****The Official FRENCH OPEN Thread****

[Spurologist]

Nadal is again the favorite, but Federer is definately gaining ground on Nadal after Fed beat him in the last tournament before the French Open. That was in the final of the Hamburg Masters Series.

Americans are gonna suck major ass again, especially Roddick who want to beat the hell out of the ball. The clay is too slow for him and I don't think he has the craftiness and consistent hitting required for clay. At best, Roddick will be in the third round. If he gets b his tough first round opponent in Andreev, the third round will be calling his name. Blake is almost guaranteed a second round birth because he's facing a 6-7 beast in Karlovic that won't move well enough to stop blake.

I would love to see a Federer - Nadal matchup again in the finals. That would make for an instant classic. Fed could play the person that has beaten him TWICE this year in Canas in the semi finals. I still think Federer wins the French Open and gets all four majors this year.

Federer = BEST TENNIS PLAYER EVER

Discuss.

[dallaskd]

go andy? :rolleyes

[kingsfan]

I don't see Rog winning it. OK he beat Nadal in Hamburg but it was a close match and prior to that, Federer had lost to Rafa, as well as his losses to Canas.So far this year Fed has not been as good as last year and Nadal is still almost unbeatable on clay. 81 matches straight is a damn good record. I'd like to see Canas knock his ass out again. As far as the Americans :sleep on clay. Would love to see them break through but Roland Garros is not kind to them.
I say Rafa and Henin FTW.

[dallaskd]

what the hell? andy already lost?

[kingsfan]

Another great tournament for the Americans :rolleyes Blake's gone home and now Roddick did his best dirking. :madrun Good as Roddick is he should not be losing int he 1st round of majors, even in Paris. Pathetic!

[Spurologist]

All of the American men bounced in the first round. Roddick and Blake both win the first set and then get their asses handed to them. Tough first round draws in Karlovic and Andreev but they were playing like they didn't belong on the court.

It has got the point were reporters were asking Blake and Rodick after their matches if they are thinking about coming back to Roland Garros to play on clay. Sad

Is the US ever gonna dominate clay again??? Not in the near future

[L.I.T]

All of the American men bounced in the first round. Roddick and Blake both win the first set and then get their asses handed to them. Tough first round draws in Karlovic and Andreev but they were playing like they didn't belong on the court.

It has got the point were reporters were asking Blake and Rodick after their matches if they are thinking about coming back to Roland Garros to play on clay. Sad

Is the US ever gonna dominate clay again??? Not in the near future

The US has never really dominated on clay. It's a specialists surface. Outside of the mid-70s when the US Open was played on clay, I can't really point out a period where the US players have really dedicated to dominating on clay. Except for the 1940's and the era of Budge, Parker and Trabert (?). Hell, the British dominated more on clay than the US.

Unless you're counting the period of Agassi, Chang and Courier. But they only took what 3 in a 10 year period I think? Eh, I forget.

Anyway, per your original question; Federer is getting up there in terms of the all time greats. But, my issue is he's not had the competition or rival that other greats have had. His era is arguably one of the weakest for men's tennis in history. When you look at the other great eras dominated by a single player, the level of competition is outstanding. When you talk about Federer's period, I start drawing a blank. And that is not a testament to his ability by the way, the consistency of the number two position in the world has been appalling. Name one other player in this era that is an all-time great? I can't.

However, his game is incredibly smooth and he does things on the court that our astounding. But I still haven't seen him have a defining moment, that one instance where he raises his game to a level above where he typically plays. He's always playing at one level, one gear.

If he finally wins a French, Top 5. If (when) he breaks Sampras' record, Top 3. When he retires...maybe.

[Purple & Gold]

Venus is so much skinnier than Serena it looks funny.

[Spurologist]

The US has never really dominated on clay. It's a specialists surface. Outside of the mid-70s when the US Open was played on clay, I can't really point out a period where the US players have really dedicated to dominating on clay. Except for the 1940's and the era of Budge, Parker and Trabert (?). Hell, the British dominated more on clay than the US.

Unless you're counting the period of Agassi, Chang and Courier. But they only took what 3 in a 10 year period I think? Eh, I forget.

Anyway, per your original question; Federer is getting up there in terms of the all time greats. But, my issue is he's not had the competition or rival that other greats have had. His era is arguably one of the weakest for men's tennis in history. When you look at the other great eras dominated by a single player, the level of competition is outstanding. When you talk about Federer's period, I start drawing a blank. And that is not a testament to his ability by the way, the consistency of the number two position in the world has been appalling. Name one other player in this era that is an all-time great? I can't.

However, his game is incredibly smooth and he does things on the court that our astounding. But I still haven't seen him have a defining moment, that one instance where he raises his game to a level above where he typically plays. He's always playing at one level, one gear.

If he finally wins a French, Top 5. If (when) he breaks Sampras' record, Top 3. When he retires...maybe.

