about the seriousness of his injury, it's just not out of the realm of possibility he couldn't quite play at his best for whatever reason--including Roger.

I just don't necessarily agree with you as to the reasons Guga didn't perform as well.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:15 AM
WTF???
Oh, wait if your profile is true you're 15:rolleyes:

Magnolia = my favourite film


Back on topic...

GlennMirnyi
06-12-2009, 12:17 AM
I'm not at all being defensive. I just don't understand why the focus is on how little Roger has accomplished on clay (4 successive Roland Garros finals, 1 Roland Garros title, only player other than Ferrero to beat Nadal on the surface) as opposed to how great of a clay courter Kuerten was.

It's nonsensical to degrade the aforementioned accomplishments when there are players like Michael Russell who play professional tennis just to put food on the table, literally. What's next ? Donald Trump is a loser because Bill Gates has a bigger fortune ? In truth, both are wildly successful individuals.

You're being ultra uptight about this subject.

Federer has accomplished his fair share on clay, though it's highly questionable that he'd have won RG if Nadull hadn't been defeated by Soderling. Also it's also questionable he'd win RG playing against stronger claycourters. Of course all those doubts will only remain in the head of more scrupulous analysts, and for the records, he'll be as great on clay as his titles.

Some things must be said, though, whether you like them or not.

If there happened to be some degradation, it's just because Federer's achievements on clay pale in comparison with Kuerten's.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:22 AM
Yeah, Kuerten would probably win 7/10 on RG clay, but Federer was playing much better clay court tennis in 06 and 07 than he was in 04.. on clay he is like a fine wine, even though he lost more sets at RG and the field is arguably getting stronger, Federer's strategies and options were greater. He was basically almost derailed through having a crap load of pressure on his shoulders (and Del Potro played a decent match, as much of a mug you might think him to be).

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 12:22 AM
You keep avoiding questions :scratch:

I was asking if you don't like Federer? You seem real pleased about Guga's 2004 victory and also I don't know who you support.

Well yeah, I'm pleased with Guga's victory. It's pretty amazing he beat Roger, considering Guga left the tour again soon after. Guga's career was on the decline and Roger was #1 in the world.

On paper, Roger should have beat Guga in 2004 despite Guga being a former champion. But somehow Guga managed to win. So yeah, I think Guga's victory was impressive. It proved there was a reason he won the French 3 times.


Guga is my favorite player, actually. So yeah, I'm happy about it.

Is this a Roger Federer forum or is this a men's tennis forum? :lol:

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:23 AM
Well yeah, I'm pleased with Guga's victory. It's pretty amazing he beat Roger, considering Guga left the tour again soon after.

On paper, Roger should have beat Guga in 2004. But somehow Guga managed to win.

Guga is my favorite player, actually. So yeah, I'm happy about it.

Is this a Roger Federer forum or is this a men's tennis forum? :lol:

Well you seemed thrilled with the victory, in a way that seemed to imply you were more pleased with Fed not achieving the Slam rather than Guga's victory, so naturally I just had to ask! :D

GlennMirnyi
06-12-2009, 12:24 AM
But you still haven't answered my question: when did Guga's hip start bothering him?

As far as I'm concerned, a loss is a loss. If you think it's a big deal--like it "means" something about Guga's play or Roger's domination over him, that's fine with me.

But in my opinion, there may have been other factors involved to where Guga wasn't playing at his best. I mean---yeah Roger may have won the match anyway. But for Guga to be bageled and then knowing what we know now about the seriousness of his injury, it's just not out of the realm of possibility he couldn't quite play at his best for whatever reason--including Roger.

I just don't necessarily agree with you as to the reasons Guga didn't perform as well.

Guga's hip started bothering him mid 2001, if I'm not mistaken.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-12-2009, 12:26 AM
You didn't answer my question: when did Guga start having hip problems?

Does anyone else know?

He started having after Roland Garros 2001, feeling bad on US OPEN and losting his plot (and number one) in the end of 2001 to have cirurgy at 2002.
So yes, he faced Federer at 2002 after one cirurgy.
Guga's peak was only two years, 2000-2001, and he played injury free while developing at 1997-1999.
So only five years injury free. Think about that.

superslam77
06-12-2009, 12:27 AM
At their peak as in Roger 2006 ?

no contest.

Feds peak in a match,set or game has no rivals, even on clay.

guga2120
06-12-2009, 12:29 AM
Gustavo, would certainly win. Guga, on a bad hip beat him in straights in 2004. 2000 Guga Kuerten, no matter what Roger Federer, would win.

shotgun
06-12-2009, 12:31 AM
Unnecessary thread IMO.

Kuerten 6-4 6-4 6-4.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:32 AM
Gustavo, would certainly win. Guga, on a bad hip beat him in straights in 2004. 2000 Guga Kuerten, no matter what Roger Federer, would win.

Bit daft to say somebody would certainly win. When two such excellent players play each other, nothing is a certainty.
:cool:

superslam77
06-12-2009, 12:32 AM
Gustavo, would certainly win. Guga, on a bad hip beat him in straights in 2004. 2000 Guga Kuerten, no matter what Roger Federer, would win.

I think this is all too selective..

WHAT ABOUT NOW..who would WIN NOW :rolleyes:

The reality is that guga is done and Roger IS STILL the #1 on CLAY in the world in 2009

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 12:34 AM
He started having after Roland Garros 2001, feeling bad on US OPEN and losting his plot (and number one) in the end of 2001 to have cirurgy at 2002.
So yes, he faced Federer at 2002 after one cirurgy.
Guga's peak was only two years, 2000-2001, and he played injury free while developing at 1997-1999.
So only five years injury free. Think about that.

That's what I thought.

Guga had some legitimate hip problems. That's just a fact.

prima donna
06-12-2009, 12:37 AM
If there happened to be some degradation, it's just because Federer's achievements on clay pale in comparison with Kuerten's.
You're entitled to your own views. Personally, I think it has more to do with your choice of phraseology as well as a lack of perspective. As to your allusion to a shortage of clay court specialists, these sorts of hypotheticals are analogous to claims of generational superiority based on technological advances. The conditions aren't the same -- indeed clay aficionados have for years lamented the changes in the clay used at Roland Garros. Well, on that basis, it seems illogical to conclude that so-called clay court specialists would enjoy the same level of success against Federer, under quicker conditions, that they enjoyed against the likes of Becker and Sampras under slower conditions.

I'm sure that a few clay aficionados could dredge up embarrassing losses to clay-court specialists earlier in Fed's career, but that doesn't support the fallacious notion that similar players would have derailed Roger during one of his four Roland Garros runs.

Things change, I mean, who's to say whether these so-called specialists would even advance to the second week ? What's the likelihood of being hit off a relatively fast clay court when one's only line of defense is top spin and wise shot selection ? Are there not more players capable of hitting their way through matches ? Is not this style of play favoured by the faster conditions ?

None of this should add or take anything away from Kuerten's achievements.

marcRD
06-12-2009, 12:56 AM
I think Guga was a bad matchup for Federer, but Federer didnt become a real clay player until 2006 and was both inconsistent and unmotivated 2004 (him losing to Alberto Costa was even worse than losing to Guga 2004).

I would give Guga 2 wins out of every 3 matches in RG if both were in their primes.

I cant decide when Federer peaked on clay, I feel uncertain how much he has declined since 2006 on clay. I think he in some ways feel even more confident even if he lost a step in his movement, he hadnt mastered the dropshot 2006 like in 2009.

Corey Feldman
06-12-2009, 01:04 AM
:lol: @ the Nadal fans posting

"GUGA IN STRAIGHT SETS!!!!1111"

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 01:11 AM
:lol: @ the Nadal fans posting

"GUGA IN STRAIGHT SETS!!!!1111"

I think Guga in his prime would probably win against Roger in his prime. Now would it be a straight set victory? No because Roger is no slouch on clay either. It might go to 5 sets, but I think Guga in his prime would probably somehow manage to win--like he did injured in 2004.

superslam77
06-12-2009, 01:13 AM
Look at my signature..

Corey Feldman
06-12-2009, 01:15 AM
anyone in the draw that day would have beaten Fed in 3 sets

IMO we didnt see the best of Fed in Paris until 2005, every year before that he was pretty crap and didnt seem to like the court.. so dont think you could call that 'prime Fed'

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 01:28 AM
anyone in the draw that day would have beaten Fed in 3 sets

IMO we didnt see the best of Fed in Paris until 2005, every year before that he was pretty crap and didnt seem to like the court.. so dont think you could call that 'prime Fed'


I don't think Fed was in his prime in 2004 necessarily, but he had momentum going into that tournament. He was the favorite.

And Guga wasn't in his prime either: he had a bad hip!

Ya'll what if Federer were to have a debilitating--career threatening injury? You don't think it would affect his game if he couldn't move as well? What would Fedfans do if Roger had hip injury like Guga's? As I recall, Magnus Norman had the same type of injury and retired. Guga tried to play through it, but at one point his body just wouldn't let him compete.

Guga couldn't move as well. It was painful for him to push-off that hip whether moving laterally or vertically. He just couldn't play at the level we had seen him in the best--even though compared to some players, he could win.
So it was a struggle.

I understand what ya'll are saying about "excuses," but in Guga's case, it was a legitimate reason

superslam77
06-12-2009, 01:30 AM
I don't think Fed was in his prime in 2004 necessarily, but he had momentum going into that tournament. He was the favorite.

And Guga wasn't in his prime either: he had a bad hip!

