Will Roger Federer ever win Roland Garros? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Roger Federer ever win Roland Garros?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-13-2004, 06:17 AM
Since Roger has already won 3 of the Slams, and now the French Open is his holy grail.

Can Roger eventually win the French Open? Please give reasons for your respective answers?

Dirk
09-13-2004, 06:32 AM
Roger moves great on clay and can still do everything he can elsewhere on the clay surface. With all of his variety he can control the groundies as he sees fit. Rogi is also patient which is a trait one needs. At the age of 22 Rogi has pulled in 4 clay titles to his name and 2 of them are big ones. I say he can win it once maybe twice in his career provided he has a long career. When you make up a list of the top five 5 players right now Rogi has to be in there as one of them. Once he gets more adjusted to Center Court there I think he will be very tough to stop.

FryslanBoppe
09-13-2004, 06:35 AM
Yes, Roger can win at Roland Garros though it will be that much harder, as for one there are more players capable of beating him on this surface than say the US Open or Wimbledon.

He has won 2 TMS titles on the surface and lost a final in Rome. I hope he does play more clay events next season and these next 2 years probably will be his best chance to do so.

Roger needs to hit more dropshots, and keep a level temperament and not get pissed off, and I am still yet to see him grind out a 5 set victory at RG, which is something that he needs to be capable of doing, but hasn't done it yet.

Ferrero Forever
09-13-2004, 06:58 AM
i think that next year the great clay players (ferrero, coria etc) will be back in full form and will not let federer get the title. I think that he will get far, but he won't win it. Besides the other players need to be able to have at least 1 tournament up for grabs

Richard Cranium
09-13-2004, 07:01 AM
Of course Federer is capable of winning the French Open, and I love to see him triumph at Roland Garros, but somehow I just see him missing out maybe making a final and not winning it.

As has been mentioned it's the lack of patience at RG that really cost him dearly, he needs to get fitter and be prepared to slug out tough victories against guys who are not going to give him anything. It's harder for him to play bad on this surface and get away with it.

Already he has shown his abilities on his worst surface, but he has to come to terms with the centre court at RG, the court is the same for both players. Then again he has won Hamburg, which is slower than RG, so it's more of a mental thing.

I want to be proven wrong in the biggest way, just hope that Roger believes he can win there.

Richard Cranium
09-13-2004, 07:02 AM
i think that next year the great clay players (ferrero, coria etc) will be back in full form and will not let federer get the title. I think that he will get far, but he won't win it. Besides the other players need to be able to have at least 1 tournament up for grabs

He has beaten Ferrero and Coria on clay and it wasn't lucky, plus it's over a career and not just next year.

Ferrero Forever
09-13-2004, 07:06 AM
yep, thats true. i like federer so i wouldnt' mind if he wins, but i'd like to see some different people get some titles too.

landoud
09-13-2004, 07:08 AM
he can win it.. that's 4 sure
he won 3 slams in one year, 23 successive matches and 3 successive tittles in 3 different surfaces... he is a true champion.. he can do it

Daniel
09-13-2004, 07:19 AM
yes, he can and he will :D

Nymeria
09-13-2004, 07:25 AM
Yes he can win the FO, I don't know when and it will be hard! But I'm sure he can win in the future. He proved to be able to win GStournies and he proved to be able to win Clay-tournies. So why wouldn't he be able to win the FO? I don't expect him to win next year coz his results at the FO are not that good yet, but on the other hand before this year he never get passed the 4th round at USO as well. So well, I just know that he'll be able to win in the future!

Smankyou
09-13-2004, 07:29 AM
Sure he can. He just has to break through the barricade of talented Argentineans first. That's all. ;)

Ferrero Forever
09-13-2004, 07:31 AM
Sure he can. He just has to break through the barricade of talented Argentineans first. That's all. ;)

and spaniards, especially one named ferrero

Smankyou
09-13-2004, 07:40 AM
Ferrero Shmerrero :p

Hingie
09-13-2004, 07:48 AM
i think that next year the great clay players (ferrero, coria etc) will be back in full form and will not let federer get the title. I think that he will get far, but he won't win it. Besides the other players need to be able to have at least 1 tournament up for grabs

Well the question was CAN HE, not will he next year right? And my answer is, definitely. He's beaten plenty of top clay courters, and he has a great game for clay. Patience is what he needs to develop, and once he develops that on a clay court while playing the very best on clay, he'll be able to win the French. I have no doubt that he CAN do it.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 07:49 AM
He has beaten Coria and Gaudio. Rogi needs to win seven matches. He doesn't have to play every fucking spanish and south american dirtballer on tour to win it. You don't beat Andre and Hewitt multiple times over without patience and he didn't turn his head to head with David around without patience either.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 07:50 AM
Oh and check out his 01 Rg activity on ATP. He won a 5 setter from down 2 sets to love.

Richard Cranium
09-13-2004, 08:06 AM
Oh and check out his 01 Rg activity on ATP. He won a 5 setter from down 2 sets to love.

Gaudio did that in 1999, but it look how long it took him and this someone who is at his best on clay.

I like Federer a lot, but on clay, you have to sometimes play ugly to win matches and yes, I am aware he has beaten nearly every good player on clay, but so had Sampras in his career and it didn't help him at the venue.

It's not just Coria and Gaudio, there are plenty of others who can take out Roger, if he is not ready to play and grind out wins.

Richard Cranium
09-13-2004, 08:08 AM
You don't beat Andre and Hewitt multiple times over without patience and he didn't turn his head to head with David around without patience either.

You know clay is a totally different mindset and tactically, perfect example of what I am talking about is Federer's loss to Mantilla in Rome, that's the kind of patience I am talking about, he even said it himself that it was boring in that match. He had chances in every set, but let himself get frustrated, and no Mantilla was not lucky in this match.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 08:10 AM
Rogi has won plenty of matches when he is not playing his best or even well. He beat Gaudio is horrible conditions in Hamburg this year. To not put Federer in the fave circle for RG for the next few years is foolish. Go ahead and be ignorant. I don't care, reason will only take people so far and this sampras comparison needs to stop because they are nothing like each other on clay.

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-13-2004, 08:11 AM
I decided to change the question from can to will win the French Open? I am happy that people are thinking about this question, and as we know this is his big challenge and I want Rogi to take the challenge seriously and win at Roland Garros. I think the French would like someone to make a victory speech in French.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 08:11 AM
Yep and Rogi is still that same Rogi from 02. :rolleyes:

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-13-2004, 08:15 AM
At least the players that Federer have lost to at RG are ones that can actually play on the surface unlike certain ducks. He has never got past the quarters when he lost to Corretja, but that was a while ago and it's time to improve. The thing is he really needs to be at his best on this surface, those 2 finals performances in Hamburg were outstanding and that's the level he has to play at against the best on clay.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 08:17 AM
Who knows if he will or not but he can win it. I don't see him not winning it at some point in his career unless he gets injuried.

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 08:37 AM
Who knows if he will or not but he can win it. I don't see him not winning it at some point in his career unless he gets injuried.

I really hope he can win it one day and join the rare select few that have won all the Slams, yes his health is more important and as long as he keeps improving, then we will able to see, but somehow I see an Edberg like episode like losing the final.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 08:41 AM
He could always make more than one final. I remember Mac saying Rogi was like Edberg and wouldn't win the Open til late in his career. Looks like somebody was wrong.

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 08:42 AM
He could always make more than one final. I remember Mac saying Rogi was like Edberg and wouldn't win the Open til late in his career. Looks like somebody was wrong.

Johnny well if he was right, then you hear about it for weeks on end.

G O
09-13-2004, 09:06 AM
Sure he can. He just has to break through the barricade of talented Argentineans first. That's all. ;)


What? Who? Your joking right?

You derserve this Smankypanky.

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 09:21 AM
What? Who? Your joking right?

You derserve this Smankypanky.

:wavey: trollboy and my favourite xenophobe.

You couldn't resist having a dig at the Argentines, even the ones that speak English, you are consistent and that's a good thing.

How about answering the thread question, lets see if you can do it. :)

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 09:25 AM
Roger has a very good chance of winning it, though I am not sure of his self-belief as he has said in the past about the problems he has on Court Chartrier, if he is worried about that, it won't help him at all. In theory the faster conditions at RG should help him, but hasn't so far.

He has outstanding movement, though his backhand can be exposed on clay, and he can't just finish off the points as efficiently as he does on the faster surfaces.

G O
09-13-2004, 09:35 AM
:wavey: trollboy and my favourite xenophobe.

You couldn't resist having a dig at the Argentines, even the ones that speak English, you are consistent and that's a good thing.

How about answering the thread question, lets see if you can do it. :)

Is that your favorite word, xenophobe?

I don't have a problem with the Gauchos. Stop being a paranoid ass. :p

The Gauchos are way, way over-rated. Coria is an injury prone choker, that is a fact, but he'll still be a threat. Gaudio is a one-hit wonder, he'll do well but he won't win it again. Who else is there? Nalbandian isn't as good on dirt, but that pretty good, but not champion stuff. Uhhh, let's see, Canas, he's good for a few rounds at best. Chela same as Canas.

But I'll answer the question. :eek:

Federer will win because he's Federer. :worship:

Cervantes
09-13-2004, 09:37 AM
Sure, he can win it, I think next year he will be a major contender, cause it will be one of his top goals to win the French, unlike this year. Also Roger is nearly unbeatable in the latter stages of a tournament, especially a big tournament like Roland Garros. So if he reaches the quarters next year, I think he will win it no matter who he plays.

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 09:40 AM
Wha's your thing with the Gauchos dude? I don't worship them, but you trigger happy folk don;t like that too much. You gotta let go of the speaking english thing ok.

I can answere the question. I'll destroy anything you say.

Nothing at all, it's not important at all as whether you worship them or not, and I don't worship them either, no one is deserving of being worshipped. When someone like yourself goes on around with the speak English or die attitude, when there are many people here who don't speak English as a first language, yet have a higher level than yourself, it's at times funny and at others offensive, depending on the mood.

You brag about how you are journalist. Writing for the school newspaper does not count as journalism, and I am still waiting for your contribution.

Kristen
09-13-2004, 09:40 AM
Possibly not. You know why? Because Roger is a sweet and decent guy, and likes to give the others a shot at winning a slam! :lol: Roger, you're too kind ;)
:wavey:

G O
09-13-2004, 09:51 AM
Nothing at all, it's not important at all as whether you worship them or not, and I don't worship them either, no one is deserving of being worshipped. When someone like yourself goes on around with the speak English or die attitude, when there are many people here who don't speak English as a first language, yet have a higher level than yourself, it's at times funny and at others offensive, depending on the mood.

You brag about how you are journalist. Writing for the school newspaper does not count as journalism, and I am still waiting for your contribution.


Perez, don't be like everyone else, ok. You just make yourself look kinda immature. You need to listen to what people say before you get emotional and react. Mom always said to listen to people before you speak.

I never said i was a journalist. I said I was "media". And I am a grunt who is happy to be a part of it. That is all. Don't be stupid :rolleyes:

"Speak english or die"? What? Dude your starting to scare me. You need some rest Perez, I worry about you, just take it easy.

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 09:59 AM
Perez, don't be like everyone else, ok. You just make yourself look kinda immature. You need to listen to what people say before you get emotional and react. Mom always said to listen to people before you speak.

I never said i was a journalist. I said I was "media". And I am a grunt who is happy to be a part of it. That is all. Don't be stupid :rolleyes:

Just calling out your rubbish, makes me immature, while thank you wise one. Most of what you say is humorous, though whether you mean that or not is another story, which I am not going to speculate on.

There are plenty of outlets within the media, and no, you are not a copy boy or graphic compositor, and since you seem to think you have all this all-purpose knowledge, come out and show some of this, it will be interesting to read.

Speak English or die, that's a great slogan for you.

Gandalf
09-13-2004, 10:00 AM
He can. If everyone is healthy/at top of their form/etc it will be difficult for him, but he can also have a nice draw...I certainly favour him more than I favoured Gaudio this year, or Costa in 2002.

More than his opponents, I would worry for whether not winning RG gets into his mind and prevents him from playing his best.

G O
09-13-2004, 10:01 AM
Higher level? Of paranoia maybe? Cool down Perez, you getting emotional and I don't know where these attacks are coming from. Be cool.

Auscon
09-13-2004, 10:08 AM
He has the tools to do it, but I dont think he'll win it for a couple of years yet

Coria will be back with a vengence next year, and the competition at Roland Garros could possibly get more and more intense in the next few years, as there may be some players deciding to put more focus on clay seeing as Rogers dominating everything else :)

PerezRoldan
09-13-2004, 10:13 AM
Higher level? Of paranoia maybe? Cool down Perez, you getting emotional and I don't know where these attacks are coming from. Be cool.

Still waiting for the answer to the thread question I am interested in hearing it S.O.D.

G O
09-13-2004, 10:18 AM
Still waiting for the answer to the thread question I am interested in hearing it S.O.D.


Why the acronym? You can say it :eek:

I told you already my friend with the good ears. Federer will win because he's Federer. Another words he's God. God is one who becomes, that is he can do what he wants, when he wants. It's very simple Roger is God. :worship:

Fergie
09-13-2004, 12:57 PM
Yes, Roger can ... All depends of his motivation to win ;)

speedracer
09-13-2004, 01:43 PM
If Henman can reach semi, Roger can win the whole thing, lol.

Seriously, it probably would be hard for him to make a a decision to concentrate on FO because a long run there might ruin his performance at Wimbledon, where his chances a lot better.

Fumus
09-13-2004, 01:53 PM
I am sure he will win it atleast a few times. It just requires that he plays well throughout the tournement because there are sooo many tricky clay courters.

Fondueischguät
09-13-2004, 02:17 PM
He has the capabilities of winning the French Open, but in reality it would eat him inside if he wasn't able to win the French Open at least once before his career is over. Sure he has great potential and possibilities to win the other Slams apart from Wimbledon more than once, I want Roger to play a proper claycourt schedule and that means not skipping Monte Carlo and give himself the possible chance of winning the title.

loveit
09-13-2004, 02:21 PM
I am sure Roger will win Roland Garros since he is a great all surface player. I love watching him play...

Fondueischguät
09-13-2004, 02:26 PM
Why the acronym? You can say it :eek:

I told you already my friend with the good ears. Federer will win because he's Federer. Another words he's God. God is one who becomes, that is he can do what he wants, when he wants. It's very simple Roger is God. :worship:

Interesting reasons, though athiests of the world wouldn't believe them, even if they love and admire Federer's game.

RogiFan88
09-13-2004, 03:31 PM
Rogi can win RG if he engages a clay specialist coach for the purpose... he does need some strategy to beat the myriad of "claycourters" out there who w be more than happy to beat him on the red stuff of Paris... it w also help for him to play BCN where many of the top guys are!

RonJeremy
09-13-2004, 03:35 PM
Roger definitely needs a different strategy to win at RG. I am not sure whether he could do it the Yannick Noah way serve/volleying his way to the title, though I think he should do more of it on clay, to keep some of the top claycourt players off balance, nothing they like more than good long rallies, he has the ability to adapt to the surface and can't use the he doesn't like the centre court excuse for his recent failings.

