PDA

View Full Version : If Roger Federer wins tomorrow..


riggy 69
06-07-2008, 02:16 AM
will be he be acknowledged as the greatest to ever play tennis ?

kelz
06-07-2008, 02:26 AM
that's what commentators say.

The balls in your court.
06-07-2008, 02:36 AM
will be he be acknowledged as the greatest to ever play tennis ?

If pigs fly out of my ars......


I will be considered the greates to ever fart.

Rhino
06-07-2008, 02:42 AM
Yes, for sure.

robin7
06-07-2008, 03:14 AM
NO. Fed will never win FO.

Rhino
06-07-2008, 03:16 AM
NO. Fed will never win FO.

He said "if"; it's hypothetical, not "will he win?"

Kim
06-07-2008, 03:18 AM
Federer ALREADY is.

Pro Staff Pete
06-07-2008, 03:19 AM
Yes he will be the GOAT.

urban
06-07-2008, 03:58 AM
Some commentators will call him so. It would give him an advantage over Sampras. But for all time, there are still people like Laver, Borg, and Tilden, whose records imo are still ahead of Federer at the moment, with the Grand Slam, the RG-Wimbledon double (or in Tildens day the World hard court and Wimbledon double).

Rhino
06-07-2008, 04:07 AM
Some commentators will call him so. It would give him an advantage over Sampras. But for all time, there are still people like Laver, Borg, and Tilden, whose records imo are still ahead of Federer at the moment, with the Grand Slam, the RG-Wimbledon double (or in Tildens day the World hard court and Wimbledon double).

^^^what about Federers 4 x Wimbledon/US Open feat? I don't see why that is not as good, especially when you throw in 3 FO finals, and the AO titles.

Anyway who cares, it will be generally excepted throughout the world that Fed is the greatest player, so let's see what happens.

carlos djackal
06-07-2008, 04:20 AM
If He Wins He Will Be Crowned The Goat......

West Coast Ace
06-07-2008, 04:48 AM
will be he be acknowledged as the greatest to ever play tennis ?No. A bunch of Sampras jock sniffers will open many threads on this message board trying to convince us how awesome Michael Stich, George Bastl, and other players from the 90's are - and claim that Fed is beating a bunch of lames... :roll:


http://www.angrybackhand.com

joeri888
06-07-2008, 04:59 AM
Fed's 3 finals already count for a lot, but a win here would still not make it undisputed. He'd get mighty close though and another Grandslam or Gold medal could well make everyone agree.

dima
06-07-2008, 05:49 AM
He would have to win here, and another Wimbledon in my opinion.

cueboyzn
06-07-2008, 05:56 AM
Some commentators will call him so. It would give him an advantage over Sampras. But for all time, there are still people like Laver, Borg, and Tilden, whose records imo are still ahead of Federer at the moment


He already has an advantage over Sampras with 3 appearances in the Roland Garros final as well as a semi final. Not to mention all his other records. And he is ahead of Laver Borg and Tilden on the Grand Slam list. As long as he equals 14 Slams he will be greatest ever. The only thing Federer can achieve by winning French is make it completely undisputed by 99.9% of the people in tennis whose opinions actually matter.

aceroberts13
06-07-2008, 06:06 AM
Many will agree that he is the greatest if he wins the French. If he wins the French and another grand slam I think that there will be no more bickering on whether or not he is the greatest. I don't think that a French and gold medal will do that for him. But his chances at Wimbledon and the USOpen are still very good.

jmsx521
06-07-2008, 06:13 AM
Depends on how you look at it... but, the majority of pro tennis followers use Number-of-Majors-Won as a deciding factor on who is The Greatest of All Time. And I am not even part of this majority: My consideration is based on style of play!

flyer
06-07-2008, 06:14 AM
it would be quite hard to make an argument for anyone else, still it is an opinion though

wyutani
06-07-2008, 06:21 AM
will be he be acknowledged as the greatest to ever play tennis ?

if roger wins tmr, then nadal will win wimbly.

cueboyzn
06-07-2008, 06:27 AM
Tiger Woods once said:- If your in the conversation of who is the GOAT in any sport, you have done your job and thats all you can ask for. Roger age 26 and with 5 years of good tennis left and he is already a frontrunner for The Greatest. Nice to be him if you ask me.

cueboyzn
06-07-2008, 06:32 AM
if roger wins tmr, then nadal will win wimbly.

IF Roger wins tomorrow and Nadal wins Wimbledon in 4 weeks time, these forums will be swamped with Conspiracy Theorys that Roger and Rafa came to a gentlemans agreement :)

dima
06-07-2008, 07:13 AM
Borg himself said that if Roger beats Rafa tomorrow, he'll consider him the greatest of all time. So now Agassi, Sampras, Borg, Mcenroe, who else? If you can't go by the opinion of those 4 legends, then I don't know what to say. Now of course, Cyborg will come here mentioning Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, etc but it's ok, he thinks it makes him look smart :)

The balls in your court.
06-07-2008, 12:12 PM
Tiger Woods once said:- If your in the conversation of who is the GOAT in any sport, you have done your job and thats all you can ask for. Roger age 26 and with 5 years of good tennis left and he is already a frontrunner for The Greatest. Nice to be him if you ask me.