Ya'll what if Federer were to have a debilitating--career threatening injury? You don't think it would affect his game if he couldn't move as well? What would Fedfans do if Roger had hip injury like Guga's? As I recall, Magnus Norman had the same type of injury and retired. Guga tried to play through it, but at one point his body just wouldn't let him compete.

Guga couldn't move as well. It was painful for him to push-off that hip whether moving laterally or vertically. He just couldn't play at the level we had seen him in the best--even though compared to some players, he could win.
So it was a struggle.

I understand what ya'll are saying about "excuses," but in Guga's case, it was a legitimate reason

If a minimal reason and we would NEVER have existed. If,but, time travel, player's peak IS NOT SOMETHING REAL. HERE AND NOW!

leng jai
06-12-2009, 01:31 AM
To be fair, Since Federer has properly come to terms with clay , Nadal has been around. Guga's generation didn't have nearly as many great clay-courters

One of the dumbest statements to ever grace this board.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 01:37 AM
If a minimal reason and we would NEVER have existed. If,but, time travel, player's peak IS NOT SOMETHING REAL. HERE AND NOW!


In a way, I actually agree with you. It's difficult to speculate.

Guga had a very good run albeit short, relatively speaking. And I'm sure he and all of Brazil are proud of his achievements. To me though, it's just a little sad when a career is cut short or impacted due to injury. I don't think he would have ever had the success Roger has had. But it would have been nice to see Guga be able to actually compete with the top players for longer than he did.

But I would imagine, he isn't too depressed over it. He seems like a pretty happy guy.

superslam77
06-12-2009, 01:44 AM
In a way, I actually agree with you. It's difficult to speculate.

Guga had a very good run albeit short, relatively speaking. And I'm sure he and all of Brazil are proud of his achievements. To me though, it's just a little sad when a career is cut short or impacted due to injury. I don't think he would have ever had the success Roger has had. But it would have been nice to see Guga be able to actually compete with the top players for longer than he did.

But I would imagine, he isn't too depressed over it. He seems like a pretty happy guy.

Good that we agree on something, people don't admit that life is a lot about casualty and luck.IF Roddick didn't have Fed then he would have won 2 or 3 more slams,more weeks at #1 and with that confidence maybe more. Nalbandian could have been slim and GOAT. WHO KNOWS? speculation.

MTF loves celebrity death match or like a video game that puts an egyptian mummy in the same time/place versus a cowboy. Just RIDICULOUS speculation.

Who has a better BH me or CD?

Maybe i am the TRUE GOAT OF TENNIS but i never tried to be pro.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 01:46 AM
Good that we agree on something, people don't admit that life is a lot about casualty and luck.IF Roddick didn't have Fed then he would have won 2 or 3 more slams,more weeks at #1 and with that confidence maybe more. Nalbandian could have been slim and GOAT. WHO KNOWS? speculation.

MTF loves celebrity death match or like a video game that puts an egyptian mummy in the same time/place versus a cowboy. Just RIDICULOUS speculation.

Who has a better BH me or CD?

Maybe i am the TRUE GOAT OF TENNIS but i never tried to be pro.

One never knows, does one! You just might be..:)

superslam77
06-12-2009, 01:49 AM
One never knows, does one! You just might be..:)

Everyone could have been something else. No one reaches max potential or even close to it.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 01:52 AM
Everyone could have been something else. No one reaches max potential or even close to it.


:)

FlavorNuts
06-12-2009, 02:26 AM
Guga wouldn't win a set against Nalbandian or Davydenko. Let alone Federer.

hugo0
06-12-2009, 02:47 AM
Prime(or almost prime) Guga was A SINGLE POINT away from losing RG quarter finals to 67th Michael Russell,a guy whose highest career rank was 67th

Federer has only been beaten by Nadal in the last 5 years in RG

Therefore,I'm pretty sure prime federer vs. prime guga h2h at rg would be VERY close

GlennMirnyi
06-12-2009, 02:57 AM
You're entitled to your own views. Personally, I think it has more to do with your choice of phraseology as well as a lack of perspective. As to your allusion to a shortage of clay court specialists, these sorts of hypotheticals are analogous to claims of generational superiority based on technological advances. The conditions aren't the same -- indeed clay aficionados have for years lamented the changes in the clay used at Roland Garros. Well, on that basis, it seems illogical to conclude that so-called clay court specialists would enjoy the same level of success against Federer, under quicker conditions, that they enjoyed against the likes of Becker and Sampras under slower conditions.

I'm sure that a few clay aficionados could dredge up embarrassing losses to clay-court specialists earlier in Fed's career, but that doesn't support the fallacious notion that similar players would have derailed Roger during one of his four Roland Garros runs.

Things change, I mean, who's to say whether these so-called specialists would even advance to the second week ? What's the likelihood of being hit off a relatively fast clay court when one's only line of defense is top spin and wise shot selection ? Are there not more players capable of hitting their way through matches ? Is not this style of play favoured by the faster conditions ?

None of this should add or take anything away from Kuerten's achievements.

You say I lack perspective but you think Federer would've defeated RG's winners from the 90s and early 2000s when he couldn't beat Horna in 2003?

Your answers to my suppositions about the level of claycourt tennis are basically suppositions about how the old claycourters would fare at RG's "new clay". Considering this year he almost lost to two absolute mugs on the surface in Haas and Del Pony and that was actually Federer's best run at RG, what makes you think he'd defeat consistently players with far better resumés on the surface?

As if Federer could hit someone off the court these days on clay. If you haven't caught his matches in RG, he was actually the one being hit off.

Audacity
06-12-2009, 02:59 AM
Kuerten

prima donna
06-12-2009, 04:00 AM
You say I lack perspective but you think Federer would've defeated RG's winners from the 90s and early 2000s when he couldn't beat Horna in 2003?
I think that an educated opinion is based on more than a poor match played by a 22-year-old. Fed has an 11-1 record against Kuerten, Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Robredo on clay -- three of whom are Roland Garros champions, while one (Coria) is a finalist. Robredo epitomizes consistency, as evidenced by his QF appearances at Roland Garros.

I'm assuming that you'll respond by referring to Robredo as a "mug" or something to that extent, to which I would reply: Is he any more or less of a "mug" than Horna or Mantilla ?

I think that Federer's best tennis would be good enough to beat any clay court player, with the exception of Vilas or Nadal. He squandered match points in the fifth set of Rome against Nadal, it requires immense talent to even put oneself in such a position on clay. If he were off his game, then yes, he'd be vulnerable to the likes of Mantilla and Horna.


Your answers to my suppositions about the level of claycourt tennis are basically suppositions about how the old claycourters would fare at RG's "new clay".

Following the same logic, your answers to my suppositions about the level of claycourt tennis are basically suppositions about how the new claycourters would fare at RG's "old clay". You're undermining Roger's clay court achievements on the basis that so-called clay court specialists weren't in abundance.

I'm simply building on the argument that's been presented by clay aficionados: Roland Garros plays faster than it did during the times of Muster and Bruguera. Conditions change, meaning that it's more of a rigorous task to win three or four rounds as a specialist when your ranking is likely to be relatively low, thus increasing the probability of drawing higher ranked opponents who possess the ability hit through the court.

Even Sampras made the quarters of Roland Garros three successive years (92-94) and the semis in '96, so it's not as though he was losing to clay court specialists in the earlier rounds when he still had the belief in his chances. Federer is an exponentially superior clay court player to Sampras, yet you seem to be convinced of this theory of which unknown dirtballers are the focal point.



Considering this year he almost lost to two absolute mugs on the surface in Haas and Del Pony and that was actually Federer's best run at RG, what makes you think he'd defeat consistently players with far better resumés on the surface?

As if Federer could hit someone off the court these days on clay. If you haven't caught his matches in RG, he was actually the one being hit off.
Del Potro definitely gave Roger trouble, but that's to be expected. A 28-year-old isn't exactly in his clay court prime. As to the match against Haas, a lot of nerves were involved. This is what I mean by a lack of perspective. This sort of reasoning is rooted in impulsiveness, it's just very simplistic.

"Well, Fed had a tough match 5-set match against Del Potro..."
"What a mug, he would've gotten his ass kicked by some journeyman had he played in the 90s."

A final point: I think it would be more difficult for clay court specialists to pull off the necessary upsets to get around to playing Roger. There are plenty of ballbashers capable of hitting through the court on a sunny day, which wouldn't bode well for your average dirtballer.

2003
06-12-2009, 04:36 AM
Id take Fed in a RG semi or final, but Guga at most Masters Series events.

Come on, Fed would probably have 3 RG titles in the bag as well if it weren't for Nadal. Gugas era might have been stronger but he didn't have to deal with a clay god like Nadull.

leng jai
06-12-2009, 04:48 AM
Who has Federer had to deal with before Nadull on his way to his RG finals?

Mimi
06-12-2009, 04:49 AM
:yeah:Who has Federer had to deal with before Nadull on his way to his RG finals?

Wojtek
06-12-2009, 05:03 AM
Guga

CyBorg
06-12-2009, 05:11 AM
Guga was more unpredictable. On his best day he could beat anyone on clay. Can't say the same about Roger.

*bunny*
06-12-2009, 05:48 AM
I think that an educated opinion is based on more than a poor match played by a 22-year-old. Fed has an 11-1 record against Kuerten, Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Robredo on clay -- three of whom are Roland Garros champions, while one (Coria) is a finalist. Robredo epitomizes consistency, as evidenced by his QF appearances at Roland Garros.
Just to make it clear those 11 wins include Rome semifinals in 2003 where JCF had to retire due to a shoulder injury.
:angel:

Dini
06-12-2009, 05:50 AM
Who has Federer had to deal with before Nadull on his way to his RG finals?