That's exactly the era I am talking about. I am old enough nor do I want to remember who was playing at that time. Later maybe but I think my tennis fan-dom only goes so far.

As for the US men "dominating" clay, Courier, Chang and Agassi actually won 4 in an 11 year period combined. What is kind of troubling is the fact that ALL of the American men have been eliminated easily out of the early rounds every time in this era. This year, all were eliminated in the first round. It's not like that happened to the all American men of yester-year. Sampras and Conners reached the semis. J-Mac actually made it to the finals in 1984. J-Mac was even up two sets in the match and then lost. The depth in the US field right now is severely lacking. There aren't even any top junior americans out there. But in France you have Monfils, Gasquet, Benneteau, Mathieu as rising stars. Roddick and Blake are getting old quick in tennis years.

Federer. Of course he hasn't had nearly the same competition that the other all time greats had, but his talent is undeniable. Much also has to be said that Federer is so good that everyone else seems mediocre. He is GREAT at every shot in the book. Extreme precision technique in his forehand, backhand, volley, drop shot, quickness, agibility, movement, balance. He can literally make a shot from anywhere on the court. That's why he game applies to all the major championships. He's just had a better player to contend with at the French. He beat Nadal at he the warmup clay tournament at Hamburg though. The air was thinner and the ball moved a lot faster than it would at the French, but Federer was out to make a point. 2-6, 6-2, 6-0. Sure it was only 3 sets, however, how many people can see they dominated two sets againt Nadal 6-2, 6-0 ON CLAY.


Most of the greats have already said that he is the greatest ever. Federer played and beat Sampras in Wimbledon 2001 (not sure). Sampras was past his prime (only 1 year removed from his last major triumph) but Federer had no where reached the zenith of his talent.

"But I still haven't seen him have a defining moment, that one instance where he raises his game to a level above where he typically plays. He's always playing at one level, one gear."

You definately need to watch more of Federer then. Roddick has played him in three finals and come up with nothing. That's because the determining factor was Federer TAKING IT TO ANOTHER level. Roddick fought well and won the 2nd set after losing the first. In the sets thereafter, Federer just blew Roddick off the court with shot making that made Roddick look like an amateur. Fed won the last two sets 7-5, 6-1. The same thing happened in the two wimbledon finals in 2004-05 with Roddick winning the first then losing to the better to advanced play. It's not just against Roddick that Fed has taken his game to another level but it's also against everyone else no named Nadal. I use Roddick because I'm most familair with his game.

I also don't understand this "no defining moment" in his career. You can pick any one of his majors and call it a defining moment. For some people he needs to win the french or when he passes Sampras in majors to have a defining moment. A lot of people still remember him kneeling when he beat Roddick at Wimbledon. I would call that defining. Maybe it's because of the fact that, like TD, he isn't flashy or boisterous with his play or off court personality.

In my mind, Fed is the greatest tennis player even if he retires today. I am just going to sit back, relax and enjoy the type of greatness that is only seen once in a lifetime.

[Spurologist]

US tennis player/Color commentator during the Canas-Davydenko match said Canas is the Bruce Bowen of professional tennis because of the way he defends and returns every shot back.

That's probably the best complement Canas has ever received. :smokin

[L.I.T]

That's exactly the era I am talking about. I am old enough nor do I want to remember who was playing at that time. Later maybe but I think my tennis fan-dom only goes so far...

I agree, American men's tennis sucks this generation, and that malaise extends to the rest of men's tennis.

Federer has one of the most complete skill sets, ever. As a matter of fact, he is probably the most consistent to ever step on the court (Emerson and Connors were pretty consistent as well though). However, tennis is a game that is defined by eras and rivalries.

When I say that Federer hasn't had a defining moment, I'm referring to his career defining rivalries. You're right, we can point to a single championship or moment and say, this was the one. For me, Federer's career 'moment' was when he cried after winning Wimbledon for the first time. But then, he cried after winning a couple of majors after that. A moment for me, is one that transcends the game of tennis, and this is a sport built for those moments. For example, Sampras vomiting in 96, Connors epic run at the US Open.

By the way, I saw that match against Roddick, and I was impressed, but I couldn't help thinking...THIS IS ANDY RODDICK. Roddick is an entertaining player, but he's street. No control, a one trick pony (big serve, big forehand...uhhhh, nothing else). By the way, did Federer play that match at a level higher than he ever had before? No, he was playing lousy early in the match and got back to playing to his normal abilities.

I'm not arguing that Sampras is the greatest, I happen to think that's Rod Laver, but I'm going to use his era to illustrate a point.

Players with championships during Sampras era (1988-2002):

Sampras (14), Andre Agassi (7) (career grand slam), Ivan Lendl (7), Boris Becker (6), Stefan Edberg (6), Jim Courier (4), Gustavo Kuerten (3, all Roland Garros), Lleyten Hewitt, Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2), Patrick Rafter (2). With 1: Marat Safin, Michael Chang, Albert Costa, Goran Ivanesivoic, Thomas Muster, Michael Stich, Petr Korda, Carlos Moya, Richard Krajicek.

