If Nadal didn't exist Federer would have five French Open titles.

who would you say is above him on clay? Muster, Kuerten?

He'd also have 5 Australian Opens, 7 Wimbledon (all in a row).

Siiiick

Also who would you say is rated above him on clay?

Borg has to be above him

If Federer didnt exsist then Andy Murray would have 2 GS wins

I mean playwise, not resultwise. Borg's era played so slow and rackets were wooden insect whispers to be comparable.

Yup and other people would have had a share of 16 gs.

when you basically take the #'s 5,6 and 10 players in the world to the woodshed in the QF-Finals, then yes, he can brag

after he dropped the set and 3-1 to davydenko, and after the sun/shadows/wind were gone

he beat him 6-0 6-1 6-4

then tsonga's woodshed was 6-2 6-2 6-3

then murray's wasn't quite as bad, but it felt like it wasn't AS close as the score looked, even though it was a routine straight set 3,4 and 6

if he didn't have that 2 game lull in the 3rd it would have been 3,4 and 4


the guy is just unbelievable. All those guys saying "maybe rafa is the goat" after 2 years of dominating and being on par with the fed.

18 of 19 finals in a row, 23 semis in a row, 16 titles.

his record vs. players ranked 6 through infinity in majors since 2003-2004

like 165 and 0


another thing that amazes me, the year fed was 'off' he finished the 1 or 2 in the world, won a slam, made all 3 finals and a semi and won a masters.


The fact that Roger has never had a loss like Sampras did to Krajcikeickeiek

or Agassi losing in the first round to nobodys in the AO

or Djkovic losing to Safin in London, or Kohlschreiber this year's french, or Roddick vs. Tipseravic in London.


The fact that every tournament, he's playing world class players, and he just gets through every one.



One last thing, to anyone that thinks that Sampras is the goat, or that Borg/mcenroe/lendl/etc to take a quote from Pmac. are you kidding me?


I feel if Federer played Sampras on that court in Melbourne in those conditions, he'd win 9 out of 10.

Now in London, with a fast court, I think if they played 10 times, it would be 5-5.

obv in Paris it's 10-0 for fed.


but on a fast hard court it's probably 2-1 for fed. I mean, Sampras had a great serve, but we have seen what fed does against guys with a great serve and big forehand.

he blocks it back, and then you are banged.


anyway, kind of anticlimatic way to end the tournament, the inevitability that is The Fed, but i cant be mad at him since he's just so damn good.

Murray had chances but choked hard core on 2 of those set points. The whole match I never felt he had a chance to win, and I felt that Murray also felt that.



Aside from the woodshed beatings fed put on, the 3rd and 4th round was probably the best few days of tennis i've ever seen. So many amazing 5 setters.


For me, the match of the tournament was Cilic-Del Potroast. I haven't read the thread so I don't know what everyone else thinks. Any other match that good from start to finish?

the reason i loved that match was there was no lulls. every game was competitive, and it seemed like almost all of them were going to 30-30 or farther.


to everyone else, find the ATP thread for the smaller events starting up pretty soon in Miami and CA


oh yeah, FlyingRat. lol Imhurtovic

both these guys were great on the dirt

but rafa would crush both of these two

roger would be a favorite vs. both

lol Imhurtovic, that.

Actually on that, Djokovic had an operation on his nose to help his breathing as he always complained of it when he was younger. Was this his actually excuse during the Aussie Open?

He had nausea and diarrhea. It's such a shame too, he would have beaten Tsonga and a Fed-Djoko match would have at least been a little entertaining.

Nadal lost to Federer on clay in 2008 because he was too injured/tired to mount a credible go at him. If you recall in the semis, he played a grueling 3 setter with Djokovic which remains to this day one of the best matches I've ever seen in my life.

Federer can remain #1 well into his thirties. Age doesn't matter as much as his general physical health. Agassi would have continued to play if he didn't experience so much physical pain and was forced out.

Federer plays a style that can keep him healthy and perfectly fit until 32-33. He doesn't beat his body down like Nadal or Agassi. I think Federer is still improving as a tennis player and I see no reason not to assume his tennis dominance for many years to come. The only x factor is whether he would still want to put on his tennis shoes everyday and dominate past 30.

this was Madrid 2009. that nadal-djo match was unbelievable



I feel for the guy, because he would have won that match 90%+ if he stayed healthy when up 2 sets to 1


Honestly rat, I think Novak would have been taken out to the woodshed as well if he made it through. I've been watching Federer play for 5 years now, and he was most impressive in the last three rounds (after first set/half vs. ND)



At no point in the semi's/finals's did i feel that Tsonga/Murray had any shot at all


Like I said, the inevitability of Federer

another thing, he was one bad set vs. pot roast to having a grand slam right now. he was up 2-1 in a major final vs. Juan Martin. He probably wins that match 90%+


Basically, fed is back, Nadal is hurt, and everyone else is in a different league. So for the next few year, or until Roger eventually gets hurt, it's going to be 2-3 slams a year for Fed

Well Kuerten did actually pwn Federer in the french, when Federer was pretty close to his prime and Kuerten was past his.