How exactly is this his fault? :scratch:

rwn
06-12-2009, 07:15 AM
Guga was more unpredictable. On his best day he could beat anyone on clay. Can't say the same about Roger.

Federer has beaten Nadal twice on clay, should have been three times. Who is better than Nadal on clay ????

bokehlicious
06-12-2009, 07:20 AM
Shut up Guga, you fake annoying has-been, Guga and Fed should even never be written in a same sentence...

Sheepy
06-12-2009, 08:12 AM
Guga

Benny_Maths
06-12-2009, 08:26 AM
If only club-level players were permitted entry to clay GS and MS tournaments, you'd have a whole bunch of random winners. As such, it is clear that a varied winners list does not imply a high level of skill amongst the players. So it is nothing more than speculation to suggest that a generation which failed to produce a truly dominant player, would be able to compete against the current field, purely on the basis that the latter doesn't have a different winner at every tournament.

superslam77
06-12-2009, 08:29 AM
I can see since Nadal the bully was taken down by SodaKing, the tards are still grasping at nonexistent straws..

GIVE IT UP clowns.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 08:38 AM
Joke poll, it's not public, this isn't even an issue really.

Fun comedic reading.

superslam77
06-12-2009, 08:43 AM
Joke poll, it's not public, this isn't even an issue really.

Fun comedic reading.

finally someone with a brain!

Merton
06-12-2009, 10:27 AM
The best single-handed backhand of the open era would prevail in this one.

Mimi
06-12-2009, 11:14 AM
finally someone with a brain!
i thought AJ was saying Guga would wini ;):wavey:

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 11:34 AM
So Nadal the clay GOAT, a matchup made in hell for Roger needs 4 sets but Guga would easily straight set Federer (even though a young Federer was able to bagle Kuerten?)


MTFastic denial :worship:

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 11:37 AM
This is what I don't understand: why didn't Roger beat Guga AT RG when he had the chance?

The answer to the question is Guga already beat Roger at 2004 RG, 3rd round, in straight sets: 6-4; 6-4; 6-4--not in 4; not in 5--not even in a close 3 set match as in tiebreaks. Guga broke him in each set to win.

The circumstances around that match were Roger was the favorite. Roger was #1 in the world. Roger was the reigning AO and Wimbledon champ, then later winning the U.S. Open. He had the momentum going into the tournament. Guga was injured, and not at the top of his game. Nobody expected Guga to win, but he did.

So why didn't Roger win if he would have dominated Guga at RG? The point is that he didn't.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
06-12-2009, 11:39 AM
They played in 2004 at RG when Federer admitted that he wasn't comfortable on clay and that he couldn't slide properly on it. Federer also destroyed him at Hamburg in 2002 on clay. Federers prime was 2006 IMO I reckon he COULD have beaten Guga anywhere but RG, depends, hes overall a much better player then Guga on all surfaces but RGClay is a tossup

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 11:44 AM
If only club-level players were permitted entry to clay GS and MS tournaments, you'd have a whole bunch of random winners. As such, it is clear that a varied winners list does not imply a high level of skill amongst the players. So it is nothing more than speculation to suggest that a generation which failed to produce a truly dominant player, would be able to compete against the current field, purely on the basis that the latter doesn't have a different winner at every tournament.

:worship:

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 11:49 AM
They played in 2004 at RG when Federer admitted that he wasn't comfortable on clay and that he couldn't slide properly on it. Federer also destroyed him at Hamburg in 2002 on clay. Federers prime was 2006 IMO I reckon he COULD have beaten Guga anywhere but RG, depends, hes overall a much better player then Guga on all surfaces but RGClay is a tossup


Oh, I see. Roger is given the benefit of the doubt with "excuses." He wasn't "comfortable." He couldn't slide properly. Oh... OK.

But 2002 Guga--recovering from hip surgery-- isn't given a break whatsoever. I would imagine Guga wasn't very comfortable either, but for other reasons. Guga was not at his best after 2001 because his mobility and play were affected due to a major hip injury--the type of causing Magnus Norman to retire.

Since Guga isn't Roger, Guga's not given the benefit of the doubt. Roger was uncomfortable, so that's not an "excuse" for his loss? Roger never has "excuses" for losing, I guess.

As I said, is this a Roger Federer fan forum or a men's tennis forum? It's great to be "loyal" to a certain tennis player. But I would think as fans of tennis in general, one could be a little more objective about it.

The sad truth is we fans never saw Guga v Roger when they both were playing at the top of their games. It's really difficult to speculate. For me, I would say at RG, in his prime Guga would probably edge-out in his prime Roger. But then again, I'm biased. I prefer Guga over Roger.

iamhe
06-12-2009, 12:30 PM
of course guga

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 12:38 PM
I think Guga was a bad matchup for Federer, but Federer didnt become a real clay player until 2006 and was both inconsistent and unmotivated 2004 (him losing to Alberto Costa was even worse than losing to Guga 2004).

I would give Guga 2 wins out of every 3 matches in RG if both were in their primes.

I cant decide when Federer peaked on clay, I feel uncertain how much he has declined since 2006 on clay. I think he in some ways feel even more confident even if he lost a step in his movement, he hadnt mastered the dropshot 2006 like in 2009.


Cosign, Federer is like fine wine on clay. :cool:

ballbasher101
06-12-2009, 12:40 PM
If I were to give an unbiased opinion I would say Guga in 5 sets. A biased opinion is that Federer would win in 5 :). Clay is far from Federer's best surface whilst Guga loved clay. If I remember correctly Guga drew a heart in the clay at the French a number of years ago, funny guy that Guga. Anywhere else Federer would spank Guga's ass.

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 12:42 PM
I don't have a problem. I just call it the way I see it, dude. So don't get your panties in a bunch.

whenever I see your name you are in some kind of dispute with Fedtards. I think you have a problem. Maybe cause Fed kicked Roddicks ass a couple times? I don't really understand what your agenda is but it is some kind of Fed issue, so much is clear by now.

asmazif
06-12-2009, 01:00 PM
I'd go with Guga in a very close encounter. Maybe.

Shadow Knows
06-12-2009, 01:31 PM
]This is what I don't understand: why didn't Roger beat Guga AT RG when he had the chance?

Because performance is randomly distributed around a mean. It's preposterous to suggest that a sample of one is remotely conclusive.

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 02:15 PM
I would say Tzonga in 2 close sets, likely a double bagle or other bakery stuff, no?

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 02:16 PM
Kafelnikov takes this.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 02:18 PM
So Nadal the clay GOAT, a matchup made in hell for Roger needs 4 sets but Guga would easily straight set Federer (even though a young Federer was able to bagle Kuerten?)


MTFastic denial :worship:

You are the man, good to see you don't have selective memory.

born_on_clay
06-12-2009, 02:28 PM
Federer is a mug

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 02:41 PM
whenever I see your name you are in some kind of dispute with Fedtards. I think you have a problem. Maybe cause Fed kicked Roddicks ass a couple times? I don't really understand what your agenda is but it is some kind of Fed issue, so much is clear by now.


To tell you the truth, I'm trying to avoid Federer threads since everyone thinks I'm a troll--well particularly "Fedtards." I don't really care about Federer anymore except as he relates to other players.

The only reason I responded in this one is because it concerned GUGA, not Federer.

Do I want Federer to dominate tennis again? No. Sorry, but I don't, hence my signature! :lol:

I'd like to see somebody give him a little competition whether that continues to be Nadal or one of the other players.

As a result, if you think I'm a troll, well I can't change your opinion. You're going to believe what you want anyway.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 02:44 PM
Because performance is randomly distributed around a mean. It's preposterous to suggest that a sample of one is remotely conclusive.

I agree. I said the same thing about the Hamburg match.

My response to the question as far as them both being in their primes was that it would be close. I'd lean for Guga because ultimately he is a 3-time French Open Champion, also beating Federer in 2004, when Guga wasn't in his prime anymore.

Other people have a different opinion, which is fine with me.

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 02:49 PM
You are the man, good to see you don't have selective memory.

you think RG 2008 was representative? I don't...

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 02:50 PM
To tell you the truth, I'm trying to avoid Federer threads since everyone thinks I'm a troll--well particularly "Fedtards." I don't really care about Federer anymore except as he relates to other players.

The only reason I responded in this one is because it concerned GUGA, not Federer.

Do I want Federer to dominate tennis again? No. Sorry, but I don't, hence my signature! :lol:

I'd like to see somebody give him a little competition whether that continues to be Nadal or one of the other players.

As a result, if you think I'm a troll, well I can't change your opinion. You're going to believe what you want anyway.

I'm a man of reason. If you say you are no troll, I tend to believe you.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 02:52 PM
you think RG 2008 was representative? I don't...

That has nothing to do with the question at hand.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 02:55 PM
To tell you the truth, I'm trying to avoid Federer threads since everyone thinks I'm a troll--well particularly "Fedtards." I don't really care about Federer anymore except as he relates to other players.

The only reason I responded in this one is because it concerned GUGA, not Federer.

Do I want Federer to dominate tennis again? No. Sorry, but I don't, hence my signature! :lol:

I'd like to see somebody give him a little competition whether that continues to be Nadal or one of the other players.

