The French open - Roland Garros 2011

[kabira]

some of the rallies were amazing. Federer made Rafa's task easier by beating Djoko

[Sooda]

So much for 'greatest of all time'. He is Rafa's certified b'itch.

Well, he is regarded as the greatest of all time by Rafa himself. These two are the two best ever for sure, which way round will be clearer with time although both sets of fans have their minds made up either way.

[Alchemist]

Paki style or or good

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[gaurav92]

Well played Nadal. Fed had his moments but couldn't quite get the break points. He did play well, but as always, Nadal walks away with the French Open title :((

[Zelig]

Federer fan bowys :hysterical:

[gaurav92]

Federer fan bowys :hysterical:

No need to go down your chair Lungi :beee:. We are still proud of Fed Ex He was, is and always will be a Champ :isalute:

[Raghav_12]

Well' date=' he is regarded as the greatest of all time by Rafa himself. These two are the two best ever for sure, which way round will be clearer with time although both sets of fans have their minds made up either way.[/quote'] Rafa is always very humble to his opponents (y'day also he said sorry to Federer for defeating him). So I won't give much weightage to what Rafa has told about Federer being greatest ever. Questions is if Federer is not even greatest of his generation, as 8-17 head-to-head, against Nadal suggests, how you can say him being greatest of all time? In fact Federer made most of the depleted strength of men tennis which was the case between 2003-07. In this period he won grand slams in bulk. There was no other tennis player in this duration who can be considered in top league. Nadal was still very young and was in his teens. Roddik, Hewitt, Safin came up with odd challenges once in while. Consider that with current strength of men tennis - Rafa, Fedex, Djokovic, Murray. All of these are in top league already or going to be.

[Sachin=GOD]

Rafa was expected to win this :P

[vamos_rafa]

Well the point that would always remain is Rafa has taken the competition by the scruff of the neck, not only on clay but also on other courts, and beaten the best. While Federer has simply not been able to replicate the same success story which he weaved during the pre-Nadal era. And the surprising thing is, Rafa is still termed the king of the clay while Federer is the greatest player ever!! I think just because someone possess a well rounded game, on paper, does not make him the greatest ever. Its the results that matter and Rafa has surely delivered them.

[Sachin=GOD]

Well the point that would always remain is Rafa has taken the competition by the scruff of the neck' date=' not only on clay but also on other courts, and beaten the best. [b']While Federer has simply not been able to replicate the same success story which he weaved during the pre-Nadal era.

Lets see - Nadal won his 1st grand slam in 2005. You can say that the Nadal success story had not properly begun in 2005 and he hadn't established himself on the world stage till then so lets take the year as 2007. By that time Nadal had well and truly established himself as a world class player and a champion. Since 2007 Federer has won 7 grand slams and has lost in the finals of 6 - i.e, out of the total 18 grand slams that have taken place since the begining of 2007, he has reached the Finals of 13 and won 7 of them..............and then people say that he has not been able to replicate the same success story which he weaved in the "pre Nadal" days.

And the surprising thing is, Rafa is still termed the king of the clay while Federer is the greatest player ever!! I think just because someone possess a well rounded game, on paper, does not make him the greatest ever.

Federer is considered to be a "bad" clay court player but the reality is that he's damn good on clay also - in the last 6 years he has reached the Final 5 times and won it once. If this record was held by any other player then he would've been considered as one of the all time clay court greats BUT its Federer and every time he goes out, he is expected to win and nothing short of victory in a grand slam is considered as a good result for him. Yeah, Nadal is better than him on clay but Federer is not bad as well. On the other hand you see Nadal - he is by far the best player on clay BUT Federer is better than him on all other surfaces and now even Djokovic is getting close to both of them.

Its the results that matter and Rafa has surely delivered them.

I guess 16 grand slams is also considered as good results, isn't it :winky:

[Sachin=GOD]

Federer should retire after todays thrashing

People said this in the mid of 2008 also when he lost to Rafa in French Open and Wimbledon Finals - since then he has come back and won 4 more slams. So I suggest you write off Emperor Federer at your own peril :winky:

[Sachin=GOD]

Rafa is always very humble to his opponents (y'day also he said sorry to Federer for defeating him). So I won't give much weightage to what Rafa has told about Federer being greatest ever. Questions is if Federer is not even greatest of his generation' date= as 8-17 head-to-head, against Nadal suggests, how you can say him being greatest of all time?