RogiFan88
09-13-2004, 03:40 PM
I decided to change the question from can to will win the French Open? I am happy that people are thinking about this question, and as we know this is his big challenge and I want Rogi to take the challenge seriously and win at Roland Garros. I think the French would like someone to make a victory speech in French.

We're on the same wavelength! I w love to see ROgi win RG if only to hear him speak in French again... and yes, as someone mentioned, ROGI has to BELIEVE that he can win it... be serious and focus on this goal, which he isn't yet thinking about... wait til the season is over...

Yep, you can bet Guille will be back w a vengeance after all his well-laid plans went awry to the unlikely Gato...!

WyveN
09-13-2004, 03:47 PM
Roger definetly has the ability to win the FO and would probably be a favourite in any individual match on clay apart from perhaps peak Ferrero (Juan has a long way to go before he can prove he can reach that peak again).

What Roger needs is a easy ride to the QF, allowing him to get used to the court and play his best tennis as on clay there are a lot of guys who can beat him if he is not at his best. For example if Roger draws Costa in the first round of the FO like he did in the US Open then I think he is in for some problems.

Roger showed he can play with the right mix of patience/aggression in Hamburg so I really do think it is a matter of luck of the draw, getting some confidence on center court and taking the opportunity when he will inevitably make it to the second week there eventually.

RonJeremy
09-13-2004, 03:49 PM
We're on the same wavelength! I w love to see ROgi win RG if only to hear him speak in French again... and yes, as someone mentioned, ROGI has to BELIEVE that he can win it... be serious and focus on this goal, which he isn't yet thinking about... wait til the season is over...

Obviously, it's a fair way off, but this is the big challenge for him. I wonder he should only play 4 more tournaments this season, and then prepare for 2005. Where is the Duck contribution to this thread, ah I forgot this is a serious tennis question. :)

Yep, you can bet Guille will be back w a vengeance after all his well-laid plans went awry to the unlikely Gato...!

Not just Coria, Ferrero as well, but there are many other players capable of stopping Roger on clay, well El Gato had him in stitches in Hamburg, before the choking episodes came his way and Roger was able to come through there.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 04:04 PM
Coria is like Hewitt he can't out winner Rogi he can only error him to death so the fate of the match lies in Rogi's hands. I am sure Rogi will have a coach next year and he will do some things differently and yes S&V on about 25% of his serves is a good idea.

WyveN
09-13-2004, 04:08 PM
I am sure Rogi will have a coach next year

I am not so sure, why would he risk changing things with the way this year has went, if he starts losing all of a sudden the media will shred the coach even if he is not to blame.

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-13-2004, 04:17 PM
Roger definitely needs a different strategy to win at RG. I am not sure whether he could do it the Yannick Noah way serve/volleying his way to the title, though I think he should do more of it on clay, to keep some of the top claycourt players off balance, nothing they like more than good long rallies, he has the ability to adapt to the surface and can't use the he doesn't like the centre court excuse for his recent failings.

I agree that he needs to mix it up and serve/volley more on the surface, than he has in the past to have more success on clay, he can't do it all the time, but definitely more than he has. In spite of this for a guy who has clay as his worst surface, he is already better than Sampras on the red stuff.

As for a coach, he could use one on a part-time basis especially for the clay season, but WyveN is right that the coach might be hung out to dry, when the inevitable levelling off the results happen. Roger is no rush to get one, and should wait.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 04:19 PM
Rogi has said he will have a coach for 05.

RogiFan88
09-13-2004, 04:58 PM
I'd much rather have Juanqui back w a vengeance than Guille but whatever... my dream RG F w be Rogi v. Juanqui... whoever wins will make me happy in my dreams...

FryslanBoppe
09-13-2004, 05:05 PM
I'd much rather have Juanqui back w a vengeance than Guille but whatever... my dream RG F w be Rogi v. Juanqui... whoever wins will make me happy in my dreams...

So would I, but there are definitely other players that could test and beat Rogi at RG. I wonder if Ferrero will use the "pression" against Roger.

I had my dream result this year all ready at RG, though I would be cheering very loudly for Federer, if he plays nearly anyone else but two players.

Just hope Roger doesn't rush to get a new coach, it seems many people forget that Peter Carter and Peter Lundgren laid such an excellent base, and now he is benefitting.

Lee
09-13-2004, 05:25 PM
I have no doubt Roger will win the French Open. The question is when? He has the game and he has proved he can play on clay. He is more determined now as RG crown is the only one eluded him. A good draw, not facing low rank clay court specialists in early round, will definitely help.

maratski
09-13-2004, 06:23 PM
Roger has proved he can play on clay and I believe he can win RG, but just once in his career. I think Roger might need a year or 5 before achieving it. The belief to win RG will not just come in one claycourt season imo, it needs to grow year after year. Ferrero, Coria and some others will make life very hard on him and I think one day he can beat them. Whether that will be because of his superb play or the fact that they have an off day remains to be seen.

Dirk
09-13-2004, 06:32 PM
How many wins does Coria and JC have over Rogi on clay? Yeah thought so. JC has a shot because he can be offensive and challenge Rogi. Coria relies on errors to get by and counter punching so he is already an underdog even though he is magical.

maratski
09-13-2004, 06:40 PM
Federer and Ferrero only played once on clay in 2003. Federer won in straight sets in Rome.

Federer and Coria also only played once on clay. It was the Hamburg final, which Federer won.

My comments about Ferrero and Coria in my previous post are based on the fact that these players have good credentials on clay in case you missed that point :)

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 06:48 PM
Federer has the potential to win Roland Garros, but in the early rounds it would help his cause to meet some claycourt gimps, too bad Roddick's ranking is not done by surface, then he could meet Roger in the 1st round.

If he is to win it, I can only see him winning it once, but that would be enough. As has been said before, he would need some tactical changes, get over his centre court phobia, be prepared to play ugly and battle for hours to win matches against guys with less ability, but more claycourt nous and endurance, there are plenty of contenders that can make Federer's life a difficulty, as much as Arazi and Horna are good on the dirt, Roger should be beating guys like this at the biggest clay tournament.

maratski
09-13-2004, 06:50 PM
RG is the biggest clay tournament for everyone so don't be surprised if he gets beaten there. ;)

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 06:55 PM
RG is the biggest clay tournament for everyone so don't be surprised if he gets beaten there. ;)

I won't be surprised, but some others might be and claim it was a fix, or the other player cheated and got lucky. :)

maratski
09-13-2004, 06:57 PM
I won't be surprised, but some others might be and claim it was a fix, or the other player cheated and got lucky. :)

That sounds like a theory that came straight from wtaworld :haha:

I won't be surprised either and definitely wasn't surprised when Hicham beat Roger at RG in 2002.

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 07:02 PM
That sounds like a theory that came straight from wtaworld :haha:

I won't be surprised either and definitely wasn't surprised when Hicham beat Roger at RG in 2002.

wta world that cesspool of excrement.

Yes, well Arazi can play on clay and has made the QFs twice there in Paris, but since Roger is supposed to be the man, he should be able to handle these tough tests in the early rounds. I mean I would be worried if he lost to Rusedski and Ginepri in the 1st round for 2 years in a row.

maratski
09-13-2004, 07:05 PM
Roger had just trashed Marat in Hamburg and came to Paris full of confidence :lol:

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 07:08 PM
If Roger played on clay like he did that day against Marat, no one is defeating him.

maratski
09-13-2004, 07:11 PM
I agree with you on that.

RogiFan88
09-13-2004, 08:27 PM
HI Maratski!

Marat s win RG one day... he can play on clay! Can you imagine an RG final betw Marat and Rogi OR Marat and Juanqui?!! OMG! I'm sure Marat feels he can beat Juanqui for sure... probably Rogi too.

For Rogi, it's part mental and part strategy... he has to improve both esp mentally in order to have a chance to win RG. Too many wily clay players out there w strategy, endurance, patience and experience and smarts, like Costa.

maratski
09-13-2004, 08:34 PM
Marat v Juanca is my dream RG final. If only Marat wouldn't underestimate his opponent on that occassion :o

RogiFan88
09-13-2004, 08:39 PM
lol, maratski! wish Marat w come back and be a force on the tour... I miss him...

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 08:40 PM
Marat will always win the best quotes, though he can't seem to get over Federer.

RogiFan88
09-13-2004, 08:41 PM
love your siggy btw maratski!!!

Marat ne peut pas etre serieux... il est juste Marat!

maratski
09-13-2004, 08:41 PM
I miss him too. I've seen tons of pics of him practising, which should indicate he means business, but that theorie is outdated :sad:

maratski
09-13-2004, 08:42 PM
Marat will always win the best quotes, though he can't seem to get over Federer.

For some reason he has always been spanked on court by Federer

maratski
09-13-2004, 08:43 PM
love your siggy btw maratski!!!

Marat ne peut pas etre serieux... il est juste Marat!

Je l'aime comme ça, il est unique :)

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 08:43 PM
For some reason he has always been spanked on court by Federer

Roger knows how to play him, and the fact they genuinely like each other doesn't always help, for example he would fight more against Duck, than Roger.

ae wowww
09-13-2004, 08:50 PM
pete s never got it!

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 08:51 PM
pete s never got it!

When was this ever about Sampras? Federer is already a better player on clay than Sampras ever was.

ae wowww
09-13-2004, 08:59 PM
allright, dont get angry Supersonik... its not personal is it.. calm down mate---> federer is often compared to Sampras, and both players have neither ever won the FO... just a point. but obviously you didnt like it. im sorry

Sparkz
09-13-2004, 09:01 PM
Yes he sure will, in the next 3 years I would say.

Supersonik
09-13-2004, 09:01 PM
allright, dont get angry Supersonik... its not personal is it.. calm down mate---> federer is often compared to Sampras, and both players have neither ever won the FO... just a point. but obviously you didnt like it. im sorry

It's nothing personal and it's lazy to compare the two, there are many differences, it's just people focus on the similarities.

Federer is actually a chance to win and Sampras never was, and the question relates to Federer.

makro120
09-13-2004, 09:24 PM
Federer better not face Guga, he dominates players completely from the baseline on clay.

Ferrero, Moya and Coria is nothing against a Guga in form on clay, if he is on form he is the best clay court player in the world. He should have won RG this year, he just didn't manage to win important points against Nabaldian which is unusual for Guga.

maratski
09-13-2004, 09:26 PM
I hate to break it to you, but with another hip surgery coming up, I doubt he'll come back to his old level of play :sad:

RonJeremy
09-13-2004, 09:29 PM
If anyone knows anything about tennis would know that Gaudio handled Federer in Hamburg, but his nerve gave out as he chocked and that was the same in Montreal as well, and if anyone discounts Gaudio on a claycourt, then there isn't really much to say about that.

He is one of the best claycourt players and if people don't think that he has very good records against the best on the surface except for Corretja and Rios. Guga's time has passed sadly, but is always a threat and there are others that can cause Federer problems.

Leo
09-13-2004, 09:34 PM
He has beaten Ferrero and Coria on clay and it wasn't lucky, plus it's over a career and not just next year.

Ferrero was injured and retired mid-way through the match. :wavey:

Anyway, this is definitely a possibility for Federer. What's holding him back is that he is not always patient and he doesn't always seem willing to grind out a tough 5-set victory on the dirt. His effort against Kuerten this year was very lackluster.

sol
09-13-2004, 09:39 PM
I hate to break it to you, but with another hip surgery coming up, I doubt he'll come back to his old level of play :sad:
Guga said that won’t be made another surgery and that also he’ll play an exhibition tournament at Sao Paulo this week, and then both TMS tournaments and St. Petersburg. Obviously, Guga has lost mobility and his game is not the same. We'll see!

Roger did reach QF at RG '01 losing to Corretja who was the eventual runner-up. His game has enhanced considerably these days in the mental part, and with a decent draw maybe he has possibilities.

RonJeremy
09-13-2004, 09:39 PM
Ferrero was getting well beaten and decided to retire in that match, but he is a threat to Roger, as there are many other players as well.

Aphex
09-13-2004, 10:22 PM
Yes, it's mainly a mental hurdle and I think he will cross it like he's done before with other ones.

Crazy_Fool
09-13-2004, 10:29 PM
I think he can yeah, but the problem he may have on clay is that if he doesn't play at his best, there are so many players who can beat him compared to hard/grass courts. If he wants to win, he'll have to be prepared for some hard matches, winning ugly, toughing it out. Its gonna be difficult for him because its not really in his nature but i can see him doing it sometime in the future.

makro120
09-13-2004, 10:40 PM
I think Guga will manage to fight for a last Roland GArros next year, 2006 or maybe 2007. You should not count him out, he still can beat any player in the world any given day on clay and there is a special aura around him in Roland Garros. Obviously, he could have won against Nalbandian if he had not been broken back by stupid unforced errors in the 3rd and 4th set.

Guga also has won against players like Coria and Gaudio on clay after his surgery, he will win a 4th Roland Garros before his career is over and writte himself as maybe the greatest clay court player of all time.

Yes, I think Gaudio is a player who also has a greater chance than Coria, Ferrero and Moya on clay. Guga and Gaudio both are very good with their backhand and forehand and they truly have the power to dominate against opponents on clay.

Crazy_Fool
09-13-2004, 10:48 PM
I agree with most of that, guga on his day imo is the best in the world on clay, and his record shows it. I disagree with you about Ferrero though, he can dominate opposition when he's playing on top form. He may be a bit one dimensional, but when its working, he has the game to beat any player on clay, and most of them beat easily. Coria is getting there, but he is a bit too defensive at times.

makro120
09-13-2004, 10:54 PM
Ferrero is an incredible player on clay and even on other surfaces, but I don't think he has the power to dominate against Federer from the baseline.

SLICK
09-13-2004, 11:58 PM
He is going to be so focused next year at Roland Garros that i believe he will do it on his way to winning a calendar Grand Slam! The aura of invincibility that's on him now is just going to snowball. Next year is his best chance before younger players start catching up. :cool:

Billabong
09-14-2004, 12:04 AM
It will definitely be tough, but he can certainly do it:)!

RogiFan88
09-14-2004, 01:08 AM
Roger knows how to play him, and the fact they genuinely like each other doesn't always help, for example he would fight more against Duck, than Roger.

love that siggy of yours... Corretja the hopeless, one of my faves... love watching him on the clay... Alex had fun milking the cow... don't know about Gaston tho... love those "claycourters" [Gaston moreso than Alex, who won on US hardcourts... v. AA too] ;)

rue
09-14-2004, 02:18 AM
he definitely can, it may happen even next year, you just never know.

FryslanBoppe
09-14-2004, 04:50 PM
Ferrero is an incredible player on clay and even on other surfaces, but I don't think he has the power to dominate against Federer from the baseline.

How doesn't Ferrero have the power to dominate against Federer on clay? He has played well against Roger in the past, and when fit is probably the best claycourt player at the moment, and he is also very fast and that combination in getting more balls back and Federer's potential frustration because of the surface, make Ferrero dangerous.

The advantage Federer has is the predictability of Ferrero's game, he is very good, but still one-dimensional.

AgassiFan
09-14-2004, 05:05 PM
Yevgeny Kafelnikov

That is all.

FryslanBoppe
09-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Yevgeny Kafelnikov

That is all.

Very insightful.