As a result, if you think I'm a troll, well I can't change your opinion. You're going to believe what you want anyway.

Troll much???

Relaaaax. I am sure people will change their minds if there is good enough reason/evidence to do so, based on a healthy level of objectivity.:)

sawan66278
06-12-2009, 02:55 PM
But you still haven't answered my question: when did Guga's hip start bothering him?

As far as I'm concerned, a loss is a loss. If you think it's a big deal--like it "means" something about Guga's play or Roger's domination over him, that's fine with me.

But in my opinion, there may have been other factors involved to where Guga wasn't playing at his best. I mean---yeah Roger may have won the match anyway. But for Guga to be bageled and then knowing what we know now about the seriousness of his injury, it's just not out of the realm of possibility he couldn't quite play at his best for whatever reason--including Roger.

I just don't necessarily agree with you as to the reasons Guga didn't perform as well.

As mentioned, the hip started bothering him around the time of the U.S. Open in 2001. Up to that point, the man was almost a virtual "lock" to end the year #1 for the second year in a row. And then, the wheels fell off...and he barely won a single match following his QF loss at the U.S. Open. And who knows? He may have even won that title if not for the emergence of the injury.


Oh, I see. Roger is given the benefit of the doubt with "excuses." He wasn't "comfortable." He couldn't slide properly. Oh... OK.

But 2002 Guga--recovering from hip surgery-- isn't given a break whatsoever. I would imagine Guga wasn't very comfortable either, but for other reasons. Guga was not at his best after 2001 because his mobility and play were affected due to a major hip injury--the type of causing Magnus Norman to retire.

Since Guga isn't Roger, Guga's not given the benefit of the doubt. Roger was uncomfortable, so that's not an "excuse" for his loss? Roger never has "excuses" for losing, I guess.

As I said, is this a Roger Federer fan forum or a men's tennis forum? It's great to be "loyal" to a certain tennis player. But I would think as fans of tennis in general, one could be a little more objective about it.

The sad truth is we fans never saw Guga v Roger when they both were playing at the top of their games. It's really difficult to speculate. For me, I would say at RG, in his prime Guga would probably edge-out in his prime Roger. But then again, I'm biased. I prefer Guga over Roger.

Very, very well said. The double standards, as the apply to Federer, always rear their ugly heads whenever Fed takes a "bad loss"...particularly to a legit rival (See any of the devastating losses to Rafa for proof).

With respect to the question of Guga vs. Federer, Mats Wilander again showed that he is growing increasingly senile in his old age: claiming that Federer is the third best clay courter ever.

Guga, winner of three RG titles, is far and away better than Federer. When he lost in Hamburg, he was a shell of the player he once was...and, once he started implementing the "Rafa technique" of hammering the backhand...there is NO way Federer would have been able to withstand the barrage. Combine this with Guga's excellent first serve, fantastic drop shots, and powerful forehand...and you have, regardless of location Guga winning eight or nine out of 10 matches against Fed.

I would even argue that on hard courts, you're talking at worst 5-5 head to head record.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 02:59 PM
Mats always gets wrapped up in the moment. I remember when he said Acasuso was one of the best players on clay after a rare good DC performance against Sweden. I mean I like the guy, but he doesn't always think before says stuff.

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 02:59 PM
alien intruder alarm! :bolt:

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 03:04 PM
That has nothing to do with the question at hand.

why not? i thought the question was; who wins when federer plays Kuerten both at their peak? I argued that i see no reason to assume that Kuerten would win in 3 sets since even Nadal needed 4 sets. I see no reason to assume Kuerten would do better then Nadal against federer. 2008 was not peak Federer. 2005 - 2007 was.

Do you see the connection?

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Troll much???

Relaaaax. I am sure people will change their minds if there is good enough reason/evidence to do so, based on a healthy level of objectivity.:)

:lol:

Well, like I said, I can't change your opinion. You believe what you believe. But I feel like I have some pretty valid opinions besides "Boo, Roger," and "Yay, everybody else." I feel like I've given Roger his due. It's not like I dispute he's GOAT.

For the record, my intent is not to "troll" Roger. It's just that it appears a lot of the threads in this forum are about Roger, or what he's said regarding other players, or Roger's matches/matchups v other players. Roger in comparison to other sports figure, so I have an opinion about it. :lol:

But Roger as an individual--no. It's not like I'm creating topics to disparage the guy.

Anyway, back on topic...

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 03:10 PM
why not? i thought the question was; who wins when federer plays Kuerten both at their peak? I argued that i see no reason to assume that Kuerten would win in 3 sets since even Nadal needed 4 sets. I see no reason to assume Kuerten would do better then Nadal against federer. 2008 was not peak Federer. 2005 - 2007 was.

Do you see the connection?

You want to excuse 2008 for Federer, yet you don't want acknowledge Kuerten's hip was on the way out from 2001, so highlighting the bagel Fed gave when they played in 2002 and saying Fed wasn't at his peak in 2004.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 03:15 PM
:lol:

Well, like I said, I can't change your opinion. You believe what you believe. But I feel like I have some pretty valid opinions besides "Boo, Roger," and "Yay, everybody else." I feel like I've given Roger his due. It's not like I dispute he's GOAT.

For the record, my intent is not to "troll" Roger. It's just that it appears a lot of the threads in this forum are about Roger, or what he's said regarding other players, or Roger's matches/matchups v other players. Roger in comparison to other sports figure, so I have an opinion about it. :lol:

But Roger as an individual--no. It's not like I'm creating topics to disparage the guy.

Anyway, back on topic...

Like I said, as I accrue more evidence, my view might change. :D

I have seen very few of your posts. :cool:

In fact, I only just noticed your siggy.

Commander Data
06-12-2009, 03:18 PM
You want to excuse 2008 for Federer, yet you don't want acknowledge Kuerten's hip was on the way out from 2001, so highlighting the bagel Fed gave when they played in 2002 and saying Fed wasn't at his peak in 2004.

I did not know when Kuertens Hip problem started, also I have no knowledge about how the problem affected Kuerten in 2002, my memory about Federers level in 2004 is also gone.

Actually my viewpoint is that they never played each other in peak and that their machtes played are close to irrelevant to the question. my opinion is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of their match. I think claiming, that Kuerten would win in 3 has no logic behind it. There has never been a player that beat peak Federer in 3 in a GS in reality, so why would Kuerten? I think it would be a close ecounter.

Burrow
06-12-2009, 03:30 PM
The 30 odd people who voted for Federer are just insane.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 03:39 PM
I did not know when Kuertens Hip problem started, also I have no knowledge about how the problem affected Kuerten in 2002, my memory about Federers level in 2004 is also gone.

Actually my viewpoint is that they never played each other in peak and that their machtes played are close to irrelevant to the question. my opinion is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of their match. I think claiming, that Kuerten would win in 3 has no logic behind it. There has never been a player that beat peak Federer in 3 in a GS in reality, so why would Kuerten? I think it would be a close ecounter.

If you didn't know about it, then why mention the 2002 bagel and forget about the 2004 match? Or you were using selective memory to support one viewpoint, while leaving out other factors which didn't suit that?

Why would it have no logic? You either never watched Kuerten at his peak on clay and are unaware of what ways he could hurt Federer or are so biased to Federer. Roger was not rubbish in 2004 and he lost in straight sets.

This is just an excuse for circle jerk for Federer fans, just like the Nadal ones have been doing for years when it came to a player comparison on clay, that was taken the piss out of by non-Nadal fans.

One thing Federer wouldn't be winning solely from the baseline. This is not saying Federer couldn't beat a peak Kuerten, but the backhand wouldn't stand up over time, stronger ones that Federer's wilted.

Lee
06-12-2009, 03:59 PM
I really don't see the point of who will beat who on what surface if both are at their peaks. :shrug:

Anyway, Guga's hip problem started after his 2001 RG victory. After playing one SA clay tournament in 2002, he had hip surgery but unwisely, he returned to play the Europe clay tournaments missing Monte Carlo. He admitted later that a mistake returning too early. Whether this contributed to his later 2nd hip surgery, we don't know.

Guga played with pain in his hip since then. All Kuerten/Federer matches happened after Guga's hip surgery and before Federer hit his peak performance. Therefore, it's really difficult to say who will best who.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 04:06 PM
I really don't see the point of who will beat who on what surface if both are at their peaks. :shrug:

Anyway, Guga's hip problem started after his 2001 RG victory. After playing one SA clay tournament in 2002, he had hip surgery but unwisely, he returned to play the Europe clay tournaments missing Monte Carlo. He admitted later that a mistake returning too early. Whether this contributed to his later 2nd hip surgery, we don't know.

Guga played with pain in his hip since then. All Kuerten/Federer matches happened after Guga's hip surgery and before Federer hit his peak performance. Therefore, it's really difficult to say who will best who.

It's the my daddy is bigger than your daddy syndrome.

prima donna
06-12-2009, 04:45 PM
You want to excuse 2008 for Federer, yet you don't want acknowledge Kuerten's hip was on the way out from 2001, so highlighting the bagel Fed gave when they played in 2002 and saying Fed wasn't at his peak in 2004.
What about those who have concocted excuses to diminish the bagel, yet seem to have no problem mentioning the straight-set defeat which took place two years after the tournament at which the bagel took place ? Isn't that a double-standard ?