Federer is the GOAT, no doubt. But I think Federer is probably a slight dog Guga or Muster in their respective primes. The thing is, those guys, especially Muster, had very short primes.

I'm a big fan of Nadal, but until he comes back healthy, I say let the Fed dominance continue. Imagine Djoko or Murray as number 1....... ewwwwwww. In Fed we trust.

This isn't really pertinent to the conversation at hand (how good Fed would be on clay if not for Nadal).

The reason it works in the w/o Nadal scenario is because we're arguing that he's second best on clay.

Is there anyone else who you can say, "If not for XXX, that guy would have 5 French Opens, 7 Wimbeldons, etc." ?

Seriously, I have no idea...? Is there?

No I don't think so.

you can say this about every guy that's ever played

if no sampras, agassi has 12

if no lendl, mcenroe has more


if no nadal, federer has 500

if no fed, x has so many



the point in all of this, you either win them or you don't.

Hip,

Would Agassi have won all of those without a Sampras? Is that the number of finals that he went to?

I think it's a relatively safe assumption that during that prime Fed probably wins every single final he went to if it wasn't Nadal. Maybe give away one.

Would Agassi have beaten non-Sampras in every final?


Again, don't know my history, so I'm not really arguing as much as asking.

I love guga alot. he was one of my favs back in the early 2000's

but are you kidding me with this?

sure guga beat Federer right as Fed was getting good, but that's not the whole story. Remember in 2002 when the played on Clay in Hamburg? no, probably not.

Fed won 6-0 6-2


the truth is, fed vs. Kuerten on the dirt would be a decent matchup. Kuerten moves well and would give Roger trouble with his heavy shot. But i still think roger is a favorite.


also, when fed lost to guga, he wasn't in his prime, that was 2006 and 2007. if it was guga in his prime, vs 2007 fed, guga would be lucky to get past 4 sets



now, Federer vs. Muster is lol bad. no head ot head, but look at their french open resumes

Fed
----
5 finals 1 win (could be 3 wins if it wasn't nadal, but still just 1 win)


muster
----
starting in 85

1st round
3rd round
3rd round
Semi
1st round loss to ****ing pete sampras on clay
2nd round
4th round
3rd round

i'd be scared of this guy if i was fed

Winner (looking at it, pretty cake draw. 191dude, pioline, carlos costa, medvedev, Albert costa(his only real tough clay courter, Kafelnikov, and Michael Change) no courier, no becker, no edberg, agassi, etc, but he still won

4th round
3rd round
QF
1st round



so in 13 french opens, muster made it to 1 QF, 1 SF, and 1 win

federer has been in 5 straight finals and 1 win

real close


I think courier would be a much tougher fight for Fed on clay.

I wish I could see Fed/becker or fed/sampras at wimbledon

grand slam finals for agassi and opponent

1990 RG lost to Andres Gomez in 4 sets
1990 US lost to Sampras in 3 (1)
1991 RG lost to Courier in 5
1992 Wim beat Goran in 5
1994 US Beat Stich in 3
1995 AO beat sampras in 4
1995 US lost sampras in 4 (2)
1999 RG beat medvedev in 5
1999 Wim lost to samrpas in 3 (3)
1999 US beat martin in 5 (one of my favorite Andre matches, just grind him down)
2000 AO beat kafelnikov in 4
2001 AO beat Clement in 3
2002 US lost to sampras in 4 (4)
2003 AO beat Schuettler in 3 lol sets
2005 US lost to fed in 4



so he won 8 majors, and lost 4 finals to pete. without pete, andre probably wins at least 2 more


also, sometimes they played before the final

2001 us open QF, the epic 4 sets no breaks match he lost to pete.
two years pete beat andre in the QF at wimbledon, but i'm not counting those

Don't get me wrong, I think Fed is awesome, it's just that Fed is not a clear favorite when you take each player at his peak. All the career stats you put up are nice, but they're not relevant to my point.

1. With regard to Muster, I agree that this guy is basically a one year wonder. He went on a sick heater for that one summer and was basically unbeatable on clay. So if you compare that Muster to Fed at his best on clay, I give a slight nod to Muster. But I do think that it's kind of a stupid comparison, because Muster was only really good for such a short period of time. But if you give Fed the advantage, I'm not going to fight it much. Even comparing the two is kind of an insult to Federer, since Muster's prime was essentially 4 months.

2. Guga is a different matter. The 2000/2001 Guga was a beast on clay. I think he would be a favorite over Federer. Not a huge favorite (no one could be a huge favorite over Federer in his prime), but a favorite nonetheless. Yes Guga lost to Fed before there French open matchup, but he was coming off an injury that season, which I think makes his demolishing of Fed in the French more impressive. But you're right that Fed was not quite at his prime yet at the time (and I said as much myself).

Just read that Fed was excused from his compulsory Swiss military duty in 2003 due to "reoccurring back problems."

LOL

I honestly believe that we haven't seen Federer reach his peak yet. He's still improving and he's just started to find his range on his more aggressive forehand style.