Boludo
10-09-2004, 12:48 AM
How doesn't Ferrero have the power to dominate against Federer on clay? He has played well against Roger in the past, and when fit is probably the best claycourt player at the moment, and he is also very fast and that combination in getting more balls back and Federer's potential frustration because of the surface, make Ferrero dangerous.

The advantage Federer has is the predictability of Ferrero's game, he is very good, but still one-dimensional.

That's a good analysis, and there are many more players on clay that are very capable of handling Roger if he is not ready to play at his best level at RG, unlike the faster surfaces, which he can get away not being at a better level, so he is more vulnerable and the Chartier court is exactly the same for both players and not just Roger.

WyveN
10-09-2004, 01:30 AM
When was this ever about Sampras? Federer is already a better player on clay than Sampras ever was.

At the same stage of their careers Sampras had a better record at the FO but Federer has far more potential on clay then Pete did so we will see if he fulfills it.

WyveN
10-09-2004, 01:33 AM
Guga also has won against players like Coria and Gaudio on clay after his surgery, he will win a 4th Roland Garros before his career is over and writte himself as maybe the greatest clay court player of all time.


Guga needs another 4 FOs to be considered the greatest clay courter of all time.

Fedex
10-09-2004, 01:37 AM
At the same stage of their careers Sampras had a better record at the FO but Federer has far more potential on clay then Pete did so we will see if he fulfills it.
But Federer has done much better than Sampras at the other clay events with 2 masters.

Boludo
10-09-2004, 01:41 AM
Guga needs another 4 FOs to be considered the greatest clay courter of all time.

Talking tennis on a tennis board is dangerous stuff.

Yes, I agree with that Guga would need another 4 FO's to be the greatest and I don't consider him the second greatest even.

Sure Sampras had better FO results, but Federer is better on clay 2 TMS wins and a final of another TMS, the last time he lost a final incidentally.

Experimentee
10-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Of course he can. He's beaten all the great clay courters who people think are contenders, including a comfortable win over Coria this year, snapping his clay streak. He can adapt his game to suit clay, he has a variety of games he can choose from, the S&V game for grass and hes just as effective from the baseline. I do expect him to win RG more an once.

misyou25
10-09-2004, 05:58 PM
no, cos he missed his chance this year and next year i think he will be exhausted of this hard year... very objectivly

RonE
10-10-2004, 12:39 AM
I posted this in the Rogi forum:

I'm not saying he can't win it. I'm saying he needs to adapt better and change his mental approach to RG. He has the skills, he can play defensively when he needs to, he proved he can beat the best of the best on clay- Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, Guga (2002). But there is something about that damned Courte Central in Paris that has him baffled.

I wasn't as worried by the fact that he lost to Guga who is great on clay, but rather by the way in which he lost it. He was looking downright amateurish at times during the match, I could not believe it was the same person who beat Coria just a week before that!

In order to win RG Rogi will need to:

1. Do a better job at keeping balanced- he was so off balanced during the Guga match, and this is a player with tremendous balance. I don't know how but he needs to get his footing more secure because that is his greatest asset.

2. Utilize the dropshot- a must have these days in your repertoir if you are to be considered a major contender for an RG title.

3. Improve his on-the-stretch squash shot slice on the forehand side- when his forehand was attacked he just floated those balls long or wide. That simply will not do.

4. Serve serve and serve better- use more angles, develop more VICIOUS kick, get more 1st serves in!!!! Guga was picking his serves like cherries off a tree.

5. Dig in mentally as he has done so well in every major event he has played in this year, apart from the French, where he has had simlair mental breakdowns in the past.

I'm sure that winning Wimbledon again and then the US will help him with #5- especially the Agassi match.

Beating the players he has on clay in the TMS events is nothing to be sneezed at, they are HUGE accomplishments. However beating them in RG, and seven of them in succession with each match being best-of-five, is a whole new ball game.

As was said in this thread too, improve his patience and 'win ugly'.

Ultimately, I believe he can do it, and I think he will too, eventually, though it will take him a couple more years to get all the above mentioned elements together in check.

lina_seta
10-10-2004, 04:45 AM
no, cos he missed his chance this year and next year i think he will be exhausted of this hard year... very objectivly

not a chance sorry ;)

superpinkone37
10-10-2004, 04:48 AM
yes, i think federer CAN win the FO, and i do think he will. it probably wont happen this year, but i do believe that he will win it in the future.

lina_seta
10-10-2004, 05:10 AM
yes, i think federer CAN win the FO, and i do think he will. it probably wont happen this year, but i do believe that he will win it in the future.
i share ur thoughts.. specially im sure that it wont happpen THIS year either ;) ..

WyveN
10-10-2004, 06:14 AM
But Federer has done much better than Sampras at the other clay events with 2 masters.

Which is why I said Federer has more potential then Sampras did but FO is the premier clay event and at the same stage of their career Pete's record there was more consistent, of course Pete went downhill after 1996 on clay.

Kristen
10-10-2004, 07:14 AM
Are there gonna be Spaniards / Argentinians present ;)
Don't get me wrong, I like Roger a lot. I just think this one might be tough...but then again, practice makes perfect :yeah:

Adam Thirnis
10-10-2004, 08:34 AM
If he can avoid any ultra-focused Hispanics in the first 4 rounds he will win it in 2005. If he can reach the quarters he will be comfortable with the conditions and then Federer will beat whatever is before him.

Bilbo
10-10-2004, 08:54 AM
He will never win the French Open because there are too many good real claycourters like Coria, Ferrero or Gaudio. As long as Federer don't win the French Open he will never be the best player of all time. How can you when you never won the biggest clay tournament?

bad gambler
10-10-2004, 09:02 AM
He will never win the French Open because there are too many good real claycourters like Coria, Ferrero or Gaudio. As long as Federer don't win the French Open he will never be the best player of all time. How can you when you never won the biggest clay tournament?

don't agree mate....by your definition then are you saying andre agassi is the only "great" player since he has won on every surface??? What about pete sammpras, stefan edberg etc? That would mean they shoulsn't be considered as great either. Firstly I believe federer will win the french open eventually but even so he is still is great simply based on what he has done in 2004.

bad gambler
10-10-2004, 09:09 AM
also further to strengthen the argument that federer will win the FO.....all you need top do is watch the hamburg masters final this year....fed express completely outplayed coria...it was a treat to watch, the guy is all class!!

Dirk
10-10-2004, 09:12 AM
Bilbo hates Roger. Bilbo you are acting as if Rogi has to beat Guga, Coria, and Gaudio and all the good clay spanish and south american players in order to win RG. Rogi like everyone else has to win seven matches. Personally I think he can beat anyone at RG. Once he gets comfortable on that center court, he will be very tough to stop just like the other great clay players. I love this term "good real claycourters" that you used. As if Rogi isn't one of them. :rolleyes: :rolls:

WyveN
10-10-2004, 11:59 AM
He will never win the French Open because there are too many good real claycourters like Coria, Ferrero or Gaudio. As long as Federer don't win the French Open he will never be the best player of all time. How can you when you never won the biggest clay tournament?


Thats a pretty bitter analysis.
I recall YS saying earlier in the year that Federer will never win the USO, that backfired.
I don't think we have seen the best of Federer on clay yet so proclaiming he will never win the FO is crazy, at least wait a couple of years.

yanchr
10-10-2004, 03:47 PM
He will never win the French Open because there are too many good real claycourters like Coria, Ferrero or Gaudio. As long as Federer don't win the French Open he will never be the best player of all time. How can you when you never won the biggest clay tournament?
The first part of your statement barely stands as a ground for your conclusion. It's not that Federer has never beaten those 'good real claycourters'. I don't think chances are big that he will meet those guys consecutively year after year.

The second part is totally nonsense. Here we are not talking about is Federer going to be the best of all time or how can he be. Well, whatever. Winning RG doesn't make him the best player of all time for me. It is his unique game that counts. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, are you saying Agassi is the best player of all time? OK, as much respect as I have for Agassi, enjoy your dream.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 12:25 AM
Bump.

Ten_Isse_Fan
01-11-2005, 12:27 AM
He will never win the French Open because there are too many good real claycourters like Coria, Ferrero or Gaudio. As long as Federer don't win the French Open he will never be the best player of all time. How can you when you never won the biggest clay tournament?
Who beat Coria in the Hamburg Final :scratch: ?

vogus
01-11-2005, 12:34 AM
Roger will need a bit of luck, that is, not to have to play three huge clay-courters like Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio during the course of the tournie, but i think he would definitely beat any one of those three guys in the final if he's not run down by previous matches. Roger will also need to skip either Hamburg or Rome (in the past he has always played both) in order to be fresh enough to go the distance in Paris.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 12:38 AM
Roger will also need to skip either Hamburg or Rome (in the past he has always played both) in order to be fresh enough to go the distance in Paris.

Totally disagree he should play all the clay TMS events and he is going to. Considering that he doesn't play WTC in the week before the French Open it wouldn't make sense to skip them. Different kind of fitness required for clay than on other surfaces, and the only way he will get the grounding he needs for the surface is to play events on it and not skip them.

makro120
01-11-2005, 01:05 AM
Federer's matches against clay court specialists on clay:

Federer-Kuerten:1-1

2002 Hamburg TMS QF: 6 0 1 6 6 2 NOTE: Is alone to have bagelled Guga on clay!
2004 Roland Garros 3rd round: 4 6 4 6 4 6

Federer-Ferrero:1-0

2003 Rome SF: 6 4 4 2

Federer-Moya:1-0

2004 Hamburg QF: 6 4 6 3

Federer-Coria:1-0

2004 Hamburg F:4 6 6 4 6 2 6 3

Federer-Gaudio:2-0

2004 Hamburg 1st round:6 1 5 7 6 4

2003 Gstaad SF: 6 1 7 6

Federer-Costa: 0-1

2004 Rome 2nd round:6 3 3 6 2 6

Federer-Zabaleta:2-0

2002 Monte Carlo 1st round: 7 6 6 4

2003 Rome TMS 2nd round: 7 6 6 2

Federer-Robredo:1-0

2003 Rome TMS:6 1 6 1

Federer-gonzalez:1-0

2004 Hamburg TMS:7 5 6 1

Federer-Horna:0-1

2003 Roland garros 1st round: 6 7 2 6 6 7

Federer-Andreev:1-0

2004 Gstaad F:6 2 6 3 5 7 6 3

Federer-arazi:2-1

2002 Roland Garros round1:3 6 2 6 4 6

2002 Davis cup: 6 3 6 2 6 1

2002 Gstaad rnd2:6 4 6 3

Federer-Koubek:1-0

2003 Munich SF:6 2 6 1

Federer-Sanchez:1-0

2001 roland garros rnd3:6 4 6 3 1 6 6 3

Federer-Starace:1-0

2004 Gstaad SF:6 3 3 6 6 3

Federer-hanescu:1-0

2004 davis cup: 7 6 6 3 6 1



Those are all i consider to be somehow specialists on clay in the top 100 in the entry list and who have faced Federer on clay. As you see Federer has a lead against both the better clay players and the worse, overall he is 17-4 against these very specialised players. For me that is good enought, last year he only losto Costa and Kuerten on clay and won 14 and lost 2. That is good enought results for me, loosing against 2 former french open winners who have together won 4 FO is not a shame. If he has learned something from last year he won't loose against them again, maybe Guga is too difficult for him in the 3-4 early rounds but he will easily win against anyone else. Federer is an excellent clay court player who only looses when he faces the big clay players but can easily win against them aswell, I don't understand why so many fail to see that.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 01:20 AM
makro, because you are so outrageously biased that it's funny and your total dismissal that of any the other players can't beat Federer on clay is another reason I shake my head.

There are many players who he hasn't played on clay yet either, who happen to very good on the surface he hasn't played Cañas or Calleri on clay for a start and those numbers you used above don't paint an accurate picture at all.

Did Ferrero complete the match? He didn't complete the match, so there is still a question mark over that victory and I want to see him play against Ferrero when he is fully fit.

He lost to Guga and Costa who are sadly past their best days what does that tell you?

makro120
01-11-2005, 01:27 AM
Guga played some excellent tennis in RG and I could only see the old Guga in that match, there is no shame loosing against Guga on clay. You may say he is past his best, but he may still be the best clay court player out there when he is playing his best tennis still today.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 01:33 AM
Yes, Guga was outstanding on that day, but he has been hampered by injuries and that has slowed him down and yes he will always be one of the greats, but he couldn't carry on with it after he beat Federer. Day in, day out Guga I don't think is the best player on clay currently.

You lost a lot credibility with me makro initially when you said Guga was better than Borg on clay.

makro120
01-11-2005, 01:38 AM
No, I don't think calleri and Canas are in the same level Guga and Costa, even if you think these 2 are past their best time. Anyway, Federer is 17-4 on these great clay players I posted so you can figure out Federer's chanses to win against Calleri or Canas would atleast be 80%, not counting how much he probably has improved since last year.

makro120
01-11-2005, 01:44 AM
You lost a lot credibility with me makro initially when you said Guga was better than Borg on clay.

I changed my mind and now thinks they are not comparable. In Borg's time there were a very limited amount of good clay players, different from today when atleast 30-40 players can make a good living out of specialising on clay. How can I compare them?

No one will win 6 RGs again ever! There will be players as good as Borg on clay, maybe Guga is, but they won't win 6 RGs. Maybe no one will even win 3 RGs like Guga did in atleast a long time.

Therefor I have Guga and Borg as the greatest clay players of all time closely followed by Wilander.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 01:47 AM
You have to judge it on the present and not the past. Stats alone are bullshit and they can be used to suit any particular argument, which doesn't measure other factors.

I still see you ignore my point about Ferrero. Costa has been struggling even on clay and if you think Federer is so absolutely fantastic, go ahead and sit through the Rome final when he lost to Mantilla, watch that match and tell me he is unbeatable.

Costa and Guga are past their best, that is obvious and even their fans and yes I like these guys can see that. I mean Corretja was a very fine player on clay, but he is well past it to.

He has never played Cañas on clay, which is Cañas's best surface and don't judge Cañas on the results he has had against Guga and Costa. There are different players who match up better for some and not others, but keep wearing the blinkers.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 01:53 AM
I changed my mind and now thinks they are not comparable. In Borg's time there were a very limited amount of good clay players, different from today when atleast 30-40 players can make a good living out of specialising on clay. How can I compare them?

No one will win 6 RGs again ever! There will be players as good as Borg on clay, maybe Guga is, but they won't win 6 RGs. Maybe no one will even win 3 RGs like Guga did in atleast a long time.

Therefor I have Guga and Borg as the greatest clay players of all time closely followed by Wilander.

Well considering when Borg was playing, he had one of the greatest claycourt players of all time as an opponent who he handled easily a man called Vilas. If it wasn't for Borg at all Vilas would have won multiple RG's and if it wasn't for Vilas then there would be less interest in South American tennis.

Those top guys while less of them were very good during Borg's time. His game was made for that surface and it showed and I don't think there has been and will be a player in the near future who will match up to Borg on that surface.

Guga wouldn't be above Lendl or Wilander on that surface let alone equal with Borg.

makro120
01-11-2005, 02:00 AM
Do yo useriously think tennis was at the same level as today in Borg's time or Wilander's time?