This is coming from someone who has conceded time and time again: Kuerten is the better clay court player. My only conflict is the notion that Roger would have a chance against the likes of Kuerten, yet wouldn't manage to make the final in a decent era because he'd be chopped down to size by a clay court specialist -- even on a good day.

its.like.that
06-12-2009, 04:51 PM
Kuerten was not a god on clay, between 1997 and 2004 (his peak), he lost versus Safin, Medveded, Costa, Robredo and Nalbandian. Federer is more regular, by far. If they had met several years, Federer would have inevitably won sometimes.

2004 was Kuerten's peak?

Lee
06-12-2009, 04:53 PM
2004 was Kuerten's peak?

He had to be at his peak to defeat Roger in straight sets, hadn't he? :angel: :lol:

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 04:57 PM
What about those who have concocted excuses to diminish the bagel, yet seem to have no problem mentioning the straight-set defeat which took place two years after the tournament at which the bagel took place ? Isn't that a double-standard ?

This is coming from someone who has conceded time and time again: Kuerten is the better clay court player. My only conflict is the notion that Roger would have a chance against the likes of Kuerten, yet wouldn't manage to make the final in a decent era because he'd be chopped down to size by a clay court specialist -- even on a good day.


With all due respect, you didn't even know when Guga's hip injuries began. You dismissed my bringing it up as a non-issue.

I don't think anybody has said Guga and Roger met each other in their primes.

Look---Roger is a great player. And if Guga said he "would be the favorite" at RG, maybe it was because he beat Roger in 2004, when the former champ Guga wasn't at his best, and Roger--on-paper--should have beaten him considering his "bagel" defeating Guga in Hamburg and his rising status in tennis.

Guga is a proud champion. He won the French 3 times--even when people didn't give him a shot. And later he beat world #1 Roger when people didn't give Guga much of chance or respect, considering his former success.

But you're right, the reality is that Roger really hadn't peaked in 2004. However Roger was still doing better than Guga considering Roger had won all the grand slams that year and was ranked #1. Nonetheless, Roger hadn't reached his full-potential on-clay at all.

Guga--as a former champion might believe one way. What do you expect him to say? "Yeah the GOAT could wipe the floor with me"!:lol: Plus, he does have a little something to be proud of, stopping Roger's quest for the Grand Slam in 2004.

But realistically, as fans, we can only speculate, and frankly, it's a toss-up.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 05:03 PM
What about those who have concocted excuses to diminish the bagel, yet seem to have no problem mentioning the straight-set defeat which took place two years after the tournament at which the bagel took place ? Isn't that a double-standard ?

This is coming from someone who has conceded time and time again: Kuerten is the better clay court player. My only conflict is the notion that Roger would have a chance against the likes of Kuerten, yet wouldn't manage to make the final in a decent era because he'd be chopped down to size by a clay court specialist -- even on a good day.

Federer gave Kuerten a bagel in 2002. A well past it Kuerten beat the fave at RG in 2004. You want it both ways. Not saying Federer was at his peak and not mentioning decline of Guga and his hip surgery.

It's not about whether Federer would make a final in an era where there are a higher level of claycourt specialists. Of course don't forget they only seeded 16 players then, so many guys who had potential to do well, drew early and knocked themselves out. Just about Guga and Federer, then it's a match up issue, even then not like much was gained. So, it would be about what strengths they can impose on the each other and how they can exploit the weaknesses, in other words like any other match.

its.like.that
06-12-2009, 05:04 PM
[...] only player other than Ferrero to beat Nadal on the surface

Soderling? Andreev? Gaudio? Mutis? Ferrer? Moya? Gonzalez? Lapentti? Corretja? Moya?

Donald Trump is a loser because Bill Gates has a bigger fortune ? In truth, both are wildly successful individuals.

Depends on how you measure success. To a capitalist such as yourself, these two thieves may be heroes, to others, not so much.

theDreamer
06-12-2009, 05:08 PM
Probably Guga more often than not, but I actually believe Federer gets better on clay as the years role on in terms of the strategies he used.

Totally agree.

Hagar
06-12-2009, 05:09 PM
Difficult to say. Peak Guga on clay was fantastic. He is also the more natural claycourter. To be honest, even though Fed played 4 RG finals, of which he won this year's, I never have the feeling that he is a natural claycourter. That was actually what became painfully clear in that match against Guga. Fed for example is not a very natural slider, I think.
But in my opinion, he has made a lot of progress on clay, has probably worked his ass off to be also one of the top players on clay. With as ultimate result the win in Paris this Sunday.

Peak Guga against peak Fed on clay? I think pretty much 50-50.
What a bloody shame it never happened. Oh Guga, I miss him and I find it sad that he was only around for such a short time because of his aching body.

prima donna
06-12-2009, 05:12 PM
With all due respect, you didn't even know when Guga's hip injuries began. You dismissed my bringing it up as a non-issue .
I haven't dismissed anything as a "non-issue." You're looking for an excuse to justify a defeat. Well, Kuerten wasn't good enough to avoid a bagel on that day, must have been the hip problems kicking in. Meanwhile, he was good enough two years after the fact to routine Federer in Paris.

Even so, let's apply your logic for a moment: Kuerten was beyond his peak in 2002 (despite having won Roland Garros in 2001), therefore only positive results count henceforth; any negative results should have an asterisk next to them.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm reality-based, so I have no problem conceding that Kuerten was the better clay court player. Enough of the excuses, accept the fact that your favorite player lost on that particular day.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 05:14 PM
I haven't dismissed anything as a "non-issue." You're looking for an excuse to justify a defeat. Well, Kuerten wasn't good enough to avoid a bagel on that day, must have been the hip problems kicking in. Meanwhile, he was good enough two years after the fact to routine Federer in Paris.

Even so, let's apply your logic for a moment: Kuerten was beyond his peak in 2002 (despite having won Roland Garros in 2001), therefore only positive results count henceforth; any negative results should have an asterisk next to them.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm reality-based, so I have no problem conceding that Kuerten was the better clay court player. Enough of the excuses, accept the fact that your favorite player lost on that particular day.

You didn't even know about Guga's hip injury. You didn't.

It was a reason, not an excuse. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. And if you bothered reading all of my post, I conceded it was a COMBINATION OF FACTORS resulting in Roger's bagel-ing Guga. It was a weird match as far as the score. I mean... Guga came back in the second defeating Roger 1-6--a near bagel. Then he lost 6-2 in the third.

And if you read all of my posts, I did accept the fact Guga lost on a particular day. I just don't know what kind of conclusions one can draw from that matche. I can't draw any solid conclusions from Guga's victory over Roger in 2004, except to give Guga a slight edge regarding the match-up since we are talking about RG and not Hamburg and the fact Guga has won more RG championships than Roger at this point.

mitalidas
06-12-2009, 05:16 PM
Of every 10 matches at peak, I would give Guga about 65% of the wins. His game would not give as much problems to Federer as Nadal's.

prima donna
06-12-2009, 05:28 PM
Federer gave Kuerten a bagel in 2002. A well past it Kuerten beat the fave at RG in 2004. You want it both ways. Not saying Federer was at his peak and not mentioning decline of Guga and his hip surgery.
Both ways ? How many times must I reiterate that Kuerten was simply the better clay court player ? People can't pretend that Kuerten's movement was impaired to such a point that he was paralyzed in Hamburg, yet he moved well enough in Paris to beat Federer.

It's selective memory, nothing out of the ordinary. This is no different than Nadal fans blaming his loss to Soderling on knee problems. Did that hurt him in previous rounds, particularly against Hewitt ? No, yet the moment he loses, people react as though he were wheelchair-bound. I can only imagine what this forum will be like should Nadal win Wimbledon, probably eerily similar to this thread.

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 05:38 PM
Some silly presuppositions are being made here.

*gets the popcorn*

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 05:39 PM
Both ways ? How many times must I reiterate that Kuerten was simply the better clay court player ? People can't pretend that Kuerten's movement was impaired to such a point that he was paralyzed in Hamburg, yet he moved well enough in Paris to beat Federer.

It's selective memory, nothing out of the ordinary. This is no different than Nadal fans blaming his loss to Soderling on knee problems. Did that hurt him in previous rounds, particularly against Hewitt ? No, yet the moment he loses, people react as though he were wheelchair-bound. I can only imagine what this forum will be like should Nadal win Wimbledon, probably eerily similar to this thread.

I know you said that Kuerten is a better player, but for some reason you want to use one and forget the other. First hip surgery in 2001, well considering rehab and the like, lack of matches, even the best players need match practice, so was Guga match tough then? Those are facts, just like the fact he got smoked in 2002. He had his second operation in late 2004, so you can work the timeline out from there. In other words, some posters are worth reading and others aren't.

Considering many Nadal fans are famous for blaming injuries and tiredness on his losses, it's not even relevant anymore.

its.like.that
06-12-2009, 05:47 PM
Some silly presuppositions are being made here.

*gets the popcorn*

May as well *get yourself a plastic bag and put it over your head* instead.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 05:52 PM
Both ways ? How many times must I reiterate that Kuerten was simply the better clay court player ? People can't pretend that Kuerten's movement was impaired to such a point that he was paralyzed in Hamburg, yet he moved well enough in Paris to beat Federer.

It's selective memory, nothing out of the ordinary. This is no different than Nadal fans blaming his loss to Soderling on knee problems. Did that hurt him in previous rounds, particularly against Hewitt ? No, yet the moment he loses, people react as though he were wheelchair-bound. I can only imagine what this forum will be like should Nadal win Wimbledon, probably eerily similar to this thread.