Its laughable to say that Federer is not the best of his generation. Nadal has absolutely dominated one particular surface while Federer, even when he's not been at his best, has reached the finals and won on all surfaces in the last 2-3 years and this is the time which has been considered as Rafa's peak.

In fact Federer made most of the depleted strength of men tennis which was the case between 2003-07. In this period he won grand slams in bulk. There was no other tennis player in this duration who can be considered in top league. Nadal was still very young and was in his teens. Roddik, Hewitt, Safin came up with odd challenges once in while. Consider that with current strength of men tennis - Rafa, Fedex, Djokovic, Murray. All of these are in top league already or going to be.

Since the beginning of 2007 there have been 18 grand slams and Federer (who, according to you, made the most of the depleted strength in the pre Nadal days) has reached the Final of 13 and won 7 - I guess thats not a bad record for a man who "made most of the depleted strength". And twice during this period he has reached the Finals of all grand slams in a year (in 2007 and 2009). Nadal, on the other hand, despite being at his best, has not reached the final of all 4 slams in a year ever. So, you can see - the time when Rafa has been at his absolute peak, i.e. since 2007, he has won 8 grand slams and Federer, who many people said was finished or was past it or that his best days were over etc etc, has won 7 slams during this period. One man at his best wins 8 slams and another man while not in the best form, still wins 7 - who's the better one? Federer is without a doubt the best player ever in the history of tennis. Period.

[vamos_rafa]

Lets see - Nadal won his 1st grand slam in 2005. You can say that the Nadal success story had not properly begun in 2005 and he hadn't established himself on the world stage till then so lets take the year as 2007. By that time Nadal had well and truly established himself as a world class player and a champion. Since 2007 Federer has won 7 grand slams and has lost in the finals of 6 - i.e, out of the total 18 grand slams that have taken place since the begining of 2007, he has reached the Finals of 13 and won 7 of them..............and then people say that he has not been able to replicate the same success story which he weaved in the "pre Nadal" days. Federer is considered to be a "bad" clay court player but the reality is that he's damn good on clay also - in the last 6 years he has reached the Final 5 times and won it once. If this record was held by any other player then he would've been considered as one of the all time clay court greats BUT its Federer and every time he goes out, he is expected to win and nothing short of victory in a grand slam is considered as a good result for him. Yeah, Nadal is better than him on clay but Federer is not bad as well. On the other hand you see Nadal - he is by far the best player on clay BUT Federer is better than him on all other surfaces and now even Djokovic is getting close to both of them. I guess 16 grand slams is also considered as good results, isn't it :winky:

Yes. If you compare only Grand slam results then yes. But apart from the slams if you consider masters series, then there also Rafa has an edge over Federer. Infact the very first match that these 2 guys played, it was in 2004 toronto masters if I am not mistaken, Federer was beaten there. And it is there for oneself to see the way Federer has struggled to keep up with his winning ways past Nadal really made his mark. And let me put it this way, the amount of time Federer took to transform from someone who could win his first slam to winning or even doing well on the Rollan Garos has been pretty high. I think 2003 it was when he won his first wimbledon while till 2005 a semi-final exit to Rafa and then 2006 finals was his best performance. Rafa won his first slam in 2005 and by 2006 Wimbledon he was playing the finals which he lost in sets. Then, in 2007 he lost in 5 sets to Fedex and in 2008 he won it. He again won it in 2010, but this time his opponent was not Federer. So, Federer's Rollad Garoos victory does not include a single victory against Rafa while Rafa beat Roger to win his wimbledon title. And when you talk of 16 slams, Roger turned pro in 1998 while Rafa in 2001. So Roger does have a 3 year headstart.

[Sachin=GOD]

Yes. If you compare only Grand slam results then yes. But apart from the slams if you consider masters series, then there also Rafa has an edge over Federer. Infact the very first match that these 2 guys played, it was in 2004 toronto masters if I am not mistaken, Federer was beaten there. And it is there for oneself to see the way Federer has struggled to keep up with his winning ways past Nadal really made his mark. And let me put it this way, the amount of time Federer took to transform from someone who could win his first slam to winning or even doing well on the Rollan Garos has been pretty high. I think 2003 it was when he won his first wimbledon while till 2005 a semi-final exit to Rafa and then 2006 finals was his best performance. Rafa won his first slam in 2005 and by 2006 Wimbledon he was playing the finals which he lost in sets. Then, in 2007 he lost in 5 sets to Fedex and in 2008 he won it. He again won it in 2010, but this time his opponent was not Federer. So, Federer's Rollad Garoos victory does not include a single victory against Rafa while Rafa beat Roger to win his wimbledon title. And when you talk of 16 slams, Roger turned pro in 1998 while Rafa in 2001. So Roger does have a 3 year headstart.