The top players didn't even care to go and play Roland Garros when Borg won his titles, in Wilander's time Roland Garros got back much of its status but still it had not yet boomed with all spanish and south american players.

makro120
01-11-2005, 02:02 AM
Also Lendl and Wilander both won 3 RGs in a time when clay tennis was less competitive than today, as many as Guga won in a time when tennis was more competitive. He is obviously above both of them. If you don't want to belive that clay tennis has developped since then I can't really have many more arguments to show I am right.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 02:09 AM
Do yo useriously think tennis was at the same level as today in Borg's time or Wilander's time?

When did I say that? Considering it wasn't really that professional in those days in concern to off the court training, diet, sports science and the like and it was Lendl who made it so to get an edge over his rivals. I have never said that it was better on an overall depth and never will.

Has it ever occured that technological change as well as the more scientific aspect to tennis had changed the way that tennis has been played especially on clay and there are so many different factors. Take the basic one Borg used a wooden racquet, like who would be silly enough to use one now? Guga would find it next to impossible to play that game with a wooden racquet.

The top players didn't even care to go and play Roland Garros when Borg won his titles, in Wilander's time Roland Garros got back much of its status but still it had not yet boomed with all spanish and south american players.

Borg was the best player on clay during those days it was obvious then, it's obvious now. Connors never won a title on that surface at all and so you disregard Vilas a player of note on clay, if you do that, then there are problems. Many of the best players didn't play there then, why because they were crap on that surface and also as Wimbledon was seen to be the be and end all of the tennis world and chose to focus on that.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 02:14 AM
Also Lendl and Wilander both won 3 RGs in a time when clay tennis was less competitive than today, as many as Guga won in a time when tennis was more competitive. He is obviously above both of them. If you don't want to belive that clay tennis has developped since then I can't really have many more arguments to show I am right.

Lendl won all the clay events multiple times and both Lendl and Wilander made the RG final at least twice whereas Guga has either won RG or not made the finals. Though Guga did win the big 3 as well at least once and he was the best of his generation and please I am waiting for some more arguments.

I mean that's the main focus point as to how it should be judged and then you go around saying Federer is going to win 4 RG titles before he retires and I am the one with a problem.

makro120
01-11-2005, 02:33 AM
Federer is a player who can take tennis to unknown territory, maybe I was beeing a little optimistic about how much he will develop his game the next years, but since 2002 he has every year improved so much you may wonder what is next for 2005 and thereafter...

I honestly think that he could go a year unbeaten if he learned to be consentrated in early round matches, he doesn't seem to be able to loose against top players, so then he would praticaly be unbeatable.

Anyway, you mentioned some stuff about how tennis has developped the past years, but the msot important part you forgot. Today there is so much money in tennis 100-200 players can live good in the sport, have their own coach, personal trainer and all that. In Borg's time there was maybe 20? Back then it was a walk in the park for top players to go to 4th round/quater finals, because they faced only amateurs on their way. Also, technology has lead tennis players to hold their serve more. Worse players can hold their serve with modern raquets and the game depends on fewer points then in Borg's time. The fewer points which decides a match the mroe chanse the bad player has to win the game, so that leads that worse players are more difficult to beat, not only because they are proffesional, but becasue technology gives tehm a greater chanse.

Also I never said anything about Vilas, but I obviously don't consider him in the same league as Guga, wilander, Lendl as he couldn't win over the top clay player of his time and only won RG once. Guga is ahead of Wilander and Lendl because there is a great differense between today's tennis and the tennis of their era. A couple of finals for Wilander and Lendl won't make a big differense in my judgement.

BAMJ6
01-11-2005, 02:37 AM
Yes he will win the French Open this year, ther's no doubt in my mind. Last year's loss in Paris will motivate him, plus there's history on the line. If that's not enough, he'll get more motivation in a loss at Melbourne's Oz Open.

Action Jackson
01-11-2005, 02:49 AM
Federer is a player who can take tennis to unknown territory, maybe I was beeing a little optimistic about how much he will develop his game the next years, but since 2002 he has every year improved so much you may wonder what is next for 2005 and thereafter...

It's not optimistic, it's past that actually. It's over the top and ridiculous just like your call on him winning 20 Slams before he retires.You don't need to tell me about how good Federer's game is and how he can improve, but when you can say he can go a year unbeaten this proves that not everything is working at full capacity.

You forget that if it wasn't those pioneers at the time then there wouldn't be the cash around at the moment. It's a different game from then and that hasn't been argued, but given the equipment at the time Borg was using he was still above anyone then and still is now when it comes to claycourt tennis. Tennis on clay has never been about big serves, need more than a serve on clay.

Also I never said anything about Vilas, but I obviously don't consider him in the same league as Guga, wilander, Lendl as he couldn't win over the top clay player of his time and only won RG once. Guga is ahead of Wilander and Lendl because there is a great differense between today's tennis and the tennis of their era. A couple of finals for Wilander and Lendl won't make a big differense in my judgement.

Vilas did have the longest winning streak on clay and still does. You haven't seen what you have just done have you? You use one argument that Vilas only won one RG as to not rating him, but have conveniently forgot that the best ever player on clay was his contemporary Borg and that alone is the reason for less victories there. I never said he was as good as those other players, find it where I said that.

Yet you claim that making 2 finals as well as winning 3 titles at the same venue and showing absolute consistency in performing at the same venue is reason enough to discredit Lendl and Wilander in comparison to Guga.

There is always been an elite group at the top and at Guga's time it was mostly the same guys and that was the same for Lendl and Wilander.

Going unbeaten in a year for Federer and trying to claim Guga was better than Borg on clay does lack credibility.

drf716
01-11-2005, 05:25 AM
No! because his FENG SHUI does not agree with the French Open.
now if he only shaves his hair and face all his playing courts towards the east, he might have a better luck than bad chi.

foul_dwimmerlaik
01-11-2005, 08:22 AM
I think that, barring a carier-ending injury, yes, Roger will win it. But he will need a lot of factors to coincide to achieve that: good graw, good weather (i.e. courts as fast as possible), his best physical shape and perhaps one or two of his opponents being slightly off.

TheMightyFed
01-11-2005, 08:43 AM
Why he wouldn't ?
If this guy doesn't do it in his career, who would do apart from ultra-specialized players ?
-All-round game
-Childhood surface
-Good references on clay (2 TMS, best claycourters beaten)
-RG is the only GS cup missing on his cupboard
-Excellent footwork
-Good fitness
-Big confidence
-Coolness
-Smooth game likely to keep him injure-free
-Still young

:worship:

Prizeidiot
01-11-2005, 09:24 AM
He has the tools to do it, as everyone already knows. He definitely CAN, and in my opinion, he WILL. His main threat is facing a horde of clay court specialists who wear him down to a point where he is barely standing in the later rounds. But eventually a draw will open up for him, and when it does, he'll take advantage. Another obstacle of course, is his mind. We know that most of the clay courters can't really hurt him, so to win, he just needs to be patient. There are exceptions of course, but generally, they don't have the weapons to dominate him. But I think at this point, his mentality is rock solid, so a win in Paris may be inevitable.

Art&Soul
01-11-2005, 10:26 AM
Well, He could :D His game plan is getting better and i'm sure he will find a way to beat all good players on clay like GUGA and Ferrero...in the FO with the help of a coach, who knows? :p

bad gambler
01-11-2005, 10:34 AM
well i got money on him winning all 4 slams this year so he better win the french open!

makro120
01-11-2005, 10:58 AM
You forget that if it wasn't those pioneers at the time then there wouldn't be the cash around at the moment. It's a different game from then and that hasn't been argued, but given the equipment at the time Borg was using he was still above anyone then and still is now when it comes to claycourt tennis. Tennis on clay has never been about big serves, need more than a serve on clay..


You have tó read my post again. It doesn't matter if clay players have big serves or not, if you can hold you serve more thanx to your raquet this means that fewer points decide the match and the bad player got a better chanse winning the game, taking sets to tiebreak or having a killer game to break and then just hold their serve.

So, you admit at least that today there are 200 good players while back then there was 20?

Can't you admit it is more difficult for players to win the early rounds. I am definetly sure Roddick would go to semifinal in RG back in the time of Lendl and Wilander (Becker did! And Edberg was in a final!).

So, obviously Guga can't win 6 Rgs, it is impossible today.

Anyway, I don't see why you can't be optimistic about Federer, only the optimistic would be right about him last year. Only the optimistic can see his potential in the future.

TheMightyFed
01-11-2005, 01:13 PM
You have tó read my post again. It doesn't matter if clay players have big serves or not, if you can hold you serve more thanx to your raquet this means that fewer points decide the match and the bad player got a better chanse winning the game, taking sets to tiebreak or having a killer game to break and then just hold their serve.

So, you admit at least that today there are 200 good players while back then there was 20?

Can't you admit it is more difficult for players to win the early rounds. I am definetly sure Roddick would go to semifinal in RG back in the time of Lendl and Wilander (Becker did! And Edberg was in a final!).

So, obviously Guga can't win 6 Rgs, it is impossible today.

Anyway, I don't see why you can't be optimistic about Federer, only the optimistic would be right about him last year. Only the optimistic can see his potential in the future.

I was too optimistic last year, hoping for the Grand Slam of RF...
3 GS later, not too bad ! Should have bet...

undomiele
01-11-2005, 06:17 PM
I think Roger will only win if two things happen:

1) he gets a lucky draw,
and/or
2) he improves his claycourt skills.

Andre won the FO his "way" when he had the draw magically open up for him, but that doesn't seem very likely to happen when there are so many good claycourters out there today.

Which leaves Roger with the only other option: learning to dramatically adjust his game to clay in order to beat the best claycourters out there. As has been mentioned by other posters (RonE, Sjengster and GWHitler), this means learning how to slide more effectively, change direction on the court better, use more strategy, use and improve his drop shot ability, etc. Thats the only way he can adapt a more aggressive play, which is, lets face it, the only style he's used to playing. It can be done, he has the ability to do it, but itll take some time I think. Meanwhile, others will get better too (or worse) --the point is there are a lot of candidates out there, more than for the other GSlams.

A lot of posters have been saying itll be easy for Roger to demolish a lot of claycourters out there cos of prior records but thats not a very well-thought out argument cos the difference between those matches and the RG is that he has to beat them in a 7 match chain of best 3 out of 5 sets AT RG-- a venue he's not comfortable with and doesnt have much experience at. Just the fact that you have to win best 3/5 seven times is incredibly hard on a surface that can be very long and grueling. Roger, because of his great success, is not used to long, physically tough matches. Its rare to even really see him sweat. I think he'll have problems, I can imagine guys like Chela, Horna, Canias, Costa, Safin, Guga, Calleri, Nadal (lower calibre but still great clay guys) giving him a long, hard time on the surface in the first rounds. And then if he gets to the later rounds, dealing with the top guys will still be pretty hard. It will really depend on the how fit the others are and the draw. The draw is key, he could totally coast till the QF's or something but then it can definitely work against him as well and favour other rivals instead.
I believe if he has one or two very long drawn-out matches, something he's not used to, he'll have problems. Just the fact that he'll have to fight em out will try his patience, he's not used to that. He'll have to dig in on every level, most matches, and those are qualities that some of the claycourters are better known for, especially considering how deflated he looked when playing against Guga last year. So there's a strong psychological element too. There's a lot of stuff he has to work on. Maybe he can pull all this together down the road but not soon.

Bottom line: Roger has to adopt/perfect more claycourt skills to deservedly win RG. And the only test for that is beating the best 7 times in a row. He can beat them here and there in other tournies, but its a different story at RG cos its best 3 out of 5 all the way (BIG difference). Or he can win with a lucky draw, which has happened before. Anythings possible. I genuinely wish him luck this year but realistically, it seems like he has a lot to work on to up his chances at FO.

Jenrios
01-11-2005, 06:36 PM
yes, I think he can win it at some point in his career - he's still young. I think it will be the most difficult slam for him because there's so much depth in clay court tennis. There are a number of players who, while they may not win RG, would be able to beat Rojer on clay - same with any player pursuing RG really. If he does win it, I think he'll win it maybe once or twice. Whereas I can see him winning Wimbledon like 8 times.

Jenrios
01-11-2005, 06:44 PM
I mean, if Roger came up against some of those up and coming players, or more established players such as Canas or Stepenek, they could quite easily take him out.

TheMightyFed
01-11-2005, 07:41 PM
I think Roger will only win if two things happen:

1) he gets a lucky draw,
and/or
2) he improves his claycourt skills.

Andre won the FO his "way" when he had the draw magically open up for him, but that doesn't seem very likely to happen when there are so many good claycourters out there today.

Which leaves Roger with the only other option: learning to dramatically adjust his game to clay in order to beat the best claycourters out there. As has been mentioned by other posters (RonE, Sjengster and GWHitler), this means learning how to slide more effectively, change direction on the court better, use more strategy, use and improve his drop shot ability, etc. Thats the only way he can adapt a more aggressive play, which is, lets face it, the only style he's used to playing. It can be done, he has the ability to do it, but itll take some time I think. Meanwhile, others will get better too (or worse) --the point is there are a lot of candidates out there, more than for the other GSlams.

A lot of posters have been saying itll be easy for Roger to demolish a lot of claycourters out there cos of prior records but thats not a very well-thought out argument cos the difference between those matches and the RG is that he has to beat them in a 7 match chain of best 3 out of 5 sets AT RG-- a venue he's not comfortable with and doesnt have much experience at. Just the fact that you have to win best 3/5 seven times is incredibly hard on a surface that can be very long and grueling. Roger, because of his great success, is not used to long, physically tough matches. Its rare to even really see him sweat. I think he'll have problems, I can imagine guys like Chela, Horna, Canias, Costa, Safin, Guga, Calleri, Nadal (lower calibre but still great clay guys) giving him a long, hard time on the surface in the first rounds. And then if he gets to the later rounds, dealing with the top guys will still be pretty hard. It will really depend on the how fit the others are and the draw. The draw is key, he could totally coast till the QF's or something but then it can definitely work against him as well and favour other rivals instead.
I believe if he has one or two very long drawn-out matches, something he's not used to, he'll have problems. Just the fact that he'll have to fight em out will try his patience, he's not used to that. He'll have to dig in on every level, most matches, and those are qualities that some of the claycourters are better known for, especially considering how deflated he looked when playing against Guga last year. So there's a strong psychological element too. There's a lot of stuff he has to work on. Maybe he can pull all this together down the road but not soon.

Bottom line: Roger has to adopt/perfect more claycourt skills to deservedly win RG. And the only test for that is beating the best 7 times in a row. He can beat them here and there in other tournies, but its a different story at RG cos its best 3 out of 5 all the way (BIG difference). Or he can win with a lucky draw, which has happened before. Anythings possible. I genuinely wish him luck this year but realistically, it seems like he has a lot to work on to up his chances at FO.

I must admit you convinced me partially,undomiele. as I mentioned before, I've never seen Roger win "dirty", sweating his ass in a 5-sets semi-final, to the limits of cramping, falling after a bad slide and then, still, win...
It seems that RG is another world for him, and his remarks on Chatrier court are very significant in this regard...
But all that, plus the Spanish and Argentinian armadas that are opposed to him, would make a victory an amzing stuff. And Roger can surprise everyone like he did many times, breaking records and going on winning all year long. And I keep thinking that winning some TMS on clay is very demanding as you get these claycourters hyper motivated in early rounds, while in RG you can get a bunch of rounds against nonames. Don't underrate that...

jtipson
01-11-2005, 09:17 PM
I must admit you convinced me partially,undomiele. as I mentioned before, I've never seen Roger win "dirty", sweating his ass in a 5-sets semi-final, to the limits of cramping, falling after a bad slide and then, still, win...