5 years? Wishful thinking maybe?

The balls in your court.
06-07-2008, 12:13 PM
He said "if"; it's hypothetical, not "will he win?"

Why not just talk about Santa Claus if we are just speaking about Hypos?

joeri888
06-07-2008, 12:15 PM
5 years? Wishful thinking maybe?

Good tennis he can surely play for 5 more years. Maybe we will consider it awful tennis by Fed standards, but most people consider his recent tennis already awful, yet still the best in the world over the last 12 months. He won't be no. 1 in 5 years, but top 10 is still possible, Pete won slams at 31 i believe. course Roger has a more demanding game in terms of movement and stuff, but there's much left for Federer I think. Maybe end his career at 2012 London olympics (wimbledon grass)?

joeri888
06-07-2008, 12:16 PM
Why not just talk about Santa Claus if we are just speaking about Hypos?

Because Santa's got nothing to do with tennis, and this has. So if you don't like it, you better go to talk Santa.

CyBorg
06-07-2008, 12:19 PM
Borg himself said that if Roger beats Rafa tomorrow, he'll consider him the greatest of all time. So now Agassi, Sampras, Borg, Mcenroe, who else? If you can't go by the opinion of those 4 legends, then I don't know what to say. Now of course, Cyborg will come here mentioning Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, etc but it's ok, he thinks it makes him look smart :)

hehe .. if Roger wins tomorrow even I might consider him the greatest of all time. And I'm not fibbing.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 12:38 PM
Borg himself said that if Roger beats Rafa tomorrow, he'll consider him the greatest of all time. So now Agassi, Sampras, Borg, Mcenroe, who else? If you can't go by the opinion of those 4 legends, then I don't know what to say. Now of course, Cyborg will come here mentioning Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, etc but it's ok, he thinks it makes him look smart :)

Wouldn't you consider Borg biased? I mean, c'mon, he came to Wimbledon and openly supported Federer while the other player (Nadal)was also trying to meet one of his records (winning the French and Wimbledon). Not to mention he also called and thanked Roger years ago for not allowing Pete to beat his then record. You believe it because someone else said it? Everyone's opinion is subjective, not to mention it is filtered through their own psyche with motives we know not of.

joeri888
06-07-2008, 12:39 PM
Wouldn't you consider Borg biased? I mean, c'mon, he came to Wimbledon and openly supported Federer while the other player (Nadal)was also trying to meet one of his records (winning the French and Wimbledon). Not to mention he also called and thanked Roger years ago for not allowing Pete to beat his then record. You believe it because someone else said it? Everyone's opinion is subjective, not to mention it is filtered through their own psyche with motives we know not of.

It isn't only Borg is it? Anyways.. Roger's claim is getting stronger every day. Even if he doesn't win, he adds another one of those finals to his name.

dima
06-07-2008, 12:41 PM
Wouldn't you consider Borg biased? I mean, c'mon, he came to Wimbledon and openly supported Federer while the other player (Nadal)was also trying to meet one of his records (winning the French and Wimbledon). Not to mention he also called and thanked Roger years ago for not allowing Pete to beat his then record. You believe it because someone else said it? Everyone's opinion is subjective, not to mention it is filtered through their own psyche with motives we know not of.


Agassi, Borg, Mcenroe, Sampras. Who else?

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 12:47 PM
It isn't only Borg is it? Anyways.. Roger's claim is getting stronger every day. Even if he doesn't win, he adds another one of those finals to his name.


Well, to me they all have valid reasons for saying it. Were you around when Pete was playing? If so, we can have a valid debate about John, Bjorn, and many of the others. Why did you not address my claim against Borg? I thought it was valid and showed his own ignorance. Don't you think it's ironic that he returned to the public eye after a 20 year absence?

Regarding Roger's claim to greatness. The commentators, press, and tennis authorities are going to jump on the latest, greatest phenom that's coming down the pike. If Roger doesn't break the record and win the French, they'll discard him. If someone else, say who's five years old training to be a future star comes along they'll dump him altogether. Haven't you seen how they're pushing Roger out of the #1 status already? It's subtle, but it's there.

2nd_Serve
06-07-2008, 03:52 PM
I already think Federer's the greatest ever. He came up with shots that some of the other greats couldn't even think of. Also, if you think about it, he's beaten Agassi, and Sampras.

zagor
06-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Wouldn't you consider Borg biased? I mean, c'mon, he came to Wimbledon and openly supported Federer while the other player (Nadal)was also trying to meet one of his records (winning the French and Wimbledon). Not to mention he also called and thanked Roger years ago for not allowing Pete to beat his then record. You believe it because someone else said it? Everyone's opinion is subjective, not to mention it is filtered through their own psyche with motives we know not of.

Well,Borg picked Nadal to win Wimbledon so I don't think he's that biased but I agree everyone can form their own opinion and arguments and there are certainly a couple of players you could make a case for being the greatest ever.

HyperHorse
06-07-2008, 04:27 PM
If Roger manages to knock off the topspin monkey iron man mountain that is Nadal...
I'll be happy for the rest of the year.

Leelord337
06-07-2008, 04:29 PM
do Jimmy Connors' 106 ATP titles come into play when being discussed as Federer becoming GOAT?