As I've already said, Nadal is the better player on clay. Now, if we're talking about playing well on different surfaces then lets see the Australian Open - since 2005 Nadal has won it once but other than he hasn't done that well here - 3 times he's been out in Quarter Finals and once in the 4th round. Now lets see the US open - since 2005 Nadal has won it once and has reached 2 Semis but he's also been out in the 3rd round, 4th round and QFs during this period. On the other hand, in case of Federer and French Open, i.e., the surface where he is weaker than all other surfaces, he has reached 5 Finals (including one victory) in the last 6 years.

[akshayxyz]

First of all I do not believe in All time greatest business. Nadal is on the peak and even on decline, Federer came very close to winning yesterday. "had it easy", "not enough competition" - all these arguments can be applied to anyone who dominated his peers. ( looks like a famous phrase on ICF :)). Same thing can be looked at it like - he was so good that no one could come close. None of the views are totally wrong. Just that the first one " had it easy" is a bit unfair to use for a champion player. That is where we can learn something from Rafa - going by the record, he can easily say - "well beating Fedex is no big deal for me" - however, he chooses to say - " He is a champion, I am sorry for him." - Because these guys know how close the match was, and has always been between them.

[Sachin=GOD]

I will say this again - all those writing off Federer are in for some shock over the next few months. He's a Champion and he will win at least one slam this year - be it Wimbledon or US Open.

[gaurav92]

I will say this again - all those writing off Federer are in for some shock over the next few months. He's a Champion and he will win at least one slam this year - be it Wimbledon or US Open.

:agree:

[Sid]

I didnt believe Fedex let go of the 1st set after being 5-2 up and messed up in the decisive game of that set or rather Rafa just showed why he is a champion in that game,just seizing the moment,when it mattered.After that loss in the 1st set,I knew Fedex had no chance in the match.Yesterday's game was another example on how Rafa enjoys mental edge over Fedex on clay court.

[Sachin=GOD]

One question for Rafa fans - how/why is it that Federer, despite reaching 5 Finals in the last 6 years (and winning one of them) on the surface where he's not considered good enough (Rolland Garros) is not considered by some people as the greatest even of this generation while Nadal, despite having a not so good record in both the Australian Open (QF, Semis, Winner, QF, QF since 2006) and US Open (QF, 4th round, Semis, Semis, Winner since 2006) is eligible to be called the best of his generation?? Surely, consistency across all surfaces/grand slams is The Biggest factor in determining who is a better player - if it is, then Federer should be the best player, not only of this generation but also of all time. If consistency across different surfaces over a period of 7-8 years is not a big factor in determining who is the better player overall, then what are the criteria - is only the performance in Rolland Garros (and there also, nothing less than a victory for Fedex counts :winky:) a criteria of being the greater player?

[Brainfade]

One question for Rafa fans - how/why is it that Federer, despite reaching 5 Finals in the last 6 years (and winning one of them) on the surface where he's not considered good enough (Rolland Garros) is not considered by some people as the greatest even of this generation while Nadal, despite having a not so good record in both the Australian Open (QF, Semis, Winner, QF, QF since 2006) and US Open (QF, 4th round, Semis, Semis, Winner since 2006) is eligible to be called the best of his generation?? Surely, consistency across all surfaces/grand slams is The Biggest factor in determining who is a better player - if it is, then Federer should be the best player, not only of this generation but also of all time. If consistency across different surfaces over a period of 7-8 years is not a big factor in determining who is the better player overall, then what are the criteria - is only the performance in Rolland Garros (and there also, nothing less than a victory for Fedex counts :winky:) a criteria of being the greater player?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the rationalization is based on 2 things: (1) Nadal has beaten Federer in the finals on Federer's best surface (Wimbledon), but Federer has not done the same to Nadal on Nadal's best surface (French). (2) Nadal is 17-8 against Federer. Not saying the rationalization is correct, but there it is. As for me, I enjoy watching them both play. You can count on classic tennis and classy demeanor from both of them.