I looked up his RG record earlier and saw that he's only had two 5 setters at RG - both wins, by 8-6 and 9-7. So he certainly has done it in the past.


More than half the battle of facing 7 best of five matches is mental. Roger's proved several times that he can do that. We know that he can play on clay, we know that he can beat the top players on it. Matches may be longer than in other GSes, but it will help him get used to the surface. With his style and record, I still think he won't need to play as many 4 or 5 setters as other players at RG, but it obviously depends to some extent who he draws.

He just needs to believe he can do it.

undomiele
01-12-2005, 12:30 AM
Does Roger have what it takes to sweat it through at RG? Some people say he does, but Im not so sure. I think if guys like Costa, Canias, or Nadal were in form for example(and all these guys are mentally very tough) they would be very capable of knocking Roger out shedding sweat, blood and tears - no problem. Costa has done it like 3 or 4 times in a row at RG before (all 5 setters and a former RG champion), everyone knows Canias never gives up (ever --and he's a good claycourter), and Nadal is simply fearless and a former Feds victor (and he definitely has potential). And these guys aren't even the heavy weights! Of course it all depends on fitness but whats the point of supposedly being mentally tough when the other guy is just as tough or tougher and knows the surface better? My point is Roger isn't the only mentally tough guy out there with serious clay skills. These guys have nothing to lose.

But its not just about mental strength, its about desire. RG is that time of year when youre going to have a lot of fired up players -claycourters who've dreamt of the tournament all their life-- who will see it as an opportunity to achieve a lifelong dream and yet Roger is still to have more of a mental game then they will??? Puh-leaze. The truth is RG means the world to a lot of players, but not to Roger as much. Everyone knows his tournament is Wimbledon. A player's favourite tournament makes all the difference --it makes that player fight more than he would anywhere else so please take into consideration how much other players want the RG cup in particular and will fight for it instead of focusing on Roger, Roger, Roger and his past TMS clay achievements when we all know RG is in a completely different category altogether.

For example, Coria is a player who will want RG a LOT more than Roger this year. A LOT more. I don't think anyone can deny me that. Its become personal to him now and to just assume that Roger will have an easy time with him if they meet, when, lets face it, Coria is one of the top 3 claycourters, just isn't very smart. Guga and Gaudio were also *singularly* inspired by the venue last year and look where that got them. They weren't even faves going into the thing. No one saw them coming and they both made BIG headlines.

Considering it takes 2 to play tennis, i think it would be wise to appreciate the mental strength and desire of the other guy in the equation as well.

Dirk
01-12-2005, 01:55 AM
Undomiele Roger has the game to win it and the fitness. You don't have the kind of year he had last year without being one of the fittest guys on the tour. I believe he will win it but yes he could lose to anyone who plays their game better than he plays his. There are no sure bets but saying it's not possible for Roger to win it doesn't sound very logical. If he cannot adapt to Center Court this year or next then go ahead and write him off. You will have the facts to back up your beliefs. I sure the hell won't argue with you then.

Jiptson you also seem of the same mind as I am. What is all this talk about Roger playing all these 5 setters? His critics seem to think it's the only way for him to win matches with the claycourters. The very thought of him winning RG if he does by doing it in straight sets or by only dropping a set or two seems not exist for them.

undomiele
01-12-2005, 04:38 AM
I never said it was possible he couldnt win it dirk. I didnt say that at all. I just think there are a lot of solid claycourters out there that youre casually dismissing or barely taking into account. They deserve better. Roger has the game and the fitness, but others are just as or even more fit and have a better suited game to the RG court. So its not a given. I mean come on, if all the claycourters, Ferrero, Coria, Nadal, Costa, Guga, etc were at their peaks physically, do you really think an in-form Federer would be able to beat them in individual matches best 3 out of 5? Easily? I can say that for the faster surfaces, when Roger is at his best he can beat most anyone on the faster surfaces, but certainly not on clay. With guys like Ferrero and Guga at their best it probably wouldn't even be close. At all. But it turns out most of these guys are injured. Such is life. All we can hope for is for some real competition this year and I think RG will be the best venue for that :yeah: .

Dirk
01-12-2005, 04:43 AM
If Roger had to play all of them then likely no but come on the odds of him facing a draw like that is very slim. I disagree about it not being close at all if Roger at his peak played JC and Guga are their peaks although I will grant you that Roger would be the underdog in those matches. He would have to really use his all court game to beat them and mix it up greatly to keep them off their groove.

One other point that needs to be made. Roger could have a lot of easy matches at RG due to his mentality of trying to win every point. I could see him winning it in straight sets all the way through and a nice draw would help of course.

makro120
01-12-2005, 05:25 PM
Coria is no problem for Federer, he is the kind of player who will let Federer play around with him however Federer wants to. I am afraid of Guga more than anyone else (his backhand destroys Federer's on clay) and some hardworkers like Costa and Canas can make life difficult for Federer if he faces them in the early rounds when he hasn't entered into the tournament yet. I hope Federer faces Coria in the final, it would be 3 straight sets total demolition, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bagel or two.

But if he faces Guga in the early rounds I am willing to bet money on Guga. I think Nalbandian could also be difficult for Federer in RG. This is not about Federer getting a lucky draw, it is about him not getting an unlucky draw like last year.

undomiele
01-12-2005, 08:54 PM
Coria is no problem for Federer, he is the kind of player who will let Federer play around with him however Federer wants to. I hope Federer faces Coria in the final, it would be 3 straight sets total demolition, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bagel or two.


What an incredibly arrogant comment to make. I mean, what on earth qualifies you to say this? ONE four-set match? The only one they ever played together in their lives?? The one where (newsflash!) Federer *didn't* beat Coria in straight sets??? :rolleyes: Well thats just absolutely great cos under your brilliant logic here I guess Nadal will always be one to kick Roger's ass since he *did* actually beat Roger in straight sets in the only match they ever played, in Miami, on a fast surface no less. Go Nadal!! We might as well just go ahead and crown him new world champion and screw the others.

ae wowww
01-12-2005, 09:12 PM
Yes he will win, because he is the finest in tennis technology.

Dirk
01-12-2005, 09:14 PM
Coria might never win RG with JC coming back and I do think Guga will be able to contend for titles again when he comes back and could get back into the top 10. Those will be the two RG faves this year unless bad health befalls them. Roger is in the top 5 as far as contenders for it goes. I do think Coria can be very troublesome to Roger but not enough to beat him on clay consistency. Coria is a very magical defensive player but a defensive one nether the less and as long as Roger is patient Coria will lose. I don't see Coria beating JC or Guga on clay consistency if ever. Safin is also a huge threat on clay as well.

WyveN
01-12-2005, 10:25 PM
The truth is RG means the world to a lot of players, but not to Roger as much. Everyone knows his tournament is Wimbledon. A player's favourite tournament makes all the difference --it makes that player fight more than he would anywhere else so please take into consideration how much other players want the RG cup


How do you know this?
Hiring Roche seems like a pretty clay oriented move, just because he says its not that important in the interviews to keep pressure of himself, it doesnt mean he wont be doing everything he can behind the scenes to win it.

I think Rogers game is well suited to clay and if he gets into top physical condition he has as much a chance of winning it as anyone, I recall 3-4 years ago when reporters kept asking when he would make his breakthrough he would say on clay of FO is probably his best chance.

undomiele
01-12-2005, 11:16 PM
I think Rogers game is well suited to clay and if he gets into top physical condition he has as much a chance of winning it as anyone, I recall 3-4 years ago when reporters kept asking when he would make his breakthrough he would say on clay of FO is probably his best chance.

No argument there. He has as much chance as everybody else who is considered a real contender. But neither more or less. We'll just have to wait and see.

undomiele
01-12-2005, 11:20 PM
How do you know this?
Hiring Roche seems like a pretty clay oriented move, just because he says its not that important in the interviews to keep pressure of himself, it doesnt mean he wont be doing everything he can behind the scenes to win it.


True, neither one of us can read his mind but at least I have his own words and actions at RG thus far to back up my assertion of a notable psychological problem at Chartier.

Dirk
01-12-2005, 11:36 PM
He is not the only one with a psychological problem on Chartier. ;)

WyveN
01-13-2005, 12:14 AM
True, neither one of us can read his mind but at least I have his own words and actions at RG thus far to back up my assertion of a notable psychological problem at Chartier.

I dont think a psychological problem is needed to explain a loss to Kuerten, yes he had some poor losses in years prior to 2004 but before 2004 he never went past 4th round at AO or USO either.

undomiele
01-13-2005, 02:45 AM
Please, the Roger Federer that showed up to play Guga was a ghost of himself and if thats not an essentially psychological problem than I don't know what is. He clearly wasn't injured. And the fact that he did amazingly well at the other grand slams of 2004 can only make his performance at RG all the more glaring--there were moments he was playing like an amateur. I mean, he almost fell down twice! Where was his fighting spirit then? Its obvious to me the venue had an effect on him --enough to throw him off against a guy who was playing a killer game. And no professional of his calibre should be blaming court size and "racket string tensions" for playing poorly when we all know he was capable of doing a lot, lot better. Face it! He has a a psychological problem playing at RG. Whether it will stop him this year I can't say but if he doesn't overcome it he will be at a massive disadvantage --especially during moments of pressure in the upcoming RG.


"Kuerten Knock Out Federer," Washington Post. May 30 2004. [Excerpt]:

""It's something special for sure," Kuerten said of his feelings toward Roland Garros, where French tennis fans claim him as one of their own, chanting his nickname, "Guga!" "Guga!" with the enthusiasm of Brazilian soccer fans.

If Kuerten's game was elevated by the setting, Federer's game suffered for it.

"The Chatrier court is really, really big, and I just haven't had enough play on it," a dejected Federer said afterward. "For me, it's not the surface [that's a problem]; it's rather maybe the court."

Federer had barely been tested by his first two opponents in the tournament, breezing to straight-set victories without breaking much of a sweat. Saturday against Kuerten, nothing was right.

He was unhappy with the tension of his rackets' strings. He couldn't read Kuerten's deceptive serves and waffled between stepping up to attack and retreating to simply get the ball in play. Once hailed as the Baryshnikov of tennis for his grace on court, Federer was awkward and off balance much of the match. He mis-timed his slides across the dry, dusty surface and almost fell twice.

"This was the problem," Federer said. "I lost a little bit of confidence in my footwork."

But the bigger problem, as Federer conceded, was Kuerten's superior play. "I think my game today had a lot to do with his game," Federer said. "Obviously, usually I can control these kind of matches, but today I couldn't. That's a credit to him." "

WyveN
01-13-2005, 05:13 AM
Please, the Roger Federer that showed up to play Guga was a ghost of himself and if thats not an essentially psychological problem than I don't know what is.


Mostly due to Kuerten's play, I dont think he expected Guga who had been through injuries and not in good form (on the verge of losing in the first round) going into the match to play the way he did.


He clearly wasn't injured. And the fact that he did amazingly well at the other grand slams of 2004 can only make his performance at RG


At the other slams he also wasnt at his best in the opening rounds but luckily for him at the other slams he didnt run into a 3 time champion in the first few rounds.

And no professional of his calibre should be blaming court size and "racket string tensions" for playing poorly when we all know he was capable of doing a lot, lot better.


He gave most of the credit to Kuerten.


Face it! He has a a psychological problem playing at RG. Whether it will stop him this year I can't say but if he doesn't overcome it he will be at a massive disadvantage --especially during moments of pressure in the upcoming RG.


I think he will win the FO before his career is finished, it might be next year or it might be toward the end of his career like Agassi, getting a lucky draw is also possible at the FO (for example Henman this year or Agassi quite a few times earlier on in his career).

Dirk
01-13-2005, 07:29 AM
Wyvern let's face it. Some critics here just don't want Roger to win it end of story. Great post by the way.

Becool
01-13-2005, 01:18 PM
He won't cuz Guga will be there :cool:

Remember last year, Guga stopped him from winning the Grand Slam! ;);)

Puschkin
01-13-2005, 01:48 PM
He definitely will. I am not sure about when.

But if he does not win Australia this year, he is my hottest favourite for the French, because will have something to prove and work accordingly. The theory is a little weird, though;) but I stick to it.

undomiele
01-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Lame excuses Wyven. Lame. He underestimated Guga so thats why he played like an amateur? Riggght. You'd think that would have motivated him to fight more. Isn't this guy supposed to know how to rise to the occasion? Isn't he supposed to be "mentally tough"? You're just avoiding my question here Wyven. Im not asking why he lost (cos Guga played better) but rather why didn't Roger put up a fight??

Rogerfans drive me nuts!!!

juanqui.ferrero
01-13-2005, 02:36 PM
I think he CAN win, but that he won't... not this year...

WyveN
01-13-2005, 03:06 PM
Lame excuses Wyven. Lame. He underestimated Guga so thats why he played like an amateur?


If you can't accept that any of the reasons Roger, or that he simply had a bad day, then I don't know what I can say.


You're just avoiding my question here Wyven. Im not asking why he lost (cos Guga played better) but rather why didn't Roger put up a fight??


Because halfway through the first set he thought "screw this, if I lose here I could be crawling around on grass within 24 hours".

In what way did you want him to put up a fight if he got outplayed for 3 straight sets?

Name me any player and I will give you at least half a dozen matches where they played like amatures in important matches over the past 12 months even mental powerhouses like Canas and Hewitt.

undomiele
01-13-2005, 03:59 PM
If you can't accept that any of the reasons Roger, or that he simply had a bad day, then I don't know what I can say.

AHHHH well at least I got you to finally admit that he had a mental problem focusing during that match (Having a bad day). Hence he's human. Thats all I wanted to hear. Thank you!!!!!

Because halfway through the first set he thought "screw this, if I lose here I could be crawling around on grass within 24 hours".

Attitude of a champion. :rolleyes: That is, if thats what he really thought (i doubt it).

In what way did you want him to put up a fight if he got outplayed for 3 straight sets?

Because 2 sets down he still had a chance and he friggin' gave up. Yes, he just gave up. Everyone knows he did. Even Rogerfans know it cos I remember them having said it when it happened. Check the archives. I remember Guga's second serve at that point was just a mess (I taped the match) and Roger couldn't even return' em. Now are you going to keep living in denial and not admit that Roger just stopped caring? Or is that too much for you? The guy is human after all, and I know he probably will get better, but that he gave up that day is undeniable. Its something he'll have to work on. Deal with it. Its not as if he won't still be one of the best players ever. :rolleyes: Sheesh!

Dirk
01-13-2005, 04:55 PM
Roger said in his interview that he had trouble returning Guga's serve due to the changing conditions and he did believe he could still win when Guga was serving for the match. He didn't give up just became clueless out there. Coria should probably work on eating, behaving professional out of the court, and stop choking.

makro120
01-13-2005, 05:20 PM
Do you think the 4 set win against Coria is why I think Coria is no match for Federer?