He started having after Roland Garros 2001, feeling bad on US OPEN and losting his plot (and number one) in the end of 2001 to have cirurgy at 2002.
So yes, he faced Federer at 2002 after one cirurgy.
Guga's peak was only two years, 2000-2001, and he played injury free while developing at 1997-1999.
So only five years injury free. Think about that.

^^
This is what ilovetheblues86 posted.

At this point regarding "injuries," there is no comparing Nadal and Guga. So if Nadal loses Wimbledon--unless he's recovering from knee surgery, there is no comparison. At RG, Nadal wasn't coming off surgery either, so there's just no comparison.

After his first hip surgery, Guga faced Roger Federer in 2002. Would you expect Guga just be to playing 100%? In fact, as mentioned in this thread a little later, Guga himself said he came back too early from the first surgery. So to say Guga was playing at 100% in Hamburg is just not accurate. He still may have been playing better than most players. But to take-on Roger at that point, I would imagine Guga lacked some confidence all the way around. Really, it's amazing he came back in the second against Roger, considering everything. He just couldn't sustain that level of play in the third.

But this still doesn't mean Roger didn't deserve to win in 2002. Like I said, Guga could still beat lesser players. But not Roger. So it's not like we aren't giving any credit at all to Roger. It's the circumstances weren't necessarily the best for Guga, that's all.

My goodness.. it doesn't matter to you that Guga had surgery? I mean, as history has shown, he was never quite the same player after his hip surgery. He just wasn't.

BIGMARAT
06-12-2009, 05:59 PM
Guga didn't even able to get to finals consecutively at the french despite not much competetion in his era.

andylovesaustin
06-12-2009, 06:08 PM
Guga didn't even able to get to finals consecutively at the french despite not much competetion in his era.

You're right. He didn't. But how old was he when he won his first French? He was relatively young when he won it--20 years old.

I just think he was overwhelmed a little bit, and didn't know how to handle his early success. He wasn't even expected to compete when he won his first French. As I recall, nobody knew who he was?:confused:

I don't think Guga was like Nadal in that Nadal has had some buzz for long before he ever became successful.

Guga was an unlikely champion, actually--well his first French. And then to come back and win two consecutive after he lost that one in between was pretty impressive.

Matt01
06-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Shut up Guga, you fake annoying has-been, Guga and Fed should even never be written in a same sentence...


Time to get over RG 2004 :wavey:


The 30 odd people who voted for Federer are just insane.


But at least the majority of the people voted correctly :angel:

MatchFederer
06-12-2009, 06:12 PM
May as well *get yourself a plastic bag and put it over your head* instead.

That just doesn't sound like much fun, really. :cool:

mitalidas
06-12-2009, 06:20 PM
The 2004 French contest between these two was a weird one. Federer had a pretty good clay season going into the French, beat Coria, Gaudio, Moya.
Guga struggled a bit (with Almagro) in the first round and then went on to lose to Nalbandian in the quarters or so.

In the R4 match Kuerten was always on top of Federer. Federer was always under pressure, saving break points etc. Each set started badly for him, he was playing catch up throughout. Later Federer complained about wind (not farting, you know...) etc. as being conditions he could not adjust to.

In the end, I think that that day was neither the best that Federer played on clay partly due to his opponent, and it was also not the best that Kuerten played on clay. Kuerten was past his peak then.

GugaF1
06-12-2009, 10:04 PM
I haven't dismissed anything as a "non-issue." You're looking for an excuse to justify a defeat. Well, Kuerten wasn't good enough to avoid a bagel on that day, must have been the hip problems kicking in. Meanwhile, he was good enough two years after the fact to routine Federer in Paris.

Even so, let's apply your logic for a moment: Kuerten was beyond his peak in 2002 (despite having won Roland Garros in 2001), therefore only positive results count henceforth; any negative results should have an asterisk next to them.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm reality-based, so I have no problem conceding that Kuerten was the better clay court player. Enough of the excuses, accept the fact that your favorite player lost on that particular day.



Why do you keep refering to this bagle as it supposed to mean something ? Kuerten had a really off set like top players have from time to time and then in the next set he gave fed (in the same match) a Bread Stick 6-1 right aftetr, so what ? and than the third set went on to be more competetive with both players playing better. This `bagle` is meaningless, had Federer won like 6-0 - 6-2 than OK really expressive win. But this match was a 3 setter with kuerten returning the bagle with a bread stick in the second set, doesn`t that somewhat evens it out ?

This Match in Hamburg Kuerten was just returning from surgery, It was the first tournament that he was able to get a descent result coming back. While Federer was rising having the best year of his career and winning his 1 master serioes tournament on clay. I mean you can`t descount the context as well.

The point is that we can`t really compared Kuerten with Federer on clay neither in 2002 nor in 2004 as well , I agree. It wasn`t a regular peak encounter from both players. I think the only logical think to imagine, it would be a very competetive encounter throughout. And given Kuerten results over his career being a top 4 best player on clay ever, with more expressive results on clay. You got give him some edge, at least logically on clay given the pure results achived. That is the logic I see. And I am huge fan of both players.

sykotique
06-13-2009, 02:12 AM
I think the Federer-Kuerten matches are thoroughly inconclusive. Neither Guga nor Roger were at their best on clay when they played each other, so it's difficult to read anything into the results. However, if you watched the matches, you got an idea of how things might have played out had they been able to play against each other more regularly.

I have no doubt that Guga would probably beat Federer on Roland Garros clay, probably 7 times out of 10 - not complete domination like Nadal has established on the surface, sure Guga would have more weapons to push and pull Federer around the court, but Federer doesn't have a problem with movement. In the end, consistency would win out, here Guga obviously has the edge, also more patience and tactical acumen on the surface; he always knew when to go for the winner, Federer would be impatient.

Federer would win those matches where he played consistently enough to place Guga on the defensive, and he would probably win those matches convincingly too, because his return would allow him to gain supremacy in Guga's service games very easily - hence, the bagel set in '02. However, the bagel set isn't indicative of Federer's superiority, but merely confirms that Federer is a great front runner against everyone except Nadal; if Federer could force Guga on the back foot from early and force him to go for more with his shots, Guga probably would not have the defensive level to go to that Nadal has, in order to withstand the Federer onslaught.

So, yeah, I think Guga would probably win most of their matches, but I think Federer would probably get more straight set victories, believe it or not. Federer would definitely have a better chance to beat Kuerten in the 5 set format, than he would to beat Nadal, because Guga would give him more of a rhythm and allow him to get into the match more.

prima donna
06-13-2009, 02:45 AM
You got give him some edge, at least logically on clay given the pure results achived.
I give up.

BIGMARAT
06-13-2009, 02:57 AM
Federer seems to be, not a natural clay courter only because he is so "GOD" on other surfaces

Forehander
06-13-2009, 04:14 AM
Easily Federer.

TennisGrandSlam
06-13-2009, 06:20 AM
Threat starter should ask

Rafael Nadal plays Pete Sampras (or John McEnroe) in Wimbledon, who win? :devil:

Commander Data
06-13-2009, 12:14 PM
If you didn't know about it, then why mention the 2002 bagel and forget about the 2004 match? Or you were using selective memory to support one viewpoint, while leaving out other factors which didn't suit that?

Why would it have no logic? You either never watched Kuerten at his peak on clay and are unaware of what ways he could hurt Federer or are so biased to Federer. Roger was not rubbish in 2004 and he lost in straight sets.

This is just an excuse for circle jerk for Federer fans, just like the Nadal ones have been doing for years when it came to a player comparison on clay, that was taken the piss out of by non-Nadal fans.

One thing Federer wouldn't be winning solely from the baseline. This is not saying Federer couldn't beat a peak Kuerten, but the backhand wouldn't stand up over time, stronger ones that Federer's wilted.

I have no problem to admit that argueing with the bagle was inappropriate with regards to Kuertens injury, I wasn't aware of that. I also have no problem to admit that Kuerten won in straights against a young but already good Fed.

I would however argue that Fed in 2004 was weaker on clay then Fed in 2006.

My main point is that Fed "in the zone" can take sets off anyone on any surface. Therefore it is foolish to argue that Kuerten would "certainly" have won in 3.

we simply don't know, how they would habe matched up because they never played at peak.

Burrow
06-13-2009, 12:20 PM
I don't understand how this thread has over 10 pages, although it was inevitable.

2004-Roland Garros

Way past peak Kuerten, with hip surgeries HAMMERS Federer who won THREE SLAMS that year and beat very good clay court players that season.

Isn't it obvious?

Action Jackson
06-13-2009, 12:27 PM
I have no problem to admit that argueing with the bagle was inappropriate with regards to Kuertens injury, I wasn't aware of that. I also have no problem to admit that Kuerten won in straights against a young but already good Fed.

I would however argue that Fed in 2004 was weaker on clay then Fed in 2006.

My main point is that Fed "in the zone" can take sets off anyone on any surface. Therefore it is foolish to argue that Kuerten would "certainly" have won in 3.

we simply don't know, how they would habe matched up because they never played at peak.

Fed was far from a clown in 2004 on clay and a well past it Guga was able to beat Federer comfortably, so it's a moot point.

Who is saying certainly?

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 12:32 PM
I don't understand how this thread has over 10 pages, although it was inevitable.

2004-Roland Garros

Way past peak Kuerten, with hip surgeries HAMMERS Federer who won THREE SLAMS that year and beat very good clay court players that season.

Isn't it obvious?