Federer has a measly 54, :P

Nadal_Freak
06-07-2008, 04:30 PM
If Roger manages to knock off the topspin monkey iron man mountain that is Nadal...
I'll be happy for the rest of the year.
Same goes if Nadal knocks off Federer in the Wimbledon Finals.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 04:40 PM
Agassi, Borg, Mcenroe, Sampras. Who else?


Do you understand what an opinion is? There are many experts on different subjects with differing opinions. Who's right, or wrong? This goes to prove how so many posters allow their thoughts to be filtered through someone's brain. If Agassi, Borg, McEnroe, and Sampras said it, then it's true? OK. But what about you? What does YOUR brain say? Sorry, I've always hated someone giving me someone else's opinion to validate their own opinion. That simply doesn't work for me. It's sort of like the, "everybody else is doing it" syndrome. I never was a follower, all of my thoughts are original and emanate from me and my own perceptions. I can respect someone else's opinion, but it doesn't change mine!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 05:03 PM
Well,Borg picked Nadal to win Wimbledon so I don't think he's that biased but I agree everyone can form their own opinion and arguments and there are certainly a couple of players you could make a case for being the greatest ever.

I think he was embarrassed. I would be if I did something so shoddy. Me personally, I don't believe in that GOAT debate. The best of their generation, yes, but crossing decades and eliminating the state of competition, racket technology, different surfaces, bigger, stronger, players, etc. There will never be a greatest of all time with things changing all the time. For example Masters Series being changed to best of three sets. That's a huge difference in that one thing alone. Maybe that's why some posters are actually saying Justine is the best ever. Based on what? And you're right, you could go on and on "proving" your point, but in the end someone else will come along and the former greatest will be discarded like chewing gum on the sidewalk. BTW, I also don't agree with McEnroe about Nadal being greater than Borg. The jury is still out on that I don't care what JMac says!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 05:04 PM
No contest about who looks the best between Federer and Nadal. Nadal is a sexy beast!

quest01
06-07-2008, 05:05 PM
I think Federer will be the GOAT if he wins at least 1 French Open and a total of 15 grand slams to surpass Pete's 14 slams.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 05:14 PM
I think Federer will be the GOAT if he wins at least 1 French Open and a total of 15 grand slams to surpass Pete's 14 slams.


They'll call him that, and that will be fine, but first he has to do it! The same for Nadal. First Nadal has to surpass Borg to be greater than him. Mathematically, that only makes sense!

marc45
06-07-2008, 05:29 PM
as a huge sampras fan (amazing the criticism he gets...yeah, bastl at the end of his career while having an emotional letdown is what we pete fans use as an argument of his competition...btw, any thoughts on michael stich vs. anybody in top ten now, outside of top three (or even two?), let me due something so many fans on these boards have so much touble doing- give others respect, while putting things in context...if fed wins, i have no trouble with the goat title (neither does pete by the way, classier than most), but how about a couplethings fed fans might want to consider...1...duration of dominanace..his run since 2003-4 through 2007 has been the best ever perhaps...what if he loses tomorrow, and continues to suffer losses to nadal, joker, others in big matches to come (pete was 1 in the world for 6 years and would have been 7 imo if not for a back injury in 99...2... fed has been awfully reluctant to play davis cup, unlike nadal, joker, roddick...this gives him more time/rest to prepare for tourneys..pete was criticized for not playing as much as andre and courier, but nevertheless was a key memeber of two championship teams, in particular almost single-handedly winning a final against russia in moscow on red dirt against good claycourt players..easy to dismiss davis cup nowadays, but it is important to the history of tennis, and now that fed has wawrinka in the top ten why doeshe get a pass on that?...btw, i don't really push the competition angle, but looking below top 2 or three in fed's top ten, i'm really beginning to wonder (wonderful performances from davy and ferrer 4&5 on the clay this year)

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 05:54 PM
as a huge sampras fan (amazing the criticism he gets...yeah, bastl at the end of his career while having an emotional letdown is what we pete fans use as an argument of his competition...btw, any thoughts on michael stich vs. anybody in top ten now, outside of top three (or even two?), let me due something so many fans on these boards have so much touble doing- give others respect, while putting things in context...if fed wins, i have no trouble with the goat title (neither does pete by the way, classier than most), but how about a couplethings fed fans might want to consider...1...duration of dominanace..his run since 2003-4 through 2007 has been the best ever perhaps...what if he loses tomorrow, and continues to suffer losses to nadal, joker, others in big matches to come (pete was 1 in the world for 6 years and would have been 7 imo if not for a back injury in 99...2... fed has been awfully reluctant to play davis cup, unlike nadal, joker, roddick...this gives him more time/rest to prepare for tourneys..pete was criticized for not playing as much as andre and courier, but nevertheless was a key memeber of two championship teams, in particular almost single-handedly winning a final against russia in moscow on red dirt against good claycourt players..easy to dismiss davis cup nowadays, but it is important to the history of tennis, and now that fed has wawrinka in the top ten why doeshe get a pass on that?...btw, i don't really push the competition angle, but looking below top 2 or three in fed's top ten, i'm really beginning to wonder (wonderful performances from davy and ferrer 4&5 on the clay this year)

Great post!

