I think the question would have been better if put this way!!
Will Roger Federer win French Open 2007?

If he does, he will make a premature entry into the history books as the best tennis player ever. I hope he does.

I hope he does. I dont play any tennis, but I watch it whenever I can. The guy is just unbelievable. I really hope he gets this elusive cup.

Rafa is the king of clay court... I can see Nadal beat Federer.

seeing nadal beat federer in french open in no GREAT thing but seeing federer win the french open will indubitably make Federer the GREATEST EVER to play the sport

Federer beat Nadal last clay court final. So his morale is high against Clay court expert Nadal and this can be repeated in Roland Garros. I am a great admirer of Federer coz of his sportsmanship and Gentlemans' behavior in the court.

This is the year of the Federer Express! His clay-court victory in Hamburg early this May against Nadal was all the Express needed: Confidence, as he seemed to lack that on clay. I am hoping that he wins the French Open and completes his Grand Slam as this cat, in my opinion the greatest player to have ever played the game...only the French open has been an elusive quest so far (whcih will end this year).

.

Pretty interesting topic!

Roger has been an exceptional player and looked pretty good yesterday too but then Clay is a different ball game. How many players have won all the gland slam titles besides Lever, Graff, Agassi to name few? Have to wait and watch if Roger can add his name to the list of 'Four Grand Slam Winners' and hope he does.

can Federer win the French Open 2007? - sure can!

will he win the French Open 2007? - probably yes!

is he the best ever to have graced the world tennis court - awwwwww...mmmmmmmm...pass! :P

while federer seems to have the potential to be the best ever, IMHO, it is too early (or is it too late? :P) to crown him with the unofficial title of the 'best ever'. to me and although this is in a personal note, i am sure many tennis critiques and fans will consider former swedish tennis icon Bjorn Borg as the best ever as of now. the stalwart, in a career that spanned for 9 years, had won 6 Wimbledon tournaments (5 of them consecutively) and 6 French Opens (4 of them consecutively). Before he retired at an early age of some 26 years, he had already won 61 ATP events compared to Federer's 43 at the same age.

not to forget, wimbledon and french open are considered as the MOST DIFFICULT DOUBLE in tennis. winning both of them in the same year requires not only tremendous talent but some unique versatility which Borg had and so he did it 3 consecutive times! i am not trying to compare the two legends of tennis here, but just for the sake of dirty "who's better than who" game, we still have to witness such show of talent and versatility from Federer to put him to Borg's coterie. i hope he does, for it could only be better for the tennis and its fans/followers around the world.

secondly, and this is again my strict personal observation, the reason there is a huge gap between Federer and his contemporary players with the likes of Roddick, Nadal or Hewitt is not only because Federer is too good, but also because his peers are not strong enough compared to some of the players like Connors or Lendel of Borg's era.

:P

LooTe

Well said Loote.

French and Wimbledon are considered as the most difficult double in tennis?
Considered by whom? To be considered the best ever, i am sure you'd have to be capable of performing in more than one surface CONSISTENTLY!

While growing up, indeed, bjorn borg and Stephen edburg along side, boris becker were my idols. However, you are not doing justice to Federer by claiming Bjorn borg to be best ever when he hasn't won neither US nor the Australian Open ( and i read somewhere, US open used to be played in clay courts during his era). As you see the history of the last 15 years or so, most of the french open winners have one dimensional games. Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster and now Nadal to name a few, though Nadal seems to be an exception that can play in other surfaces.

Roger Federer, 26, has already won Three consective US opens, four consective wimbledon and 3 australian open in last four years and i don't think he's that far behind in conquering the French open. 10 grandslams in three different surfaces when one hasn't reached his pinnacle, might not make him the best ever, but certainly makes him the potential to be the best ever by a mile.

When I started watching him, i wasn't his greatest fan, but he truly is a poetry in motion and the poise and gracefulness he carries himself on and off the court is just remarkable. I beg to differ with you loote bro, that Roddick, Nadal and Hewitt are not as strong as players of caliber of connors and lendl in Borg's era but rather, Federer is just wayyyyyyyyyyyy toooooooooo goooooooood than his contemporaries and that Roddick, Nadal and Hewitt are unlucky to be borne in the wrong generation to be competing with Federer :). Of course, my strict personal view only!

Yah, its quite unfair for other players... all they can to do is hope that they play a perfect game against Roger to have any chance. Anyway, why is Roddick so over hyped? Maybe the American media is so starved of a tennis player that they have to market him like crazy.. Quite a disappointment when he keeps losing int he first rounds.

.

Hahaha knew it was coming oys! Whoever says what, it is delight to see Roger play.