But apparently as stated earlier, the conditions weren't great? Federer didn't like playing in the wind? I guess Guga must have liked it! :lol: Although I don't recall him being particularly fond of windy days either. :shrug: I mean, BOTH players had to deal with playing in not the best conditions.

To be fair though, I don't think Federer "peaked" on clay at that point either. I agree with that assessment.

It's fun to speculate I guess, but we'll just never know.

I wonder who'd win in this match-up: Rafa v Andre Wimbledon! LOL
I'd say Andre.. but I like Andre..:devil:

Macbrother
06-13-2009, 12:39 PM
I don't understand how this thread has over 10 pages, although it was inevitable.

2004-Roland Garros

Way past peak Kuerten, with hip surgeries HAMMERS Federer who won THREE SLAMS that year and beat very good clay court players that season.

Isn't it obvious?

Because basing your entire perspective on one match is at best, shortsighted? And 4-4-4 qualifies as HAMMERED? lol.

Action Jackson
06-13-2009, 12:43 PM
But apparently as stated earlier, the conditions weren't great? Federer didn't like playing in the wind? I guess Guga must have liked it! :lol: Although I don't recall him being particularly fond of windy days either. :shrug: I mean, BOTH players had to deal with playing in not the best conditions.

To be fair though, I don't think Federer "peaked" on clay at that point either. I agree with that assessment.

It's fun to speculate I guess, but we'll just never know.

I wonder who'd win in this match-up: Rafa v Andre Wimbledon! LOL
I'd say Andre.. but I like Andre..:devil:

Do you watch tennis? Guga hated playing in the wind.

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 12:46 PM
Do you watch tennis? Guga hated playing in the wind.

Why are you so confrontational?

I said, I don't recall Guga particularly liked playing in the wind. Geez..

But apparently as stated earlier, the conditions weren't great? Federer didn't like playing in the wind? I guess Guga must have liked it! :lol: Although I don't recall him being particularly fond of windy days either. :shrug: I mean, BOTH players had to deal with playing in not the best conditions.

In an answer to your question, yes I watch tennis, but I don't watch every. single. match. that has ever been played--even by my favorites. And even when I was watching more tennis, Guga's matches weren't that recent. I just don't recall.

Man... geez.

P.S. Since you brought it up, for the record I'm just getting back to watching more tennis. I just lost interest in it for a while because Roger was dominating so much. In fact, I wasn't that interested in Nadal either--until he beat Roger in Wimbledon last year. So I haven't really been keeping up with it as I had in the past.

Burrow
06-13-2009, 12:55 PM
Because basing your entire perspective on one match is at best, shortsighted? And 4-4-4 qualifies as HAMMERED? lol.

I'm pretty sure if Kuerten was able to beat a peak Federer in straight sets, playing as half as well as he did during his prime, he wouldn't have trouble dispatching Federer.

This is the most solid proof anybody can take to wind up a decent perspective.

What do you have to say that Federer wouldn't be beaten by Kuerten? It's all just presumption.

Commander Data
06-13-2009, 01:09 PM
Fed was far from a clown in 2004 on clay and a well past it Guga was able to beat Federer comfortably, so it's a moot point.

Who is saying certainly?

Victory shall be yours :hatoff:

Action Jackson
06-13-2009, 01:10 PM
Why are you so confrontational?

I said, I don't recall Guga particularly liked playing in the win. Geez..


Honestly from what I have read, it seems like you don't watch much tennis, just have an unnatural appreciation for Federer.

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm pretty sure if Kuerten was able to beat a peak Federer in straight sets, playing as half as well as he did during his prime, he wouldn't have trouble dispatching Federer.

This is the most solid proof anybody can take to wind up a decent perspective.

What do you have to say that Federer wouldn't be beaten by Kuerten? It's all just presumption.

^^
See, this is why Guga thinks he would be the favorite. I would imagine in his mind, he's already been there, done that!

I don't think it's arrogance on his part, but more he already beat Roger at RG.

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 01:16 PM
[QUOTE=Action Jackson;8714528]... just have an unnatural appreciation for Federer.QUOTE]


Where have I read that before? :lol:

Because of statements like that, I try not to posts in Roger's threads anymore. I think I gave the wrong impression when I first joined. There are just a lot of threads about Roger in the main forum. It's just tempting to comment, but I don't have an "unnatural" appreciation of him.

But it's true, I don't watch it as much as I used to.

You gotta give me credit: I'm the one in who brought up Guga's hip problems in this thread. I just couldn't recall the timeline. So in the past, I did follow tennis quite a bit.

I do play tennis, too. My mom played tennis so we all played tennis! :lol: But right now, I have a foot injury, soo I can't.

Commander Data
06-13-2009, 01:23 PM
Where have I read that before? :lol:



Indeed funny to read as you had quite some confrontations with FedFans. It seems to me you are rather neutral towards Fed.. Keep your mind open ;)

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 01:31 PM
Indeed funny to read as you had quite some confrontations with FedFans. It seems to me you are rather neutral towards Fed.. Keep your mind open ;)

Actually, that quote was more of an inside joke!

I don't want to turn this thread into a "defending andylovesaustin," discussion. However if you look at the confrontations I've had with Fedfans.. it's not like I've just gone in there bashing. It's usuallly, the bashing has already begun--and it's usually within the context of Rafa v Roger with Fedfans bashing Rafa.

I like Rafa because he has been able to keep tennis a little more interesting v Roger for whatever reason.

I just don't look at Roger as "perfect." But I don't look at any player or athlete as perfect--even Guga. I don't think Rafa's perfect either. And I sure as heck don't think Andy Roddick is perfect! :lol:

And as I have said many, many times.. it's really not so much I want Roger to lose, it's really more I'd like some other players including or besides Rafa to challenge him.

Anyway... back on topic.

P.S. Just to elaborate further, I'd actually like somebody to challenge Rafa, too! I'd like to somebody just out of the blue do very well at Wimbledon, for example, very similar to Guga's success at RG. As a matter of fact, I liked the fact Soderling did well at RG. I missed the Roger v Rafa final, but I still think Soderling created his own little story. And he's worth keeping an eye on...

Billabong
06-13-2009, 01:47 PM
Peak Guga would win I'm pretty sure of that, he was simply unbelievable when at his best (just rewatch the 2001 RG semifinal against Ferrero).. BTW his peak form ended at the US Open 2001, when his hip really started to bother him (QF against Kafelnikov), he was never quite the same after that, but still reached a very good level, especially in RG 2004. But his movement was always hampered... Those who think Guga was at his best in Hamburg 2002, whoaaa come on, it was like Guga's 4th tournament after his first hip surgery, he was nowhere near his best..

However I do think Roger improved A LOT since 2004 RG on clay, he has much better movement and tactics and the result would definitely be closer than RG 2004, but I still give the edge to Guga, given how tremendous his attacking game and movement were on clay at his best..

Lee
06-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Guga definitely doesn't like playing in the wind. He wears contact lenses and windy clay court with blowing dust is nightmare.

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 02:28 PM
Honestly from what I have read, it seems like you don't watch much tennis, just have an unnatural appreciation for Federer.

BTW, apparently I watched it enough to know Guga didn't like playing in the wind and enough to know about his injuries--even within a certain time frame. But I just couldn't exactly recall it.

You didn't even acknowledge you were wrong about what I said concerning Guga and playing in the wind, jumping on me for no reason. You just ignored the fact you either misread or didn't read my entire post. Or you're just looking for something to "jump-on" me about because you don't think I know what I'm talking about?

And I was thinking, is this forum only for people who have been following tennis for a while? Fans new to tennis can't have an opinion--not that I'm a "new" fan, but I'm a relatively "new" fan of this particular era?

Action Jackson
06-13-2009, 02:38 PM
BTW, apparently I watched it enough to know Guga didn't like playing in the wind and enough to know about his injuries--even within a certain time frame. But I just couldn't exactly recall it.

You didn't even apologize for jumping on me for no reason.
You just ignored the fact you either misread or didn't read my entire post. Or you're just looking for something to "jump-on" me about?

And I was thinking, is this forum only for people who have been following tennis for a while? Fans new to tennis can't have an opinion--not that I'm a "new" fan, but I'm a relatively "new" fan of this particular era?

Apologise what for, the unnatural Federer appreciation comment, well it fits. The comments with the Federer dropshots, he needed that shot this year on clay and it worked for him, but all you did was go on about he hits dropshots.

andylovesaustin
06-13-2009, 02:44 PM
Apologise what for, the unnatural Federer appreciation comment, well it fits. The comments with the Federer dropshots, he needed that shot this year on clay and it worked for him, but all you did was go on about he hits dropshots.

No, for the fact that I knew Guga didn't like playing in the wind. You corrected me when I didn't need correcting.

As far as apologies, I edited my post. But I wasn't referring to the "unnatural" Federer comment to begin with. I was referring to the fact that you were WRONG about what I said.
Apology was a bad choice of words on my part, so I changed it to "acknowledge." If you're going to "call-out" somebody, then if you're wrong, I would think the least you can do is to admit it--particularly since you're supposed to be a "mod."

As far as the "unnatural appreciation" of Federer, whatever, dude. Whatever floats your boat.

P.S. About the "dropshot" reference for Roger, it was a JOKE. I have explained it 20 times now! I just thought for a player who once thought dropshots were "cowardly" or "sissy-fied" paraphrasing HIS WORDS, not mine, it was ironic that at the FO he decided to use it so much. As you can see, I dropped the "drop-shot" reference because I got tired getting so much grief over something that was so benign. I was just having some fun with it, but since it bothered so MANY people--particularly Federer fans--I dropped it.

