How can anybody even suggest Federer may not win a french open?

[X L]

When only 1 player can beat Federer on clay right now his odd's to win a
french open title look pretty darn good to me. only Nadal def Federer on
clay last year. with Nadal's type of game he's bound to fall to more
injuries. he's going to miss some french opens while Federer is still
playing. and Federer is getting closer to beating Nadal on clay anyway.
so it may not matter ether way. but its crazy to even suggest Federer
may not win this title. when i hear this nonsense from various
commentators i just can't help but chuckle at comments like this.
people are just being way too impatient. they expect Federer to win
everything right now.
he sure has raised the bar like nobody before.

[wkhedr]

There are more odds against Federer on clay!

On hard court he can have a bad day and still win easily, but on clay
he has to be very sharp everyday.
If he is able to up his stamina, he will win it because he won't rush
into doing UE.

[Sasidharp]

X L wrote:

The argument that "Federer *may* not win a french open" is very sound
since it is his toughest slam and he has a bad record against the king
of clay (even on HC)

Until Federer actually wins a FO or beats Nadal on clay or someone else
beats Nadal on clay, your disbelief in the argument is misplaced.

[Stevo]

Plus, Federer of 06 was absolutely prime-peak and still did not win it.
At some point, his level will start dropping, and then his results on
clay will follow. Nadal is much younger and, while he may have a sharp
drop-off at some point due to his style of play (which btw I do not buy
into this theory), there is every likelihood that it will not be until
*after* Federer has his drop off. Five years is a big difference in
this sport. If Federer is still moving up in skill and 06 was not the
best that we'll ever see, then 07 will be. The guy will not still be
ascending to his peak at 27 years of age. Sampras made FO quarters
early in his career too, but not late in his career. I know a quarter
is not a final, but the point is that Sampras did okay early, but
dropped off very sharply later on. In 08 and 09 there will probably be
3 or 4 players who can take Federer out on clay instead of just 1.
Remember in 04 he got straight-setted by Guga (a tainted, damaged
Guga), before losing to the *best* clay-courter the subsequent two
years, so if his level drops just a bit, he's vunerable to others than
just Nadal on clay.If he doesn't do it this year, he will not do it.

--stevo

[X L]

Name one time in tennis history where only 1 single player def the
number player on clay
in a whole clay season? its never happened before i don't believe even
with Borg's brilliance on clay in his career. your giving Nadal way too
much credit. Federer had Nadal def in last years Rome final. no he
didn't do it. but it shows he's capable of beating Nadal on clay. and
again we are just talking about 1 player. Nadal isn't going to be able
to keep his clay court streak going. that will surely break before
anybody beats Federer at wimbledon.

[Joe Ramirez]

Stevo wrote:
> Plus, Federer of 06 was absolutely prime-peak and still did not win it.
> At some point, his level will start dropping, and then his results on
> clay will follow. Nadal is much younger and, while he may have a sharp
> drop-off at some point due to his style of play (which btw I do not buy
> into this theory), there is every likelihood that it will not be until
> *after* Federer has his drop off. Five years is a big difference in
> this sport. If Federer is still moving up in skill and 06 was not the
> best that we'll ever see, then 07 will be. The guy will not still be
> ascending to his peak at 27 years of age. Sampras made FO quarters
> early in his career too, but not late in his career. I know a quarter
> is not a final, but the point is that Sampras did okay early, but
> dropped off very sharply later on. In 08 and 09 there will probably be
> 3 or 4 players who can take Federer out on clay instead of just 1.
> Remember in 04 he got straight-setted by Guga (a tainted, damaged
> Guga), before losing to the *best* clay-courter the subsequent two
> years, so if his level drops just a bit, he's vunerable to others than
> just Nadal on clay.If he doesn't do it this year, he will not do it.

There's a lot of merit in this view. Natural, grind-it-out clay
courters can do well on the surface for a long time. Natural fast court
players, however, tend to be really good on clay only when they are at
the very top of their game -- movement, shotmaking, everything. Look at
McEnroe, Sampras, and Edberg. When they were at their peaks, they had
respectable, even championship-threatening results at the French Open.
But as soon as they declined somewhat, they began bombing out early at
the French even though they were still mounting challenges at, or even
winning, the fast court slams.

Joe Ramirez

[X L]

Stevo how do you know Federer was at his absolute prime peak in 06? he
didn't play great at the AO last year for example. won it. but that
wasn't his best stuff. i beg to differ on your prime peak comment.

[G Patel]

The peakest I've seen Federer was at the end of 06. But that doesn't
mean that's going to be the peak. He could get better in 07.

[G Patel]

By the way X L, look at your question. The words

"can" "anybody" "even" "suggest" "may" appear.

You're trying to make it sound like the odds of Federer not winning are
near impossible. Obviously they're not.

Had you phrased the question as (opposite end of spectrum):

"Do most people think Federer has no chance at french open?" Then the
answer is no.

[Stevo]

Several reasons, but I can grind it down to the 91-5 record (with 4
losses only to one player) and the 4 slam finals, winning 3 of them,
and making the final in every event he played except for one...