CyBorg
06-07-2008, 06:00 PM
Some commentators will call him so. It would give him an advantage over Sampras. But for all time, there are still people like Laver, Borg, and Tilden, whose records imo are still ahead of Federer at the moment, with the Grand Slam, the RG-Wimbledon double (or in Tildens day the World hard court and Wimbledon double).

Yes, we can still look at the outcome as another checkmark to his resume of course. But aside from the mere accomplishment of winning RG there would something extra to this. He would beat Nadal - in the prime of his youth; a genuinely great clay courter. The accomplishment would be incredible I think considering what we know now about Nadal and his domination of the rest of the field.

History predicts that Nadal will win. I can't think of a bigger upset if Roger pulls this off. Perhaps you can, but nothing comes to mind for me. History suggests that when a guy is in the prime of his career, is on his best surface, on the grandest stage, has a reputation to prove that he is the best on this surface and there are no warning signs of any kind of his demise this guy doesn't lose. So if he does lose it would mean that Federer has accomplished something quite extraordinary.

marc45
06-07-2008, 06:21 PM
thanks truth, i appreciate the compliment, and let me add at least one (painful) thing...borg and pete are my heroes (maybe even a match at the end of the year) and it bothered me greatly when i heard borg made that call to roger about saving his record...all of a sudden bjorn's become very available to the opinionmakers...interestingly, pete's book is coming out this week, so he'll be available (and has been-i swear he's done more interviews the last couple years, all fed-related, than his whole career),However, i don't think he's attended any big tourney, and i don't think he'll call rafa if he wins tomorrow, though rafa has become inextricably tied to pete's legacy)...finally, though they are my heroes, i have to admit i felt let down by the early (my opinion) retirements...needless to say, tomorrow and the last 3-4 years at rolland garros have tested my emotions, and sanity?

pmerk34
06-07-2008, 06:34 PM
it would be quite hard to make an argument for anyone else, still it is an opinion though


Sampras never had years where he went 81-4. To me Roger is the greatest player I have ever seen since I started watching/playing. (1985)

knasty131
06-07-2008, 06:41 PM
Depends on how you look at it... but, the majority of pro tennis followers use Number-of-Majors-Won as a deciding factor on who is The Greatest of All Time. And I am not even part of this majority: My consideration is based on style of play!

The thought that the greatest player ever based on style is absurd. If that were the deciding factor, then Marcello Rios would be in the running for the GOAT title and I doubt any pro would EVER agree with some worthless TW poster that the GOAT should be based upon the style of play.

BTW, I'm not calling you worthless but to them, let's face it...we are lol...at least whenever it comes to judging who the GOAT is...

Mansewerz
06-07-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm praying with all my heart that Fed wins tomorrow. The guy has been working his *** off. I'm not saying Nadal hasn't, but I can see that Fed needs and wants it more. Truth is, Nadal will win more French opens later on. Fed just needs this one, and I want him to win so bad. I'm rooting for Fed. [insert "come on" in Swiss here] Roger!

rommil
06-07-2008, 07:22 PM
No contest about who looks the best between Federer and Nadal. Nadal is a sexy beast!

It's either you are into bestiality or you are an actual animal yourself.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:34 PM
thanks truth, i appreciate the compliment, and let me add at least one (painful) thing...borg and pete are my heroes (maybe even a match at the end of the year) and it bothered me greatly when i heard borg made that call to roger about saving his record...all of a sudden bjorn's become very available to the opinionmakers...interestingly, pete's book is coming out this week, so he'll be available (and has been-i swear he's done more interviews the last couple years, all fed-related, than his whole career),However, i don't think he's attended any big tourney, and i don't think he'll call rafa if he wins tomorrow, though rafa has become inextricably tied to pete's legacy)...finally, though they are my heroes, i have to admit i felt let down by the early (my opinion) retirements...needless to say, tomorrow and the last 3-4 years at rolland garros have tested my emotions, and sanity?

Borg and Pete used to be my favorite players too, but with both of them acting the way they have been lately I have scratched them off my list. Sadly, I have lost respect for them both!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:35 PM
The thought that the greatest player ever based on style is absurd. If that were the deciding factor, then Marcello Rios would be in the running for the GOAT title and I doubt any pro would EVER agree with some worthless TW poster that the GOAT should be based upon the style of play.

BTW, I'm not calling you worthless but to them, let's face it...we are lol...at least whenever it comes to judging who the GOAT is...

Hilarious!

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 08:38 PM
It's either you are into bestiality or you are an actual animal yourself.

It's common slang. Come out of the dark ages. Your attempt at sarcasm is lacking! A lot! You don't like hearing The Truth? Yeah, (nodding head) that's what I thought!

rommil
06-08-2008, 05:39 AM
It's common slang. Come out of the dark ages. Your attempt at sarcasm is lacking! A lot! You don't like hearing The Truth? Yeah, (nodding head) that's what I thought!

Nice try but we all know the truth is the truth. You The Truth on the other hand as we all know is ONLY a message board nickname with opinions which has relatively no value at all.You may have convinced your self that there is no difference but alas the world outside you parents basement begs to differ. Keep nodding your head and look out for any shiny objects. You know how that attracts you.

marc45
06-08-2008, 08:46 AM
Borg and Pete used to be my favorite players too, but with both of them acting the way they have been lately I have scratched them off my list. Sadly, I have lost respect for them both!

what has pete been doing lately to bother you truth?...just interested

Rhino
06-06-2009, 04:51 AM
NO. Fed will never win FO.