Obviously not, Coria is the kind of player who will let Federer decide if he wants to win the match or not and I belive in Federer that he will win such a game. Guga is the kind of player who puts pressure on Federer and decides a game, Guga is the kind of player who would never play defensive and always wants to decide the game himself. He won't even let his opponent enter the match when he is on top with his heavy baseline game, even when he lost against Nalbandian Guga constantly decided the game with heavy baseline shots mixed with beautiful dropshots. He doesn't really have a weakness on clay, this means his opponents just needs to wish he is having a bad day. Ferrero is not as complete as Guga from the baseline as his backhand is not topclass, but he still would put pressure on Federer and it could be a very exciting game. Federer will want to face these players in the later rounds when he obviously is much better, if he is unlucky he will face them earlier and I don't know if he would survive facing Guga or Ferrero early in RG. I am specialy afraid of Guga.

My dream final would be Federer, Guga or Ferrero facing each other in the final, Coria is the kind of player Federer probably would like to meet in the final.

lsy
01-13-2005, 05:38 PM
Because 2 sets down he still had a chance and he friggin' gave up. Yes, he just gave up. Everyone knows he did. Even Rogerfans know it cos I remember them having said it when it happened. Check the archives. I remember Guga's second serve at that point was just a mess (I taped the match) and Roger couldn't even return' em. Now are you going to keep living in denial and not admit that Roger just stopped caring? Or is that too much for you? The guy is human after all, and I know he probably will get better, but that he gave up that day is undeniable. Its something he'll have to work on. Deal with it. Its not as if he won't still be one of the best players ever. :rolleyes: Sheesh!

I didn't get to watch that match but did he really just give up the final set? I remembered following the scores and he was pushing Guga on his serves quite a bit in the final set, I think he also had breakpoints when guga was serving for match? Sure his confidence must be low but didn't seem like he stopped caring or just gave up.

This is Roger Federer defending himself :p


ROGER FEDERER: No. I've done worse against Henman in Rotterdam where I had the feeling everything was going against me. This is not the feeling I had today. I felt I had a chance to win this match. Even at 6-4, 6-4, 5-4, I still felt I could win this match.

You've got to believe it in such a situation, particularly in a Grand Slam. I don't think it's an illusion. I know that if I could have gone back into that match at that point and played better, I still knew I had an opportunity to win this match, and now it's too late.


Rogerfans drive me nuts!!!

Pretty sure the feeling is mutual :lol: No, j/k but seriously, you may find others opinions ridiculous, but they probably feel the same on yours. Who's to say who is right or wrong? Just seeing things from different perspective.

undomiele
01-13-2005, 05:49 PM
Roger said in his interview that he had trouble returning Guga's serve due to the changing conditions and he did believe he could still win when Guga was serving for the match. He didn't give up just became clueless out there. Coria should probably work on eating, behaving professional out of the court, and stop choking.

Whatever Dirk, this contradicts your own opinion about the match in the archives. You yourself said you were disappointed he didnt put up a better fight. Guga's second serve in the third set was pretty weak, if Roger really wanted to he could have done something about that. A lot of other players could have, why not Roger? All im saying here is that it seems that Roger has a problem with RG's conditions. Hence, a psychological problem ON THAT COURT when he's being really tested. Nothing more, nothing less. You seem to be supporting this in your quote as well (i.e.: "changing conditions"). He can totally overcome this. Im not denying that. But that the court bothered him in *that* match is something to be noted for the future.

undomiele
01-13-2005, 06:35 PM
I didn't get to watch that match but did he really just give up the final set? I remembered following the scores and he was pushing Guga on his serves quite a bit in the final set, I think he also had breakpoints when guga was serving for match? Sure his confidence must be low but didn't seem like he stopped caring or just gave up.

He didn't roll over and play dead. Point taken. But it was a disappointing performance from a man who could have done more. That much was obvious. Lack of confidence? Sure. But due to what besides Guga? The court size, the crowd, and other not-so-serious reasons? I mean, remember, these are reasons Roger openly admitted to and his sensitivity to his surroundings had brought him problems before. I mean, after all, keep in mind that Guga played the match in pain. Thats a *real* reason to not play your best, but Guga played amazingly well despite of it.

Ppl think that because Roger has won practically non-stop throughout the year that that will be enough for him to exorcise his mental demons. He used to be a basketcase. Well what if he's more susceptible to being a basketcase at RG ONLY simply because he is more likely to be *really* tested there? (I'd like to really see him play a Canias or Costa in a grueling 5 setter at RG. Im sure that would reveal a lot.) The fact is, Roger today is *so* good he almost never reaches the point where he will have to dig in like others do. He rarely, rarely reaches that point.

SO ALL I AM SAYING, which is stg FedFans JUST DON'T WANT TO ADMIT, is that that can be a problem at RG. He's been spoiled, he's used to winning comfortably, AND he has a bit of a personal problem with RG. Combined with the fact that he will be tested on a much more equal footing at RG (depending on the draw), ALL I AM SAYING is that this is a disadvantage unique to Roger Federer. Every player has disadvantages unique to them. But this one is Rogers, and he will most likely have to get over it if he wants to win. He will have to learn to dig in *ugly* because there will be plenty of players who won't have that problem, who will be willing to play in pain while Roger is mulling over racket string tensions, tennis shoes, and the size of the court.

Dirk
01-13-2005, 07:57 PM
That was before I read his interview. I was very upset he didn't get barely any break point chances. Roger became clueless out there but didn't stop fighting.

Dirk
01-13-2005, 08:01 PM
He sure learned to overcome his ugly play in the first set vs. Coria in hamburg. Dug deep there...right? Roger never plays in pain??????????????????? 4th rd Lopez Wimbledon 03 ring a bell? OH I'VE GOT A BETTER ONE!!!!!!! 01 Wimbledon vs. Sampras after suffering a groin injury in his 3rd round match. How do you like them apples Undomiele??????? :p

Action Jackson
01-13-2005, 09:48 PM
You have tó read my post again. It doesn't matter if clay players have big serves or not, if you can hold you serve more thanx to your raquet this means that fewer points decide the match and the bad player got a better chanse winning the game, taking sets to tiebreak or having a killer game to break and then just hold their serve.

You still don't get it, that the serve is still not a huge factor in the vast majority of matches on clay. It's how it's used that is more important, you seem to think playing on clay has as many breaks of serves as grass.

So, you admit at least that today there are 200 good players while back then there was 20?

Never said otherwise actually, it's just the top echelon were very good then and the lower section is better now than then for all the reasons stated.

Can't you admit it is more difficult for players to win the early rounds. I am definetly sure Roddick would go to semifinal in RG back in the time of Lendl and Wilander (Becker did! And Edberg was in a final!).

Another folly Edberg and Becker actually played a lot of their early junior tennis on clay, so that being the case they'd have less problems adjusting and the fact that they happen to be better players than Roddick ever will be.

Anyway, I don't see why you can't be optimistic about Federer, only the optimistic would be right about him last year. Only the optimistic can see his potential in the future.

You're not optimistic, actually hilariously biased is more like it. You think he will win 100 matches in a season, go unbeaten and win 4 RG crowns and discount the threat of Ferrero and Coria on clay, and I am supposed to take you seriously.

Action Jackson
01-13-2005, 09:53 PM
I have said this many times and again for the people who didn't get it the first time.

If you want to witness the problems Federer has on clay watch the 2003 Rome final against Mantilla. That sums it up, he played a veteran and a warrior who would stay out there as long as it took to win a match and that is something everyone has to go to win the French and Roger hasn;'t done it for ages at RG, plus all the other reasons that are stated.

Yes, I am a Federer fan and I think I have given a fair analysis on his game for clay and not blinded by the love that some people seem to have.

undomiele
01-13-2005, 11:05 PM
I have said this many times and again for the people who didn't get it the first time.

If you want to witness the problems Federer has on clay watch the 2003 Rome final against Mantilla. That sums it up, he played a veteran and a warrior who would stay out there as long as it took to win a match and that is something everyone has to go to win the French and Roger hasn;'t done it for ages at RG, plus all the other reasons that are stated.

Yes, I am a Federer fan and I think I have given a fair analysis on his game for clay and not blinded by the love that some people seem to have.

Finally, a voice of reason. ;)

undomiele
01-13-2005, 11:28 PM
He sure learned to overcome his ugly play in the first set vs. Coria in hamburg. Dug deep there...right? Roger never plays in pain??????????????????? 4th rd Lopez Wimbledon 03 ring a bell? OH I'VE GOT A BETTER ONE!!!!!!! 01 Wimbledon vs. Sampras after suffering a groin injury in his 3rd round match. How do you like them apples Undomiele??????? :p


Please understand, Dirk, that Roland Garros is DIFFERENT from ANY OTHER CLAY TOURNAMENT -ANY TOURNAMENT. PERIOD. Its NOT Hamburg, NOT Rome, NOT like anything else thats out there! THAT IS WHY IT IS ROLAND GARROS! Best 3 out of 5 all the way!!! So for me to question his ability to win, THIS year especially, is only rational. Based on RG FACTS I have to question Roger's stamina, mentally (to a point) and yes, even physically. Its pointless for you to point out ONE instance of digging in during one paltry set or whatever when he just isn't known for digging in, sweating it out, during a match against a REAL competitor AT ROLAND GARROS or much anywhere else for that point for a long, long time!!! And its very likely that that is what he is going to have to do to win at RG at some point. Either he can cut it or he can't. With Guga he didn't, or couldn't, or whatever. Some ppl are quick to think its a fluke, Im not quite so sure. He has to prove himself still AT ROLAND GARROS, that much is clear and Im not going to take it from any Rogerfan until he does.

Im sure non-Sampras fans know what Im talking about ;)

As for playing in pain, thats not the issue, i mentioned Guga playing through the pain as opposed to Roger being bothered about more menial concerns as a way of pointing out that there are some great claycourters out there who don't have a problem concentrating on Chartier court specifically.

Action Jackson
01-13-2005, 11:44 PM
Guga outplayed Roger at RG pure and simple, just like Costa did at Rome. The centre court at RG is the same for both players, and Roger needs to forget about these details and concentrate on the tennis at hand.

He did grind out a result against Agassi, but that was a hardcourt. I still think on clay his defensive play does need to improve to a level that it is on the faster surfaces. I think he is very capable of winning RG more so than Sampras ever was, but there are certain things he needs to go his way and improve in the area where he can.

WyveN
01-14-2005, 12:24 AM
Ppl think that because Roger has won practically non-stop throughout the year that that will be enough for him to exorcise his mental demons. He used to be a basketcase. Well what if he's more susceptible to being a basketcase at RG ONLY simply because he is more likely to be *really* tested there?
The fact is, Roger today is *so* good he almost never reaches the point where he will have to dig in like others do. He rarely, rarely reaches that point.


How about against Agassi at the USO?
Against Roddick at Wimbledon?
Against Safin in Houston?
Against Hewitt at Wimbledon?
Against Nalbandian at AO?

None of those matches were easy and he was *really* tested in all of them and had to really dig in because a few points here and there and he could have easily lost each one of those matches and ended up with 0 slams in 2004 instead of 3.




SO ALL I AM SAYING, which is stg FedFans JUST DON'T WANT TO ADMIT, is that that can be a problem at RG. He's been spoiled, he's used to winning comfortably, AND he has a bit of a personal problem with RG.


That is your opinion, people are allowed to disagree.


He will have to learn to dig in *ugly* because there will be plenty of players who won't have that problem, who will be willing to play in pain while Roger is mulling over racket string tensions, tennis shoes, and the size of the court.

No doubt about that, he will need to get into top physical condition as well and play as much on clay as possible, hopefully against top clay court players in tough matches.

WyveN
01-14-2005, 12:28 AM
Because 2 sets down he still had a chance and he friggin' gave up. Yes, he just gave up. Everyone knows he did. Even Rogerfans know it cos I remember them having said it when it happened. Check the archives.

I am not going to check any archives because I have the match on tape and if you notice Roger actually started playing better in the 3rd set and had a few opportunities to get back into it but Guga sensed the danger and further raised his game. The third set of that match was definetly the best one of that match in terms of quality.
Saying that he gave up is rubbish, if you want to see a match where he gave up the Costa match is probably a better example.

makro120
01-14-2005, 02:02 AM
Mantila in Rome was like 2 years ago when Federer lost against any defensive player in the tour. I don't even take a match 2 years ago with Federer in consideration thinking about how much he has improved, specialy his mental strength and beeing pacient in long duels. Costa's match in Rome would be more interesing, but the question is if this was only one of those early round losses Federer sometimes have had when nothing works for him. I certanly don't think Costa beat the crap out of him from the baseline like Guga did, anyway I would like to see that match.

Dirk
01-14-2005, 02:06 AM
Costa became aggressive after the 1st set and attacked Roger and came to the net. Roger lost to due rust and costa's play.

I think i should start a thread called "Will Coria will the French Open" just to take the piss out of Undominele and others.

Action Jackson
01-14-2005, 09:22 AM
Keep up with the grand delusions makro at least they are entertaining.

lsy
01-14-2005, 10:04 AM
He didn't roll over and play dead. Point taken. But it was a disappointing performance from a man who could have done more. That much was obvious. Lack of confidence? Sure. But due to what besides Guga? The court size, the crowd, and other not-so-serious reasons? I mean, remember, these are reasons Roger openly admitted to and his sensitivity to his surroundings had brought him problems before. I mean, after all, keep in mind that Guga played the match in pain. Thats a *real* reason to not play your best, but Guga played amazingly well despite of it.

Yes it was disappointing, I only didn't agree with you that he lost in straights to Guga simply because he stopped caring and gave up like you firmly claimed he did in your original post. There are plenty of "real" reason why one can't play at his best, and I always feel that your opponents performance had much to do with it. I thought his match vs Guga was one of them. Same as many kept saying Roger didn't play his best vs Andy in that wimby first set, the way I saw it Andy didn't really allow him to.


Ppl think that because Roger has won practically non-stop throughout the year that that will be enough for him to exorcise his mental demons. He used to be a basketcase. Well what if he's more susceptible to being a basketcase at RG ONLY simply because he is more likely to be *really* tested there? (I'd like to really see him play a Canias or Costa in a grueling 5 setter at RG. Im sure that would reveal a lot.) The fact is, Roger today is *so* good he almost never reaches the point where he will have to dig in like others do. He rarely, rarely reaches that point.

No people didn't just think coz he had won so much, he's no longer mentally weak. People think that because for the past year, he had shown much improvement. Had he come back from matches or dug deep and won "ugly"? Yes, AO, Wimby final, USO, TMC, Hamburg. Some of those wins surprised even his most die hard fans. Can he do the same or does he have enough desire/drive to do that in FO? I don't know and we'll see but I'm not about to say he can't simply because he lost in straights to Guga last year.


He will have to learn to dig in *ugly* because there will be plenty of players who won't have that problem, who will be willing to play in pain while Roger is mulling over racket string tensions, tennis shoes, and the size of the court.

And I agree.

You made some valid points but also few which are subjective and opened for arguments. But you seem very eager to get everybody to agree with everything you had to say.

jtipson
01-14-2005, 10:53 AM
This has been an interesting discussion, with a lot of valid points made. I think that Roger probably has some work to do in order to feel he can win Roland Garros, although he is certainly capable of it. Some tough matches in the TMS tournaments (I'm hooping he plays them all this year) would be very useful to see how far he's come with tactics and mental application on clay. I also wonder what influence Roche will have on his style of play - is he considering S&V on the red stuff (I'd be nervous about that)?