Macbrother
06-13-2009, 08:39 PM
I'm pretty sure if Kuerten was able to beat a peak Federer in straight sets, playing as half as well as he did during his prime, he wouldn't have trouble dispatching Federer.

This is the most solid proof anybody can take to wind up a decent perspective.

What do you have to say that Federer wouldn't be beaten by Kuerten? It's all just presumption.

So because Volandri absolutely crushed Federer (much worse than Keurten) when Federer was in his "prime" (a year he won 3 majors) then we can automatically say Volandri wouldn't have trouble dispatching him?

There are far too many other variables to consider, like was Federer at his best on clay, for instance, at that time, what were the conditions of the day, did Federer play a good match, etc. Federer has gone to 4 consecutive French Open finals, losing only to Nadal, arguably the best or 2nd best clay courter ever who is a horrible matchup, who even he has beaten twice and played great matches against. Despite that, you're going to say Keurten will have no trouble because of one match in '04? "Peak Federer" also lost to Berdych, Henman, and Hrbaty that year, btw.

Anyone can lose a match to anyone at any time. Unfortunately we don't have a comprehensive resume of Keurten versus Federer, so we can only do guesswork. Keurten has the more natural claycourt game and much more hardware, so obviously he must be given the benefit of the doubt here, but I am certainly not going to make sweeping conclusions based off one match.

Burrow
06-13-2009, 08:56 PM
So because Volandri absolutely crushed Federer (much worse than Keurten) when Federer was in his "prime" (a year he won 3 majors) then we can automatically say Volandri wouldn't have trouble dispatching him?

There are far too many other variables to consider, like was Federer at his best on clay, for instance, at that time, what were the conditions of the day, did Federer play a good match, etc. Federer has gone to 4 consecutive French Open finals, losing only to Nadal, arguably the best or 2nd best clay courter ever who is a horrible matchup, who even he has beaten twice and played great matches against. Despite that, you're going to say Keurten will have no trouble because of one match in '04? "Peak Federer" also lost to Berdych, Henman, and Hrbaty that year, btw.

Anyone can lose a match to anyone at any time. Unfortunately we don't have a comprehensive resume of Keurten versus Federer, so we can only do guesswork. Keurten has the more natural claycourt game and much more hardware, so obviously he must be given the benefit of the doubt here, but I am certainly not going to make sweeping conclusions based off one match.

Kuerten is a 3 time RG champion and former world number 1 if you didn't know as opposed to Volandri.

That is another thing, Federer doesn't just lose matches, people need to beat him. (For the odd exception of a few matches over the years)

I don't care what you say but Kuerten at his peak would have more success on clay than Federer at his peak, if Federer was born in 76 and they had regular encounters on clay, I would say Kuerten would win the majority.

But that's what I believe, as it stands, you have nothing much to say otherwise apart from the fact Federer wasn't yet in his peak on clay, although he was pretty damn close.

I don't think for one minute Federer's backhand would hold up against Kuerten's, Kuerten would feed off his weaker wing and hit winners left and right. All of this is presumption though and there could be a chance that everything I've said is wrong, but this is just what I believe.

crude oil
06-13-2009, 09:23 PM
lol...kuerten has also been MP down to michael russell.

so yes kuerten at his absolute best could beat roger federer, but fed would win his fair share of matches against guga.

one thing that never impressed me about guga was his defensive game on clay. he was an outstanding attacker but he was very ordinary when it comes to defense and his movement on clay is not as good as nadal and maybe even federer. if guga is having a bad day on the offense, he will most likely lose.

crude oil
06-13-2009, 09:26 PM
So because Volandri absolutely crushed Federer (much worse than Keurten) when Federer was in his "prime" (a year he won 3 majors) then we can automatically say Volandri wouldn't have trouble dispatching him?

There are far too many other variables to consider, like was Federer at his best on clay, for instance, at that time, what were the conditions of the day, did Federer play a good match, etc. Federer has gone to 4 consecutive French Open finals, losing only to Nadal, arguably the best or 2nd best clay courter ever who is a horrible matchup, who even he has beaten twice and played great matches against. Despite that, you're going to say Keurten will have no trouble because of one match in '04? "Peak Federer" also lost to Berdych, Henman, and Hrbaty that year, btw.

Anyone can lose a match to anyone at any time. Unfortunately we don't have a comprehensive resume of Keurten versus Federer, so we can only do guesswork. Keurten has the more natural claycourt game and much more hardware, so obviously he must be given the benefit of the doubt here, but I am certainly not going to make sweeping conclusions based off one match.

federer was nowhere near his peak on clay in 2004.

his peak started around 2006.

so yes i agree with u

Lebeuf
06-13-2009, 09:38 PM
Federer probably

Andi-M
06-13-2009, 10:09 PM
Its easy to over hype players of past. Kuerten was fantastic claycourter but a Peak Fed would beat him 70% of the time on clay and 98% of the time on anything else.

Manon
06-13-2009, 10:16 PM
Hopefully Guga.

dj_mercury
06-13-2009, 10:29 PM
In the only match they played at RG in 2004, Guga was serving out of his mind if I remember well and Fed potential on clay was still questioned by a lot of people. He lost to Costa in that year in Rome in 3 sets and was coming from the shocking straight set defeat handled him by Horna the year before in the RG first round. I think a lot of you are underrating how Federer has improved in the last few years on clay, maybe at the expenses of his attacking play on the faster surfaces.

Dini
06-13-2009, 10:41 PM
14 pages?! :speakles:

Fedex
06-13-2009, 11:19 PM
Kuerten, but Federer would get his fair share of wins against him on clay. They did split their two clay court meetings.

sawan66278
06-14-2009, 12:38 AM
People SEVERELY underrate Guga as a player. He was a fantastic hard court player, and had some of THE best passing shots in the game (see his second round match against Miryni at the U.S. Open in 2001...one of the best matches of all time).

I'm telling you...even on hard courts (or the slower grass), Guga would have given Federer fits. What exactly could Federer attack? Guga's one-handed backhand may very well have been the best one-handed offensive backhand in history...his forehand was lethal...his movement was excellent...and his serve was huge. Exactly HOW MANY players have defeated Pete and Andre back to back and won the title? ONE. Guga...and he did it clinch the #1 ranking...on an indoor court...nuff said.

Macbrother
06-14-2009, 01:44 AM
Kuerten is a 3 time RG champion and former world number 1 if you didn't know as opposed to Volandri.

That is another thing, Federer doesn't just lose matches, people need to beat him. (For the odd exception of a few matches over the years)

I don't care what you say but Kuerten at his peak would have more success on clay than Federer at his peak, if Federer was born in 76 and they had regular encounters on clay, I would say Kuerten would win the majority.

But that's what I believe, as it stands, you have nothing much to say otherwise apart from the fact Federer wasn't yet in his peak on clay, although he was pretty damn close.

I don't think for one minute Federer's backhand would hold up against Kuerten's, Kuerten would feed off his weaker wing and hit winners left and right. All of this is presumption though and there could be a chance that everything I've said is wrong, but this is just what I believe.

I said Keurten has the hardware, no need to mention his credentials. :) My point was, people can play a bad match, or be beaten by the better player of the day, even if they are in their so-called "prime," which it's obviously heavily in dispute whether Federer had truly mastered the surface or not, as he really didn't start to come on until '06, when he lost ONLY to Nadal. I agree with you, Keurten would probably have more success at his peak, he doesn't have a stroke that breaks down, moves well, solid forehand and arguably the greatest single-hander in the last 35 years, not to mention pretty good touch and an excellent first serve.

However, that said, that doesn't mean Federer couldn't play super aggressive, control the rallies with his forehand, get to net, Keurten doesn't have nearly the defensive capability of Federer and certainly isn't close to Nadal in that category. It's much more of a question mark in my mind and I certainly don't think he'll be "hammered" or "easily dispatched," far lesser players have done damage to Keurten on the surface during his prime, it's ludicrous to assert Federer couldn't cause him troubles.

straitup
06-14-2009, 03:48 AM
I do think Guga would win the majority of the matches on clay against Federer...but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be close. In 2002 they also played on clay, and Federer won 6-0 1-6 6-2...now I didn't really pay attention to tennis much back then but it was a QF of Hamburg so Kuerten must've been playing solid.

But Guga should have the edge because his game is tailored for the clay and he was such a beautiful player to watch on the dirt. He hit with power and spin, was consistent, the beautiful backhand, and had a solid serve. And his return is helped on clay because I remember watching his match in Miami against Sampras, and he struggled returning because he couldn't wind up his strokes as well. But Federer has game to beat Guga as well...if Federer is on, then he has a great chance to beat an in-form Kuerten

Action Jackson
06-14-2009, 09:04 AM
I love how people include matches that aren't relevant at all to a Federer-Kuerten match up.

So and so beat Guga, this player beat Federer. Considering the match ups for the most part are entirely different, makes even less sense.

For once a MTF poll result makes sense, the last time it happened when Lendl was considered greater than Agassi.

L James
06-14-2009, 11:30 AM
Of course Federer

leng jai
06-14-2009, 11:43 AM
I love how people include matches that aren't relevant at all to a Federer-Kuerten match up.

So and so beat Guga, this player beat Federer. Considering the match ups for the most part are entirely different, makes even less sense.

For once a MTF poll result makes sense, the last time it happened when Lendl was considered greater than Agassi.

This is so obvious not even MTF can screw it up.