French Open men's final - any hope for Federer?

Yes, losing three consecutive finals to the greatest clay court player of all time is a huge hole in Fed's resume : : : : :

 

It wouldn't be a big deal to lose to Nadal four straight years if he was Jim Courrier or some other pretty-good-to-great player. But when you're nearly universally regarded at this point as the best player ever - yet there's one person in one tournament you can not beat, and none of the finals have even gone five sets - yeah, I think it's a hole. Just like it was for Borg that he couldn't win at the Open, even though he lost finals to one of the best hardcourt players ever, McEnroe.

 

But at the same time, Tiger's never lost a lead after 56 holes in a major.

That means Tiger on Saturday = Tiger on Sunday. Can't fault his consistency.

Can't say the same for Fed.

 

Nadal = BEST CLAY COURT PLAYER EVER. Sorry, but losing to a guy who's the best ever doesn't a hole make. Just means there was a guy better than you on one surface.

 

There are a few, but they are tournaments that pale in stature to the grass- or hard-court events going on at the same time.

Good for clay players desperate for ranking points, but Nadal has no business playing them,

Although I guess he'll be on clay when Spain destroys the U.S. next round of Davis Cup.

 

Unless he boycotts it because it's in Madrid and the Spanish tennis federation didn't consult the players before scheduling it in such a high altitude city.

 

What disturbed me today was how Federer lost. He looked clueless out there and didn't seem to have much fight in him other than his run in the second set. It reminded me a lot of Sampras in his last few appearances, when he seemed to go in knowing that he wasn't going to win.

And if Nadal is going to stand 10 feet behind the baseline on each return, do to him what Lendl did to McEnroe and dink over a serve, basically serving a drop shot, from time to time. That'll move him in a few feet.

 

Federer's still a great player, whether he wins the French or not.

Look at the love for McEnroe and Lendl. Federer has what 13 majors (I refuse to say "Slams" that's ridiculous)? Mc won 8 I think.

Rafa could be the best clay courter ever, he's 28-0 at Roland Garros since he turned pro, that's unbelievable. Last year, he took one of the best grass court players ever to the 5th set at Wimbledon.

Clay is just a weird surface, so far removed from everything else. Check the French winners and it just shows, Andres Gomez, Thomas Muster, Canas.

Agassi has the career Slam and its awesome, but he had to beat Medvedev, not someone Rafa-like. I'm pretty sure Federer beats Medvedev or even (Andres Gomez, can you believe Agassi lost to Lurch?)

Federer, once he passes Sampras, can claim the best ever, regardless of whether he wins the French. However, I think comparing eras, especially with the racquet technology is an exercise in futility.