Of course, that's a fourteen year period. However, the talent level is undeniable. For post 2002 let's look at the major winners:

Federer (10), Rafael Nadal (2), Juan Carlos Ferrero, Gaston Gaudio, Thomas Johanssen, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin.

There is some talent, but it doesn't have the all-around players that the previous era did. A lot of these guys are one-trick ponies (great on one surface). By the way, Johanssen couldn't even sniff the semis during the previous era.

Federer's accomplishments are impressive, my favorite is getting to 7 consecutive grand slam finals. However, the talent level just isn't there. I'm sure he would win a majors in the previous era as well. But 10? I just don't see it, and the main reason is I haven't seen how he reacts with players who are snapping at his heels and pushing him. All the great players have had that, it helps define who they were as a player, and their position in sports history. As a matter of fact, when he went through a dry spell earlier this year his first reaction was to fire his coach and declare he can do it better. That reaction alone made me doubtful as to his ability to dominate a competitive men's tour.

You can argue that this is something unfair to pin on Federer, but for me it will always be a doubt as to his greatness. As a matter of fact, the same charge has been consistently leveled against Steffi Graf. She dominated a women's tour that was short on talent. Would she be able to dominate this women's tour? Yes, but not to the extent she did hers.

Sampras, Connors, Mcenroe and the other greats fended off hungry, driven and (in some cases) superior talent to continue winning. That defined their greatness as players. So, again, I ask, where are Federer's defining moments?

I'm hoping that Nadal provides this. He as the capability, but I worry that his career arc will mimic Bjorn Borgs; lots of success, quick burnout.

I do enjoy watching Federer play, and I watch a lot of tennis. As a matter of fact, one of my uncles is the coach of a major tennis university, tennis has been something I've been around all my life. So, I don't talk about the game as a new-comer or lacking in experience.

Now, Federer makes the game look effortless (but he is not without his weaknesses, the most irritating thing about this era is that none of the players, except Nadal, have been able to take advantage of them). But, I reserve the right to name him the greatest until I see the quality of the tour improve and someone, anyone, take him to the limit, and watch him exceed it.

Pssst, by the way, the same holds true for Tiger Woods.

[L.I.T]

Sharapova just got spanked...and it was gooooood. Ana Ivanovic was pretty impressive as well.

http://www.ontennis.com/uploaded_images/ana_polugola-753379.jpg

[flipcritic]

I just saw the game, and Sharapova was unfocused from the start.

I'm glad I discovered Ivanovic. Not bad at all :)

[Spurologist]

Much better that the other Serbian Jankovic, indeed

:eyebrows

[kingsfan]

Does anyone know if they're showing the Nadal semi after the ladies' final?
They didn't show any of it yesterday, all we got was Rog :bang

[kingsfan]

Well that was a thrilling ladies final :rolleyes Henin is just too damn good on the clay. It's a shame she had to miss the Aussie Open, she's the only one out there right now who could win a Slam.

[Spurologist]

Fed in 5 sets.

[kingsfan]

I hope this is a good match, this year has been pretty dull so far.
Rafa's got this, I say 4 sets.

[kingsfan]

Awful 1st set for Rog. If this keeps up it will be over in 3. he looks a lot more nervous than Rafa. A lot of chances to break so far.

[kingsfan]

I hope this is a good match, this year has been pretty dull so far.
Rafa's got this, I say 4 sets.:clap to me I was right. :clap to Rafa on playing another good match. 21 in a row is impressive, he has never lost there.
:nope to Rog for not talking to Bud after the match. So much for him being such a great sportsman.

[L.I.T]

Federer is a frustrated beotch right now. He'll win one eventually, but right now I wonder if we're on the cusp of a Roland Garros domination a'la Sampras at Wimbledon by Nadal.

He really looks on unbeatable at that tournament.

Henin is looking damn tough as well. 5 straight major finals (for majors she's enterted) is getting impressive. Ivanovic has a great future, but Henin is the queen right now. She annihilated Jankovic and Ivanovic. Seriously impressive.

[Spurologist]

After watching Fed lose to Nadal again, I starting to wonder if Nadal is even beatable on CLAY.

Nadal has the perfect game for CLAY. That bond is probably too strong to break

[L.I.T]

After watching Fed lose to Nadal again, I starting to wonder if Nadal is even beatable on CLAY.

Nadal has the perfect game for CLAY. That bond is probably too strong to break

Outside of injury or exhaustion...he's almost impossible to beat on clay. I agree with you, he's basically the prototype. Could he be the best clay-courter ever?

NOW it looks like we have a rivalry brewing. I hope Nadal wins either Wimbledon or the US Open this year and Federer takes the French next year. That would be sweet.