Don't be so sure.

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 05:05 AM
If Fed wins tomorrow, he will move ahead of Pete on my GOAT-list.

But he will still be behind Tilden, Roswall, Budge, Borg, and Gonzales.

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 05:07 AM
Sampras never had years where he went 81-4. To me Roger is the greatest player I have ever seen since I started watching/playing. (1985)


Oooh, you just missed it. What was Mac's record in 1984?

pmerk34
06-06-2009, 05:44 AM
Oooh, you just missed it. What was Mac's record in 1984?

Mac was 82-3!

tennisplaya
06-06-2009, 05:47 AM
he needs a few more slams and maybe something else big, like a few davis cups or a Gold(in singles).

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 06:07 AM
Or a calendar-year Grand Slam.

valiant
06-06-2009, 08:35 AM
I dont care about the GOAT thing. He is my favourite player and I just want him to play his best

zagor
06-06-2009, 08:38 AM
I dont care about the GOAT thing. He is my favourite player and I just want him to play his best

That's a nice way of looking at it,I agree.Would really like to see Fed win FO this year,especially after all the bashing he got in this forum lately but I don't really care if he's GOAT or not.

valiant
06-06-2009, 08:47 AM
That's a nice way of looking at it,I agree.Would really like to see Fed win FO this year,especially after all the bashing he got in this forum lately but I don't really care if he's GOAT or not.


Yeah he gets a lot of bashing here. But i dont think it matters at the end of day. People have opinions and its hard to change for some and took at things differently. Many people on this forums are here just to bash some players doesnt matter if its Fed , Nadal or anyone else. They just get pleasure out of it.

zagor
06-06-2009, 08:57 AM
Yeah he gets a lot of bashing here. But i dont think it matters at the end of day. People have opinions and its hard to change for some and took at things differently. Many people on this forums are here just to bash some players doesnt matter if its Fed , Nadal or anyone else. They just get pleasure out of it.

Yeah,it's kind sad but that's the way things work on internet forum I guess,it attracts those kind of people.

GameSampras
06-06-2009, 09:01 AM
Nadal has tarnished fed's resume quite a bit. I think Fed will have to make the h2h with Nadal look a little more less lopsided especially in the slams.

Will Fed be GOAT if he wins? Maybe... If there is in a fact a true GOAT

BigServer1
06-06-2009, 10:53 AM
Nadal has tarnished fed's resume quite a bit. I think Fed will have to make the h2h with Nadal look a little more less lopsided especially in the slams.

Will Fed be GOAT if he wins? Maybe... If there is in a fact a true GOAT

I hate saying this, but...

I completely agree with you. I think that if Nadal had made a couple of US Open finals, or an AO final in 06 (had he played) or 07, the record would look better, but as it stands, 5-2 for Nadal in slam finals is not good for Roger. I do think, however, that IF (capital IF is still working for me...) Federer wins tomorrow, he'll have a great shot to beat Nadal if they both make the Wimbledon final. I don't know if Nadal will ever make a USO final, just because of the nature of the tournament, the speed and the fact that it's late in the year, but if Fed could get 1-2 more slam final wins over Nadal, and another few wins against Nadal in general, it would go a long way to cementing his status. 13-10 or 14-11 looks a helluva lot better than 13-7.

BreakPoint
06-06-2009, 10:59 AM
will be he be acknowledged as the greatest to ever play tennis ?
Yes, no doubt.

Cesc Fabregas
06-06-2009, 11:00 AM
Yes, no doubt.

Ever heard of Laver, Sampras Gonzales etc?

thejoe
06-06-2009, 11:01 AM
Ever heard of Laver, Sampras Gonzales etc?

If Fed wins tomorrow, you can take Pete out of contention.

Cesc Fabregas
06-06-2009, 11:03 AM
If Fed wins tomorrow, you can take Pete out of contention.

Fed will be on 14 slams same as Pete how is he out of contention?

maximo
06-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Fed will be on 14 slams same as Pete how is he out of contention?

Because he never won the FO. :roll:

I don't want him to win tho, Soderling all the way!

thejoe
06-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Fed will be on 14 slams same as Pete how is he out of contention?

He will have the slam.

Cesc Fabregas
06-06-2009, 11:06 AM
He will have the slam.

Doens't matter imo its just 1 FO anyways if he got 2 or 3 then yes but its only 1.

thejoe
06-06-2009, 11:09 AM
Doens't matter imo its just 1 FO anyways if he got 2 or 3 then yes but its only 1.

Doesn't matter!? 1 French Open means everything in this case. It is what could separate them.

World Beater
06-06-2009, 12:46 PM
lol.

who gets hurt most by this? pete and possibly borg. because they couldnt win at their weakest slams.

stormholloway
06-06-2009, 12:54 PM
Federer really should have beaten Rafa at both Wimbledon and the AO. By losing those matches, it made it appear as if Rafa had more than just a clay court edge on Federer.