One particular note I'd like to make: the size of Court P Chatrier is not a trivial environment problem. It's not that the arena overawes him, rather that the huge amount of space available outside the lines gives his opponents more opportunity to return shots. This means that making winners unreturnable requires more effort than it would on other courts at RG.

Of course this is something both players have to live with, and an issue Roger will have to overcome sooner rather than later. The more he plays on it the better he'll get. But I think this is a bigger problem for someone with his style of play than those who are naturally more defensive in tactics.

sigmagirl91
01-14-2005, 10:59 AM
I think i should start a thread called "Will Coria will the French Open" just to take the piss out of Undominele and others.

You do just that. :devil:

Action Jackson
01-14-2005, 11:02 AM
jtip, Roger needs to serve/volley a bit more on the clay, but not to the Rafter or Noah levels.

Wow, here is a tennis topic.

jtipson
01-14-2005, 11:10 AM
jtip, Roger needs to serve/volley a bit more on the clay, but not to the Rafter or Noah levels.

Wow, here is a tennis topic.

Indeed :devil:

Yes, the extreme is what I'm worried about, George - I'm not sure it helped Sampras' cause much in Paris either (not that I minded). The serve & volleying Roger did in Gstaad last year was good, although he only did it when he was tired in order to shorten the points, and he needs a heck of a lot of confidence (even for him) to execute that.

Action Jackson
01-14-2005, 11:18 AM
Indeed :devil:

Yes, the extreme is what I'm worried about, George - I'm not sure it helped Sampras' cause much in Paris either (not that I minded). The serve & volleying Roger did in Gstaad last year was good, although he only did it when he was tired in order to shorten the points, and he needs a heck of a lot of confidence (even for him) to execute that.

If you listen to makro Federer will win 4 RG crowns at least. Now to be serious Roger is already a better mover on clay than Sampras ever will be and has done well at the other clay events then he has at RG.

Gstaad well the altitude helped him to do that as well, yes there was some tiredness as well. The training is very specific for clay as well, sure endurance is very important, but it needs to be speed endurance and for him to serve/volley consistently would take a huge effort. So a combination of more s/v and being prepared to grind it out when it's not going well would help. I mean he is not like Agassi who in nearly 20 years at RG, has had one hard draw in his life.

undomiele
01-14-2005, 01:22 PM
How about against Agassi at the USO?
Against Roddick at Wimbledon?
Against Safin in Houston?
Against Hewitt at Wimbledon?
Against Nalbandian at AO?

None of those matches were easy and he was *really* tested in all of them and had to really dig in because a few points here and there and he could have easily lost each one of those matches and ended up with 0 slams in 2004 instead of 3.

Dude, are you stupid? I just said in CAPITAL letters in my last post that he has to prove he can dig in AT ROLAND GARROS. Comparing his digging in to achievements at Houston, Wimbledon, AO, USO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. For one, at RG there are a whole *horde* of claycourt guys who don't do half as well during the rest of the year as they do at roland garros. Costa and Guga today are some such players. Horna, Nadal, Robredo and other floaters should be taken into account as well. Roger has NEVER had to dig in against a CHAIN of good claycourters in a tournament that boasts best 3 out of 5, or even only one claycourter for that matter. And we all know that digging in on clay is physically harder than any other surface, especially when its 3/5. Now if you are going to be narrow-minded, and say "well he dug in against this ONE guy at this OTHER tournament with a DIFFERENT surface during ONE set or whatever" then thats your problem. *Im* talking about chain of 7 successive 3/5 matches on clay. Roger has never done it before. Dont you understand that 2 WEEKS OF BEST 3/5 CHANGES EVERYTHING WHEN ITS ON CLAY???

Personally, I believe the more Roger will have to go through and miraculously(?) win long, drawn out matches, the less likely he'll be able to keep up. You *absolutely* need clay patience at RG. Federer doesn't really possess that kind of patience. He likes and is used to getting things over with as quickly as possible. Granted he's not Roddick, but that he's never really displayed the level of patience thats often required at RG is indisputable cos thats the only place where you can really display it. Guys like Ferrero (in-form), Moya, Coria, Guga, all the veterans, all the real claycourters, the guys who live and breathe on the stuff all have cultivated "clay patience" --the patience needed to know how to most effectively use and store up energy when its 2 weeks of best 3 out of 5, when one game out of one match can last foreeeevver, and still be really good. That is why strategy is so important on clay. Its about knowing how to really construct a point, oftentimes play conservatively, make the other guy run like hell, WEAR HIM DOWN, save your energy, and beat him with time, strategy, ability and patience. You have to be patient to win at Roland Garros and I question Rogers ability to be that patient cos his game is better suited for faster surfaces where he can afford to play aggressively, go for the lines, go in for the kill time and time again and keep the match short. Its a high-risk game that doesn't really work for RG in the LONG-RUN. Precisely *because* it takes up a lot of energy on a surface that will suck up your power more than anywhere else. Think about the *cumulative* effect of playing potentially 7 best 3/5 matches on clay. Famous clay tactics like sliding, and employing drop shots, for example, are used, in essence, to store energy in the first case, while making the other guy use up his energy in the second. And believe me, in potentially long matches, Im sure it makes a difference. It might not make a difference at ONE clay TMS final but AT ROLAND GARROS --2 weeks, best 3/5 against real claycourters-- it really, really does. Roger doesn't really know how to use either tactic effectively. That will work against him.

So much about RG is just about a succession of really experienced players chipping away at you, round after round, in potentially long, long matches, and if you're not careful, if you don't know how to conserve energy, while the other guy knows how to stand back and make you spend a lot of energy
(often needlessly), its very likely there'll be little left standing in the end to fight. Its part of their strategy. And its a very effective one. So thats what I meant by knowing HOW to dig in, not about Roger not about being ABLE to dig in, he just has to know HOW to do it, ON CLAY, AT ROLAND GARROS, BEST 3/5.

There's no other tournament like it in the world.

WyveN
01-14-2005, 10:23 PM
Dude, are you stupid? I just said in CAPITAL letters in my last post that he has to prove he can dig in AT ROLAND GARROS. Comparing his digging in to achievements at Houston, Wimbledon, AO, USO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.


It was obvious that your point was that the reason Roger doesn't dig in at the FO is because unlike at other tournaments he is really tested there, I was just pointing out that he is tested at other tournaments as well and just because its on hardcourt/grass does not mean it is a walk in the park.


And we all know that digging in on clay is physically harder than any other surface, especially when its 3/5. Now if you are going to be narrow-minded, and say "well he dug in against this ONE guy at this OTHER tournament with a DIFFERENT surface during ONE set or whatever" then thats your problem. *Im* talking about chain of 7 successive 3/5 matches on clay. Roger has never done it before. Dont you understand that 2 WEEKS OF BEST 3/5 CHANGES EVERYTHING WHEN ITS ON CLAY???


1) It is very possible to get to the later stages of the FO with a soft draw and I can name plenty of times that is has happened and I fully realise Roger has never beaten any good clay courters at RG all I am saying is that he is capable of doing so, his game is potentially very well suited to clay (unlike say Sampras who had plenty of good wins at FO) and there is nothing preventing Roger from getting into the physical shape required for 2 weeks at RG.


Personally, I believe the more Roger will have to go through and miraculously(?) win long, drawn out matches, the less likely he'll be able to keep up.


If Henman can keep winning 5 setters and then give Coria a very tough match in the semis on clay then I dont see why Roger can't.


You *absolutely* need clay patience at RG. Federer doesn't really possess that kind of patience. He likes and is used to getting things over with as quickly as possible.


Maybe compared to the likes of Costa but Federer has much more clay patience then a lot of players who went to the semis or beyond over the past decade, and far more potential on clay then the other players who have done well at the other 3 slams but failed at RG. He will need to improve his strategy, conditioning and as someone mentioned defensive work on clay but all these things are easily achievable especially with a good coach who understands the clay game.



You have to be patient to win at Roland Garros and I question Rogers ability to be that patient cos his game is better suited for faster surfaces where he can afford to play aggressively, go for the lines, go in for the kill time and time again and keep the match short.


Rafter, Verkerk, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Rosset, Henman have all had good results at RG. All with attacking non-traditional clay games that are not suited to the surface. Certainly none of their strengths were in patient rallying and all with far less strength and consistency in groundstrokes relative to Federer.



Its a high-risk game that doesn't really work for RG in the LONG-RUN.


I think Roger can adapt his game to one that does work for RG although he is never going to be a baseline machine like Costa, and he doesn't need it to work in the Long-Run, he just needs it to work for 1 clay season ;)

Roger doesn't really know how to use either tactic effectively. That will work against him.


There are always non orthodox ways to win a tournament, just because a certain style has succeeded for a long time, doesnt mean it cant be beaten by a slightly different style. At Wimbledon many believed it was impossible to succeed without a big serve + great volleys, Hewitt and Nalbandian proved that wrong.


So thats what I meant by knowing HOW to dig in, not about Roger not about being ABLE to dig in, he just has to know HOW to do it, ON CLAY, AT ROLAND GARROS, BEST 3/5.


Who knows what will happen but if Roche could mold Rafters style into a pretty effective clay game, I think he can give Roger some helpful points as well.

Dirk
01-14-2005, 11:03 PM
Wyvern I wish I could give you all my 10 reps. Your working overtime to defend Ninja. If only you were a woman. :inlove:

undomiele
01-15-2005, 12:08 AM
It was obvious that your point was that the reason Roger doesn't dig in at the FO is because unlike at other tournaments he is really tested there, I was just pointing out that he is tested at other tournaments as well and just because its on hardcourt/grass does not mean it is a walk in the park.

You aren't actually addressing my point. What does it matter if he can dig in at other tournaments when he hasn't proven he can dig in at the one tournament that is supposed to be the ultimate test of digging in?? I mean its all worthless if he can't really do it there.

Maybe compared to the likes of Costa but Federer has much more clay patience then a lot of players who went to the semis or beyond over the past decade, and far more potential on clay then the other players who have done well at the other 3 slams but failed at RG. He will need to improve his strategy, conditioning and as someone mentioned defensive work on clay but all these things are easily achievable especially with a good coach who understands the clay game.

Easily achievable? Ill believe it when I see it. The only player who has managed to adjust his game enough to convincingly win both RG and Wimbledon in the modern era --multiple times in fact-- was Bjorn Borg. (Agassi doesn't count cos his draw was luckier than Jesus.) Thats a tall order to fill. Im sorry but I can't take you seriously when you say that doing this would be "easily achievable".

Rafter, Verkerk, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Rosset, Henman have all had good results at RG. All with attacking non-traditional clay games that are not suited to the surface. Certainly none of their strengths were in patient rallying and all with far less strength and consistency in groundstrokes relative to Federer.

None of those guys won Roland Garros. The topic of this thread is whether or not Roger will WIN the FO. With this point, youre just strengthening my case not yours. These "non-orthodox" styled players never made it --in fact, most ppl consider them obvious flukes. Like I said, you pretty much have to be a traditional claycourter or have the luck of the draw to win the FO.

There are always non orthodox ways to win a tournament, just because a certain style has succeeded for a long time, doesnt mean it cant be beaten by a slightly different style. At Wimbledon many believed it was impossible to succeed without a big serve + great volleys, Hewitt and Nalbandian proved that wrong.

This ain't Wimbledon, its Roland Garros. Different as night and day. Please try and respect that fact. Im very protective of that GSlam, its my favorite and I don't like to see its feelings get hurt. ;)

Seriously now I just don't think you can say that whats plausibly true for one Gslam carries over to one thats completely, completely different. There's just no provable connection there.

The only guy who won RG in a non orthodox way (but not really because he is one of the best returners ever) was Agassi, and that was ALL about the draw. True, the draw could favor Roger in an Agassi way, but in reality it could just as well favor *anyone* that way. So it would be prudent not to count on it. Plus I wouldn't want anyone to win it on pure luck of the draw.

Who knows what will happen but if Roche could mold Rafters style into a pretty effective clay game, I think he can give Roger some helpful points as well.

Spoken like a true Rogerfan. :yeah:

makro120
01-15-2005, 01:02 AM
Federer has won 2 master series on clay and has been to one final, I don't see any reason why compare him to Henman, Rafter, edberg, Sampras or even Agassi. This is an excellent clay court player and I think you all know it, maybe he is the best. One year ago people doubted that he could do well on hard court grand slams, he had never gone to the quater finals in AO and USopen. People thought Roddick ruled in hard court and Federer was the grass player. Federer couldn't win against players like Nalbandian, Henman, Agassi, Hewitt.....

Last year he proofed all of you wrong and made fool out of them. We all know Federer's potential on clay, he has won many tournaments big and small. He has beaten praticaly all big clay court players out there. But he has never gone to the semi finals in RG, so now people like last year think Federer can't handle Roland Garros. Some think he can't play on clay, some think he has mental problems with the court (like ´people thought about USopen last year), people think certain type of players like Costa and other fighters is too much for Federer on clay (like Nalbandian, Hewitt last year..).

You can think whatever you want, you can say that he needs a lucky draw like Agassi. Last year he got hardest possible draw in the australian open, he beat Hewitt, he beat Nalbandian, he beat Ferrero, all players he previously had problems with. In Houston he beat them all too and in USopen he beat Agassi and Henman other players he previously had problems with.

We are talking about BIG PROBLEMS here, 1-7 against Hewitt, 0-5 against Nalbandian, 1-6 against Henman...

Not one match lost against Costa in the early round of Monte carlo, but constantly loosing against them in grand slams.

Federer improves his game in such a velocity I wouldn't be surprised if he 2006 will be labeled as the king of clay too and sometime in the future win all 3 clay master series and RG....

martirogi
01-15-2005, 01:04 AM
he'll win it one year, fact

Action Jackson
02-02-2005, 01:53 AM
Interesting discussion between WyveN and undomiele.

I would have no problem with Federer winning, but he will need to improve his fitness to do so and also not makes excuses about the Chartrier court and if he is to win RG, he might have to play there now and then.

Hopefully the AO loss will focus him more on trying to win RG at least once.

RogiFan88
02-02-2005, 02:31 AM
Rogi will just have to train at Juanqui's tennis academy on clay, then play the Godo where he will be tested by the best on clay... hee hee!

Action Jackson
02-02-2005, 02:36 AM
Rogi will just have to train at Juanqui's tennis academy on clay, then play the Godo where he will be tested by the best on clay... hee hee!

He won't play there sadly. If he lost early and the tournament could give him a guarantee then he might, but I don't see it happening.

It's about time he played Monte Carlo anyway.

RogiFan88
02-02-2005, 03:03 AM
He will never win the French Open because there are too many good real claycourters like Coria, Ferrero or Gaudio. As long as Federer don't win the French Open he will never be the best player of all time. How can you when you never won the biggest clay tournament?


You mean like Sampras?? :devil: ;)

RogiFan88
02-02-2005, 03:05 AM
He won't play there sadly. If he lost early and the tournament could give him a guarantee then he might, but I don't see it happening.

It's about time he played Monte Carlo anyway.