Loote, good analysis, but times are different. Today's game is a LOT faster than it was during the 70s (as they used wooden frames). Wimbledon historians have always refered to Borg being more of a clay court player even though he won 6 titles there. He according to them was more suited for a baseline style, dry-court kinda game (his 6 French Open titles were proof of his clay-court dominance). However, Borg did dominate his category but that was a time when power was just a minor component of men's tennis. Today, no doubt about it, it's all about the first serve. Do you think Borg would be able to face a 155mph Roddick serve in his heyday? Hard to say, but I think it would be a No! BTW, in Borg's defense, he once served a 121mph serve using a wooden racquet!

Comparing Borg and Federer is like comparing the NBA's MJ and Bill Russel, Golf's Jack Niclaus or Tiger Woods. The all were the best players (in the best teams for MJ and Russell) during their respective eras but since I grew up watching MJ's and Tiger's brilliance and saw their dominance on the game, they undoubtedly in my opinion are the greatest ever. Same applies to Federer's case. If only I'd have watched Borg, then I'd be able to put them both in the same pedestel and compare between the two. But seeing Federer dominate contemporary tennis (his 7,515 ATP points is 2,300 more than the #2nd seed...FYI, the great Sampras in his peak, never surpassed 5,100 points), there is no doubt in my mind that his style of play in today's game (supersonic speed for the guys using wooden racquets) and dominance over other great players like Nadal and Roddick shows his greatness. As you say, Borg could be the best ever but unfortunately he belongs to a different era and his games were something I never was a first hand witness to.

Oys bro, :P
i welcome your analysis and believe me i don't differ with the most part of it. i have no doubt whatsoever in federer's potential to be ( or to be considered rather :D) the best ever in the game. he certainly looks to be in that league but for that he needs to prove a point or two to the critiques and to himself. his style of play is very robust and complete. be it backhand, forehand, groundstrokes, net volleys or powerful sevice, he plays them all well and with panache. i am also in awe of his tremendous temperament and ability to read the game during play and change gears in his favor.

a little blemish to his career so far has been his inability to play consistently well in the clay court. why wimbledon and roland gaross are considered as the most difficult double in tennis? i am sure, if you are a true follower of the game, you should be knowing that the style of play needed in grass court is radically different than that in clay. one has to have a super powerful groundstrokes to succeed in clay court. federer's groundstrokes, although efficient, is not powerful enough to win him clay court tournaments consistently. he still has 3/4 years before he is done with his career. i am hopeful that he proves me and others regarding this-- wrong! :D

i also agree that players who succeeds in clay court are of a bit different league. that is exactly why, one needs to have a versatile approach to win games in both surfaces.

pete sampras
jimmy connors
boris becker
stefan edburg
john mc enroe

--all pillars and legends of the game, but no body could win french open. agassi did but just once. he won wimbledon just once as well. the only player that rocked in both the courts is bjorn borg! :D

that said, i am not implying, ability to play equally well in both grass and clay is the only litmus test to find out the "best ever" but US or Australian opens are hard courts - conventional default surface in tennis and out of the 61 ATP titles that borg won, i am sure, most were played in hard courts. :-).

Samsara,
i commend your difference too but i guess, one cannot say, just because it was in an old era, oldies were slower and less competitive than players of today's generation. i tend to agree with you on the "speed" factor that this game has introduced and has achieved over the years, but if just powerful service and ACES were the measures, all great servers with the likes of Goran Ivanisevic, Patrick Rafter or Cedrick Pioline would have dominated the game for a little longer, no? :)

well Pete Sampras won 14 Grand Slams and none of them were French Open.
May be Federer has similar fate. But Roger Fedrer is one Hell of a player.

would love to see Roger V.... the other guy. ( forgot his name ...lol)

hopefully Federer will win ...he deserves at least one french open title for all the effort he has put into his clay court game... but hey Rafa is the clay court king and i think right now he is as good as it gets on clay

Shayog,"he will make a premature entry into the history books as the best tennis player ever" Ummm... I think Bjorn Borg still owns that Tittle I stink ? And in female Steffi Graff owns that tittle for her Grand Slam. Judging from how compitative the game has become I would hand it to the current players though......cause the game has certainly changed quite a bit in the past couple of decades. Gone are the days of finesse.... we have more powerfull ground strokes, more powerfull serves ... etc etc. Its all about strength and agility now.

FEDERER won robredo right now. Way to go Federer

"a little blemish to his career so far has been his inability to play consistently well in the clay court."

I don't think anybody can call it inconsistency on clay. It is more like he cannot get over that human road block called Nadal. Federer is without question the most consistent and best player on clay after Nadal. Just check the records.

Federer advanced to semi-final but his weaning streak is at end now. He won 36 consecutive grand slam matches before he lost in the second set during quarter final with Robredo.

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/6888880

Anyway, good luck to him in semi final and final matches.