I think it's safe to say that if Rafa had seen Federer on a hardcourt or grass slam final anywhere from 2004-2007 he would have been at a serious disadvantage.

dh003i
06-06-2009, 12:59 PM
That's a nice way of looking at it,I agree.Would really like to see Fed win FO this year,especially after all the bashing he got in this forum lately but I don't really care if he's GOAT or not.

Yea, I also want him to win the FO. But if he doesn't, I'm still a fan, and while of course he'll be disappointed, no-one can say he didn't try for it.

Anyways, he whole GOAT thing is non-objective. A lot of people talking about that seem to ignore everyone before Laver. Well, according to Rosewall, Laver wasn't even in he top 5, among player before the Open Era. So I think that, most likely, enough respect isn't paid to players before the Open Era.

Moose Malloy knows a lot about this.

Cesc Fabregas
06-06-2009, 01:01 PM
Federer really should have beaten Rafa at both Wimbledon and the AO. By losing those matches, it made it appear as if Rafa had more than just a clay court edge on Federer.

I think it's safe to say that if Rafa had seen Federer on a hardcourt or grass slam final anywhere from 2004-2007 he would have been at a serious disadvantage.

Just like 17 year old Nadal beating Fed on hardcourts or Nadal beating Fed at Dubai in 06 :roll: and Federer shouldn't have beaten Nadal at Wimbledon infact if there wasn't a rain delay Nadal would have won in straight sets.

atac
06-06-2009, 01:07 PM
Wait, even thought he'll probably win his first French Open and equal the 14 slam record this year, I'm still confused how Federer can be called the GOAT when pretty much everyone agrees that Nadal is the greater clay courter and has a 13-7 winning record against Fed. Are we taking clay out of the argument? How can you be called the greatest of all time when someone is greater than you, even if its with something like a particular court surface? I'm not trying to bash Fed, but his GOAT crowning is sort of ridiculous.

JeMar
06-06-2009, 01:18 PM
Doens't matter imo its just 1 FO anyways if he got 2 or 3 then yes but its only 1.

It would be one French Open title, three finals, and a semi.

Sampras is out if Federer does happen to win.

There's still a match to play, though, and Soderling's been looking great.

GameSampras
06-06-2009, 02:13 PM
What hurts Fed is.. You notice when Nadal is out of the equation, Fed usually takes the slams. But when Nadal is apart of the equation... well you know the story. IMO Fed needs some slam wins over Nadal to solidify himself. I mean TRUELY solidify himself as the GOAT, His h2h record against Nadal, cant be overlooked

GameSampras
06-06-2009, 02:14 PM
Now if Fed took out Nadal at the French, along with Djoker, HANDS DOWN Fed would be the GOAT. Unfortunately, Fed may win the French, but he wouldnt have taken out the big guns to get there. Yes its not his fault, but he still didnt do it. He had a relatively easy draw.. Actually what should have been a CAKEWALK. Who gave him the most trouble? Haas maybe? Then Del Potro? Thats not a tough draw Im sorry. We'll see what Soderling has to offer. Prolly not much though, since he will be in his first slam finals.

JeMar
06-06-2009, 02:19 PM
If he wins, he will be the most accomplished player of all time. The only true rival will be Laver and maybe Gonzalez and Sampras will go the way of Agassi... at least in the GOAT conversation.

He's still gotta win tomorrow, though. The way Soderling's playing right now would dismantle someone like Sampras.

GameSampras
06-06-2009, 02:25 PM
I would have like 20's some Sampras' chances too if his toughest competition was Haas and Del Potro at the French. Better to deal with them than Bruguera, Medvedev, Andre, and Courier

prince
06-06-2009, 02:27 PM
Fed will be GOAT after tomorrow's match:
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2009-06-06/200906061244303188250.html

JeMar
06-06-2009, 02:38 PM
I would have like 20's some Sampras' chances too if his toughest competition was Haas and Del Potro at the French. Better to deal with them than Bruguera, Medvedev, Andre, and Courier

Not to mention clay court giants like Galo Blanco, Thierry Champion, Gilbert Schaller, Magnus-never-met-a-match-I-couldn't-lose-Norman, Ramon Delgado, Mark-what-the-hell-is-this-on-my-shoes?-Phillippoussis, and little Andrea Gaudenzi.

You make it sound like he went out to clay court giants every year! LOL

Those guys can't hold a candle on a clay court to just about everyone Federer's played after Acasuso.

JeMar
06-06-2009, 05:04 PM
Fed will be GOAT after tomorrow's match:
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2009-06-06/200906061244303188250.html

That's IF he wins... I wish people would stop trying to jynx it. I feel like there's this huge conspiracy against Federer's possible RG title.

Boy, I need this match to be over already.

caesar66
06-06-2009, 05:25 PM
I absolutely love federer, but I think GOAT is really an opinion. I put Laver's two actual Grand Slams and McEnroe's 179 or w/e mixture of doubles and singles titles equal to Federer's 14 slams, including all four. Some could base it on total number of titles (Connors), being a larger than life worldwide star (Borg), or being a worldwide star and major philanthropist while having a hugely successful career over several "generations" of players (Agassi).

Chopin
06-06-2009, 06:21 PM
Some guys have him at #8 in the thread I started. Seems kind of ridiculous...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=265962

imalil2gangsta4u
06-06-2009, 06:23 PM
Some guys have him at #8 in the thread I started. Seems kind of ridiculous...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=265962

Chopin, some people here cant be reasoned with. They have their minds set and they wont budge.