Yeah, he better! I'd like him to win it too!

shaoyu
02-02-2005, 03:18 AM
Federer has won 2 master series on clay and has been to one final, I don't see any reason why compare him to Henman, Rafter, edberg, Sampras or even Agassi. This is an excellent clay court player and I think you all know it, maybe he is the best. One year ago people doubted that he could do well on hard court grand slams, he had never gone to the quater finals in AO and USopen. People thought Roddick ruled in hard court and Federer was the grass player. Federer couldn't win against players like Nalbandian, Henman, Agassi, Hewitt.....

Last year he proofed all of you wrong and made fool out of them. We all know Federer's potential on clay, he has won many tournaments big and small. He has beaten praticaly all big clay court players out there. But he has never gone to the semi finals in RG, so now people like last year think Federer can't handle Roland Garros. Some think he can't play on clay, some think he has mental problems with the court (like ´people thought about USopen last year), people think certain type of players like Costa and other fighters is too much for Federer on clay (like Nalbandian, Hewitt last year..).

You can think whatever you want, you can say that he needs a lucky draw like Agassi. Last year he got hardest possible draw in the australian open, he beat Hewitt, he beat Nalbandian, he beat Ferrero, all players he previously had problems with. In Houston he beat them all too and in USopen he beat Agassi and Henman other players he previously had problems with.

We are talking about BIG PROBLEMS here, 1-7 against Hewitt, 0-5 against Nalbandian, 1-6 against Henman...

Not one match lost against Costa in the early round of Monte carlo, but constantly loosing against them in grand slams.

Federer improves his game in such a velocity I wouldn't be surprised if he 2006 will be labeled as the king of clay too and sometime in the future win all 3 clay master series and RG....

Welcome back Makro! I kinda missed you ;) Even though you always sounded a bit overly optimistic for Federer, but I like your style :) I think if you are ever right about your predictions, many people here should owe you huge apologies.

Action Jackson
02-02-2005, 03:24 AM
Welcome back Makro! I kinda missed you ;) Even though you always sounded a bit overly optimistic for Federer, but I like your style :) I think if you are ever right about your predictions, many people here should owe you huge apologies.

He has been gone for over 2 weeks look at the date of posting. :)

shaoyu
02-02-2005, 03:27 AM
He has been gone for over 2 weeks look at the date of posting. :)

Oops ;) Hey Makro show us that you are stronger than that please ;) I am sad for Roger too but I still believe in him :)

Leena
02-02-2005, 03:28 AM
Why are there so many banned posters in the first couple pages of this thread? ;)

Action Jackson
02-02-2005, 03:45 AM
Why are there so many banned posters in the first couple pages of this thread? ;)

You see 2 of them everytime I post here. ;)

Action Jackson
02-02-2005, 03:50 AM
Now answer the question Leena?

Leena
02-02-2005, 04:00 AM
Were you RonJeremy?

If you were, you gain 100 respect level points.

LiZpHaIr
02-02-2005, 04:02 AM
No, because Tim will.

Action Jackson
02-21-2005, 03:01 AM
Roger is trying to add new dimensions in his game and that's all good. The key is whether he believes he can win RG. This is Wilander's take on Federer about winning RG. I agree with that. I mean come on the court the same for everyone so the Chartrier excuse isn't worthy.

TM: Can he win RG?

MW: Of course, he can! He can do whatever suits him on clay and he's already proved it. If I was in Roger Federer's shoes, and given what he has already gone through, I would focus mostly on RG. Furthermore, if I were him, I would be wishing to win the 4 GSs each year. For me, he has the means to equal the great results of somebody like Rod Laver. But if he wants to achieve it, he has to ask himself the essential question right now : how can I put all the chances on my side to win RG? Pete Sampras for example, has never granted himself the means to achieve it. And this didn't mean for him to radically change his game on clay. But in order to be faithfull, he should have trained sufficiently so that the game which allowed him to win the USO could also allow him to be the best in Paris. Many people will certainly disagree with what I'm about to say but for me, RG is the easiest GS you can win. Because ALL lies in the player's hands. ALL depends on him. You'll never get a chance to witness 4 aces in a row like in Wimbledon. It's only you who are building your victory from the beginning till the end of the match. Why should Federer fail here? Last year, against Kuerten, he had absolutely taken no risks. It was as if his mind was already wandering in Wimbledon. And we should therefore stop pretending that Wimbledon is the most important GS of the year. That's crap. It's the least important one simply because it's played on a surface on which you never play anymore.

Dirk
02-21-2005, 03:03 AM
Disagree with his Wimbledon comment but he has logical reasons for believing it so I will give him that. What he said about RG is right on. Never thought of it that way before.

undomiele
02-21-2005, 03:59 AM
Easier said then done. The prudent thing would be to just wait and see.

Action Jackson
02-21-2005, 04:03 AM
The question is whether he will win RG once not will he win it this year.

Dirk, one thing you may have forgotten. It's a totally different kind of fitness required to play on clay than on the other surfaces.

Chartier court excuse was tired when it came out and it still is now.

He is an outstanding defensive player on other surfaces, but not necessarily on clay and I have said that many times and that is something he needs to improve in that regard.

If I were him I'd play the 3 TMS events and Barcelona if he loses early in Monte Carlo. That's the real challenge for him and not Wimbledon.

Raoul Duke
02-21-2005, 04:13 AM
In short he will win it because he is the best (not greatest at least not yet) player ever to have graced a tennis court. Other non clay courters have in recent years been relatively close and Federer is even better than they were.
He has already proven himself on clay and yeah as scary as it may be, he is still improving. His serve the way it is now, will give important easy points as well. But key is, Roger Federer is the best most complete player we have ever seen and that's why he one day will win the French Open. It's really THAT simple. :)

Action Jackson
02-21-2005, 04:15 AM
The key is that Federer needs to prove that he is prepared to get ugly and grind hard and win some 5 setters at RG, something he hasn't done yet.

undomiele
02-21-2005, 04:56 AM
Exactly George. Exactly.

Dirk
02-21-2005, 05:12 AM
He did it in 01 at RG. Won a 5 setter coming back from two sets love. I never said he won't win it but I would be shocked if he didn't because he has more than enough game for it. Roger's endurance level should be good enough for him to win it. We rarely see Federer play 5 setters in slams anymore because he tries to win every point now which is something he didn't try to do a few years back.

If we see him lose at RG this year due to not having enough stamina then I will join you in your "Roger's not fit enough to win RG" mantra. Till we see proof of his lack of fitness, I think we should reserve judgement.

Prizeidiot
02-21-2005, 05:22 AM
For sure.... maybe not this year, but I think he will win it one day. Just because he is the best player in the world, and one day a good draw will fall on him, and he will take advantage of it. It will be hard work of course

Leena
02-21-2005, 05:38 AM
GWH, you really should have let this thread die.

The first couple pages are so sad. :p

Dirk
02-21-2005, 05:42 AM
R128
Arthurs, Wayne (AUS )
139
7-6(4) 6-3 1-6 6-3
R64
Gambill, Jan-Michael (USA )
58
7-6(5) 6-3 6-3
R32
Kratochvil, Michel (SUI )
135
7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 6-7(4) 8-6
R16
Corretja, Alex (ESP )
8
5-7 6-7(7) 2-6


This was from RG 2000.

R128
Galvani, Stefano (ITA )
N/A
6-3 6-3 6-3
R64
Sargsian, Sargis (ARM )
102
4-6 3-6 6-2 6-4 9-7
R32
Sanchez, David (ESP )
112
6-4 6-3 1-6 6-3
R16
Arthurs, Wayne (AUS )
71
3-6 6-3 6-4 6-2
Q
Corretja, Alex (ESP )
32
5-7 4-6 5-7


This was RG 2001.

Now surely we all can agree that Roger is fitter now than he was in 00-01. I didn't see his two losses to Alex so I don't know if it was endurance that let him down or the fact that Alex is a great clay player and much wiser on the surface than Federer so he outplayed the future great.

I just think it's pure nonsense to say Federer doesn't have the fitness to win RG when we haven't seen him lose a match due to being tired since Cincy 2004 in the 1st rd to Hrbaty. Not to take away from Hrbaty's play that day of course but Roger was coming off winning his 8th title of the season.

Can't we just wait and see how he losses at RG this year before we comment if he needs to work on his fitness?

Action Jackson
02-21-2005, 08:54 AM
Now surely we all can agree that Roger is fitter now than he was in 00-01. I didn't see his two losses to Alex so I don't know if it was endurance that let him down or the fact that Alex is a great clay player and much wiser on the surface than Federer so he outplayed the future great.

I just think it's pure nonsense to say Federer doesn't have the fitness to win RG when we haven't seen him lose a match due to being tired since Cincy 2004 in the 1st rd to Hrbaty. Not to take away from Hrbaty's play that day of course but Roger was coming off winning his 8th title of the season.

Can't we just wait and see how he losses at RG this year before we comment if he needs to work on his fitness?

I was well aware of Roger's earlier record at RG and the reasons he lost to Corretja were very simple. Corretja was a much better player on clay and it showed in these matches.

The fitness issue is definitely one that needs to be asked, as I said it's a different game on clay and that relates to the fitness side of things as well.

I am not saying he is unfit at all far from it actually, it's just I have doubts about him grinding out 5 setters against tough players on the surface, and how the reserves are as well if he has to back up and do it again. This in addition to the Chartier court phobia he has are why I am reserving judgements. It's far from a lack of ability that is the problem, it's between the ears more so in this case.

erik-the-red
02-21-2005, 02:25 PM
Roland Garros...

...for some (viz. Gaudio, Costa, Gomez, etc.), a good fortnight earns them the only major title of their careers.

For others (viz. Rafter, Sampras, McEnroe, etc.), it is but a dream.

But, I feel that Federer has a good chance of winning this title. He has already won a big clay court title (ie. Hamburg). Moreover, to win the title, he edged Coria in the final.

RogiFan88
02-21-2005, 03:05 PM
"I didn't see his two losses to Alex so I don't know if it was endurance that let him down or the fact that Alex is a great clay player and much wiser on the surface than Federer so he outplayed the future great."

Dirk, it wasn't Rogi's fitness that let him down at all, it was the fact that, esp in 2001, Alex was at his peak and as we know made the F that yr where he lost to Guga and as people like to repeat ad nauseum, Alex is a "claycourter". Rogi was just kinda immature and having fun at that time. That's when I really first noticed him, thanks to Alex.

willie
02-21-2005, 03:22 PM
Answer:NO
Reason:Guillermo Coria

RogiFan88
02-21-2005, 03:25 PM
I've said this before somewhere, but Rogi definitely needs to be able to win a 5-setter on clay in order to have a chance at winning RG. How many RG titleholders have not had to win a 5-setter en route to the big V? Also, if Rogi is truly serious about winning RG, he definitely s play Barcelona, which w be a superb test for him vs. the top "clay" guys out there. Rogi needs a real clay strategy tho also... there are so many guys who could beat him at RG, a whole slew of em, fr Coria to Gaudio to Guga to Juanqui to Calleri, Nadal, Moya, Safin, Andreev... and the list goes on... nothing w give me more pleasure than to see Rogi win RG... that's all he needs to do for me to be happy! One other thing, get rid of the negative attitude towards Chatrier -- it's absurd!

WyveN
02-21-2005, 11:13 PM
Roger also needs to block Wimbledon out of his mind at French Open, which will be difficult to do.

Puschkin
02-22-2005, 05:42 AM
How many RG titleholders have not had to win a 5-setter en route to the big V?


Evgenij Kafelnikov! He played only one four-setter (NO five-setter) when he won the title in 1996 and he also won the doubles at RG ( an achievement, always underestimated in my view :worship: ). A few days letter he was in the final of Halle on grass.

So much about a special claycourt-mentality and the need to prevail in five-setters ;) .

Dirk
02-22-2005, 06:35 AM
I do think Roger could win the whole event in straight sets or only play a 4 setter or two. Just have to wait and see.

Action Jackson
02-22-2005, 06:52 AM
Winning the event in straights set that won't be happening, next he'll be compared to Borg on clay.

federer_roar
02-22-2005, 09:10 AM
This discussion has been very interesting and I really enjoy reading all the posts. Want to give all of you a good rep. :yeah: :yeah: :D

Black Adam
02-22-2005, 10:12 AM
Roger also needs to block Wimbledon out of his mind at French Open, which will be difficult to do.
Its also hard to win both Wimby and FO in the same year........i think his main priority is keeping his wimby title :) He can win both if he skips Halle ;)

WyveN
02-22-2005, 12:40 PM
He can win both if he skips Halle ;)

Or skip the FO and concentrate on his grass winning streak.

Dirk
02-22-2005, 01:37 PM
:rolls: Yep Wyvern all he needs to do is just win two clay masters and that is the same amount of champion race points right there. Skip RG and keep the grass streak going. I like it. ;)

RogiFan88
02-22-2005, 03:47 PM
Evgenij Kafelnikov! He played only one four-setter (NO five-setter) when he won the title in 1996 and he also won the doubles at RG ( an achievement, always underestimated in my view :worship: ). A few days letter he was in the final of Halle on grass.

So much about a special claycourt-mentality and the need to prevail in five-setters ;) .

Kudos to Yevy! :worship:

Did he also win the dbles that yr?

Rogi can't skip Halle... he already skips the grass tourney the wk before Wimby... you need some grass matchplay before Wimby... not enough as it is.

mickymouse
02-22-2005, 03:49 PM
I don't know whether he will, but I hope he does and I believe he can

jasmine(usa)
02-22-2005, 05:52 PM
Not if Gaudio has anything to do about it. No, Roger can definitely win it, I'd just like to see my guy do a repeat.

Action Jackson
03-21-2005, 05:42 AM
Not if Gaudio has anything to do about it. No, Roger can definitely win it, I'd just like to see my guy do a repeat.

Well Gaston has never beaten Federer, though at least now they won't meet in an early round.

Roger-No.1
03-21-2005, 06:03 AM
Wwho's your favorite, GWH?

Gato or Roger?

Action Jackson
03-21-2005, 06:12 AM
Wwho's your favorite, GWH?

Gato or Roger?

In what context is the question?

Roger-No.1
03-21-2005, 06:17 AM
In what context is the question?
Roland Garros. Who's your favorite to get the title? if you could take the trophy and give it to a player, who would it be? And who do you think will win?

You can add a third, fourth player, it doesn't have to be Gato or Roger.....

Action Jackson
03-21-2005, 06:21 AM
Roland Garros. Who's your favorite to get the title? if you could take the trophy and give it to a player, who would it be? And who do you think will win?

You can add a third, fourth player, it doesn't have to be Gato or Roger.....

I mean in a dream I'd want Alex Corretja or Felix Mantilla to win it, but their time has passed now.

As for RG favourites, well it's too early to say. Monte Carlo out of the three TMS ones is usually the most reliable as a form guide, but there is a lot that can happen.

I am not sure about Gaudio's fitness and that worries me. There are so many players that can win RG given the right conditions, as long as they have done the physical work and the intangibles.

Well Roger needs to quit whining about the centre court, it's just an excuse and means he is looking for other reasons than the things he needs to work on. He'll play all the TMS events which is a good thing, so we'll see.

Roger-No.1
03-21-2005, 06:24 AM
Yeah, we have to wait for the clay season and the TMS events.