Steve132
06-06-2009, 06:24 PM
I would have like 20's some Sampras' chances too if his toughest competition was Haas and Del Potro at the French. Better to deal with them than Bruguera, Medvedev, Andre, and Courier

Between 1994 and 1998 Sampras lost at Roland Garros to Courier, Schaller, Kafelnikov, Norman and Delgado.

Between 2004 and 2008 Federer lost to Kuerten (once) and Nadal (four times). Federer has now reached the French Open final for four straight years. The only other players to do that in the Open era are Borg, Lendl and Nadal.

By most criteria the players who beat Federer at RG are far more accomplished clay court players than are those who beat Sampras. Can you imagine Federer in his prime being beaten in the first two rounds (at any major) by journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado?

So much for the "strong competition" of the 90's.

martini1
06-06-2009, 06:52 PM
will be he be acknowledged as the greatest to ever play tennis ?

At 14? May be 15+ and a few more titles before he retires. Yes, a career golden slam is impressive, but I am not ready to put him as THE goat yet.

Benefactor
06-06-2009, 07:08 PM
I don't see how the difference between him not being the greatest of all time and "clearly" the greatest - which is how so many people would view him - comes to down a tournament that was basically handed to him. No Djokovic for him to beat, no Nadal, no Murray, all of whom own his ***, he's down 2 sets a couple times (nearly 3) and the other guys choke every single time. I mean, it's a great achievement on paper, but the guys he's had to beat have been pretty "meh". It's hard for me to crown somebody the greatest of all time because of a title won by defeating the likes of Monfils, Haas, and Del Potro.

Benefactor
06-06-2009, 07:13 PM
At 14? May be 15+ and a few more titles before he retires. Yes, a career golden slam is impressive, but I am not ready to put him as THE goat yet.

He doesn't have the golden slam. Winning a gold medal in doubles doesn't mean jack **** with regards to this debate.

NamRanger
06-06-2009, 07:14 PM
Between 1994 and 1998 Sampras lost at Roland Garros to Courier, Schaller, Kafelnikov, Norman and Delgado.

Between 2004 and 2008 Federer lost to Kuerten (once) and Nadal (four times). Federer has now reached the French Open final for four straight years. The only other players to do that in the Open era are Borg, Lendl and Nadal.

By most criteria the players who beat Federer at RG are far more accomplished clay court players than are those who beat Sampras. Can you imagine Federer in his prime being beaten in the first two rounds (at any major) by journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado?

So much for the "strong competition" of the 90's.


After his loss to Kafelnikov at the FO SF, I think Sampras pretty much gave up on the FO. I wouldn't put too much into his losses after that year.

NamRanger
06-06-2009, 07:16 PM
I don't see how the difference between him not being the greatest of all time and "clearly" the greatest - which is how so many people would view him - comes to down a tournament that was basically handed to him. No Djokovic for him to beat, no Nadal, no Murray, all of whom own his ***, he's down 2 sets a couple times (nearly 3) and the other guys choke every single time. I mean, it's a great achievement on paper, but the guys he's had to beat have been pretty "meh". It's hard for me to crown somebody the greatest of all time because of a title won by defeating the likes of Monfils, Haas, and Del Potro.


10 years from now, no one will remember that crap.



Also, just because Sampras beat up on a bunch of nobodies in slams (Pioline anyone?) doesn't make those slam wins illegitimate. Federer's FO slam if he wins it is just as legitimate as a win as any of Sampras' slams.

Benefactor
06-06-2009, 07:20 PM
10 years from now, no one will remember that crap.



Also, just because Sampras beat up on a bunch of nobodies in slams (Pioline anyone?) doesn't make those slam wins illegitimate. Federer's FO slam if he wins it is just as legitimate as a win as any of Sampras' slams.

Nobody ever said his win would be "illegitimate". But when it comes to whether or not you're the best of all time, it's hard to hang your hat on a win like this. Winning the French Open wasn't really supposed to be just about winning the tournament; it was supposed to be largely about overcoming his greatest rival. He has proven time and time and time again that he couldn't do it on this surface, and more recently on any surface at all in the slams. It's difficult to be the greatest of all time when for the latter half of your career, and the last couple years in particular, there have been a couple players who have stepped all over you like a ****ing doormat.

NamRanger
06-06-2009, 07:22 PM
Nobody ever said his win would be "illegitimate". But when it comes to whether or not you're the best of all time, it's hard to hang your hat on a win like this. Winning the French Open wasn't really supposed to be just about winning the tournament; it was supposed to be largely about overcoming his greatest rival. He has proven time and time and time again that he couldn't do it on this surface, and more recently on any surface at all in the slams. It's difficult to be the greatest of all time when for the latter half of your career, and the last couple years in particular, there have been a couple players who have stepped all over you like a ****ing doormat.


Uh, I'm pretty sure Hewitt, Safin, and a few other players were doing that to Sampras near the tail end of his career. Does that hurt his status as a GOAT candidate? Not really. What it comes down to is slam counts and overall achievements; H2H only matters if Nadal manages to catch up to Federer in the slam count. However, Nadal isn't even anywhere close to Federer currently.

Benefactor
06-06-2009, 07:34 PM
Uh, I'm pretty sure Hewitt, Safin, and a few other players were doing that to Sampras near the tail end of his career. Does that hurt his status as a GOAT candidate? Not really. What it comes down to is slam counts and overall achievements; H2H only matters if Nadal manages to catch up to Federer in the slam count. However, Nadal isn't even anywhere close to Federer currently.

Tail end of his career? If we're talking about Nadal, then I guess the tail end of Federer's career must have started around the time Federer was 22 or so, because starting in 2004, Nadal beat him 6 out of the first 7 times they played. Nobody ever owned Sampras like that during his prime years. In a few years from now, when Federer's performance has noticeably fallen off because of age and he's about to retire, nobody is going to bash him because of his results. Hewitt's results really picked up against Pete when he was close to retiring, not during a time when he was even remotely close to his prime. And in the case of Safin, he never "owned" Pete. He led the head to head 4-3, and the results were pretty back and forth over the years.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:21 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=265962
Guys, don't you know that Federer is "barely top 10." Check out the last page of my thread to learn from some of the TW historians.

jamesblakefan#1
06-06-2009, 08:23 PM
link doesn't work chopin. :(

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:24 PM
Nobody ever said his win would be "illegitimate". But when it comes to whether or not you're the best of all time, it's hard to hang your hat on a win like this. Winning the French Open wasn't really supposed to be just about winning the tournament; it was supposed to be largely about overcoming his greatest rival. He has proven time and time and time again that he couldn't do it on this surface, and more recently on any surface at all in the slams. It's difficult to be the greatest of all time when for the latter half of your career, and the last couple years in particular, there have been a couple players who have stepped all over you like a ****ing doormat.

And what door are Murray and Djokovic going through? The door to not winning slams? Let's remember that Federer crushed them both at the US Open and that (one) or both of them have sat and watched Federer compete in the finals of the last, oh, let's see, 5 slams? Hmm...your argument doesn't sound so good now, huh?

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:25 PM
link doesn't work chopin. :(

Just go to the thread in the former pro player discussions "a sensible list"--hilarious stuff on the last page.

Rhino
06-07-2009, 12:16 AM
I don't see how the difference between him not being the greatest of all time and "clearly" the greatest - which is how so many people would view him - comes to down a tournament that was basically handed to him. No Djokovic for him to beat, no Nadal, no Murray, all of whom own his ***, he's down 2 sets a couple times (nearly 3) and the other guys choke every single time. I mean, it's a great achievement on paper, but the guys he's had to beat have been pretty "meh". It's hard for me to crown somebody the greatest of all time because of a title won by defeating the likes of Monfils, Haas, and Del Potro.

Beating Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, was obviously not the most difficult thing to do at this years RG. Roger is doing something MORE DIFFICULT and more legitimate than that - he's beating their conquerors.

Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were NOT the men to beat. If Federer had beaten them for the title then this title would have LESS value, because Soderling beat Nadal, Kohlschreiber beat Djokovic, and Gonzalez beat Murray - so they became the real form players and the real threats.

Soderling, having also beaten Ferrer, Davydenko, and finally Gonzalez, is obviously a much more dangerous player than Nadal this year.
Kohlschreiber was beaten by Robredo who was beaten by Del Potro - making him the man to beat.

From what i've seen, Soderling and Del Potro are the biggest rivals for Federer this year, not Nadal and Djokovic, so if he wins on Sunday, the tournament was not "handed to him". If he'd only had to beat Nadal and Djokovic, then the tournament may have been handed to him because they were nowhere near the best players in the draw.

RFtennis
06-07-2009, 12:19 AM
I believe he already is.

DarthMaul
06-07-2009, 12:20 AM
Beating Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, was obviously not the most difficult thing to do at this years RG. Roger is doing something MORE DIFFICULT and more legitimate than that - he's beating their conquerors.

Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were NOT the men to beat. If Federer had beaten them for the title then this title would have LESS value, because Soderling beat Nadal, Kohlschreiber beat Djokovic, and Gonzalez beat Murray - so they became the real form players and the real threats.

Soderling, having also beaten Ferrer, Davydenko, and finally Gonzalez, is obviously a much more dangerous player than Nadal this year.
Kohlschreiber was beaten by Robredo who was beaten by Del Potro - making him the man to beat.

From what i've seen, Soderling and Del Potro are the biggest rivals for Federer this year, not Nadal and Djokovic, so if he wins on Sunday, the tournament was not "handed to him". If he'd only had to beat Nadal and Djokovic, then the tournament may have been handed to him because they were nowhere near the best players in the draw.

I agree with you. If Nadal wasn't able to pass the 4th round, then he wasn't the man to beat. Same thing applies to Djoko and Murray.

kevinrose
06-07-2009, 01:25 AM
I wonder if Agassi will be the guest of honor, presenting the Coupe des Mousquetaires to Roger (hopefully) later.

Steffi was the guest of honor for the women's btw.

martini1
06-08-2009, 08:09 AM
He doesn't have the golden slam. Winning a gold medal in doubles doesn't mean jack **** with regards to this debate.

I am very generous to Fed. I'll give him that.