PDA

View Full Version : current players who could be a g.o.a.t.


joshburger
01-10-2009, 08:25 PM
i say that murray or nadal could. nadal's knees worry me, because it could affect his longevity. i dont think djokavic will. federer is arguably already a g.o.a.t

game set match 46 TIMES!!
01-10-2009, 08:51 PM
Nadal possible.

Murray is already giving federer a hard time possible him.

beckham
01-10-2009, 08:53 PM
Fed, Murray and/or Nadal.

JeMar
01-10-2009, 08:56 PM
Throwing around "Greatest of All Time" just lessens and degrades its meaning. Please stop using it like it's nothing. Out of the current generation, the only two that could possibly be even within the realm of consideration right now are Federer, who has a pretty strong case; and Nadal, who still has a lot of work to do on non-clay courts.

1st Seed
01-10-2009, 09:03 PM
Nadal, most determined, out of the top 4 no one puts in the kind of effort he does.For that he get's my vote.

J-man
01-10-2009, 09:04 PM
Nadal I think could be.

EPaps
01-10-2009, 09:09 PM
I think Federer is right now.

ESP#1
01-10-2009, 09:35 PM
way to early to be giving murray such high praise, lets see how he handles the pressure of being on top and being a target before we give em too much credit, i do agree he does have the talent but then again so do alot of players

phoenicks
01-10-2009, 09:35 PM
No 1 can be a g.o.a.t until they beat sampras, that is u can't talk about that until any1 have won 15GS, even then, he may still not be a g.o.a.t

GameSampras
01-10-2009, 10:19 PM
No way Nadal will be considered a GOAT. He wont maintain a high enough level of tennis long enough. Also the odds of him winning a HC slam is stacked against him. If there is one player outside of Fed who COULD be a future GOAT could be Murray just based on his ability, improvement and increase in mental toughness opposed to a year ago. He still has to prove himself on grass and clay. But I would say Murray has a better chance at winning on both than Nadal win a HC slam

thalivest
01-10-2009, 10:29 PM
Nobody even though I am a big Nadal fan. The GOAT title is the most abused title around here it seems.

egn
01-10-2009, 10:41 PM
No 1 can be a g.o.a.t until they beat sampras, that is u can't talk about that until any1 have won 15GS, even then, he may still not be a g.o.a.t

...ehh thats pretty lame. Quality over quanity. Someone comes along wins 12 with 3 of each..hey make the case. No offense Sampras can't be the g.o.a.t he never won big on clay.

egn
01-10-2009, 10:43 PM
i say that murray or nadal could. nadal's knees worry me, because it could affect his longevity. i dont think djokavic will. federer is arguably already a g.o.a.t

this thread is a fail..you list one guy who is allready goat candidate, one guy in his middle career adn two guys at the start. YOu chose todays top 4 and were like hey which one will be a goat? Hell out of those 4 everyone will pick Federer soley because right now he looks like he will be a goat. It is ridiculous this poll is stupid.

KRFLegal
01-10-2009, 10:50 PM
Andy Murray was born: 15-May-87
Nadal was born: 3-Jun-86

Nadal is just one year older, but already has 5 Majors (4 FOs and a Wimbledon).

Murray is rising nicely but is already facing an uphill battle to catch up with Nadal, let alone Federer and Sampras.

I think Nadal has the better math on his side to get to GOATness. He can surpass Federer if Fed wins just one or two more Majors.

I think Nadal is so strong minded that he will win the US Open one year. It seems that when Nadal focuses on something, he gets the job done .... Wimbledon ... becoming #1 ... Gold Medal...

Nadal takes my vote for future GOAT.

DoubleDeuce
01-10-2009, 10:57 PM
Murray as the goat? It's not even funny.

KRFLegal
01-10-2009, 10:58 PM
...ehh thats pretty lame. Quality over quanity. Someone comes along wins 12 with 3 of each..hey make the case. No offense Sampras can't be the g.o.a.t he never won big on clay.

Well, quantity of Majors is objective, so that's simply an easy way to measure one player against another. No one is claiming it as science...

If you start counting something else then it gets more subjective and useless --- today is the first day I've logged into Talk Tennis since around August, and the same debate was going on back then as now about how to measure GOAT. Never an agreement...so back to most Majors...

Also, the players seem to put value on the most Majors stat. Federer is definitely trying to achieve the goal, so we have company in who considers quantity as important.

egn
01-10-2009, 11:06 PM
Well, quantity of Majors is objective, so that's simply an easy way to measure one player against another. No one is claiming it as science...

If you start counting something else then it gets more subjective and useless --- today is the first day I've logged into Talk Tennis since around August, and the same debate was going on back then as now about how to measure GOAT. Never an agreement...so back to most Majors...

Also, the players seem to put value on the most Majors stat. Federer is definitely trying to achieve the goal, so we have company in who considers quantity as important.

Pancho Gonzales my friend Pancho Gonzales.

Most majors is really bad, what happens if Nadal finishes with 14 French Opens and only 1 Wimbledon..do we call him GOAT? After all its quantity he will have the most..but 14 of them will be clay? Honestly Federer's resume and Pete's are nearly mirrors of each other..Fed has one more AO and Pete has two more Wimbledons..however Borg should go into GOAT consideration of the modern players and he only has 11. However Borg didn't go to Australia so in theory he was playing for 2 out of 3 a year so in theory what you can't play can't hurt you. I will not give him credit for it saying it helps it but that should not hurt him. Besides Pancho Gonzales has like 2 slams, because he was not allowed to play in them. There are more than just grand slams..

FiveO
01-11-2009, 04:43 AM
I maintain that there is no one GOAT. There are the greatest of their generation and by a lot of other subjective elements, separate themselves so far from their contemporaries that the qualify as GOATs, plural, an ultra elite group, who are worthy of sitting at the same table together.

Yeah, the premise is a little odd on its face. But I think that may be the result of two contenders showing up back to back.

While there were those kind of links in tennis history, there have also been gaps especially in the Open Era.

For instance, many have Laver, Borg, Sampras and Fed on their top tier of candidates.

(I consider Federer, winning nothing else as having qualified for consideration)

What I think some younger fans are "spoiled" by and/or a victim of is the Federer followed almost immediately behind Sampras.

What's lost on them is that guys in the etherial GOAT conversation are rare, very.

There was a huge gap after Laver and until Borg. A bigger gap if one is of the mind to disqualify Lendl from this conversation, between Borg and Sampras.

There was even a four or five year gap between Sampras and Federer.

And that is not saying that Nadal is not a great player, he is, but if history again repeats itself it is unlikely that anyone near the top of the game right now will push the inside of the GOAT envelope, and if it happens it will probably be from a generation not yet having made a significant impact.

5

Leublu tennis
01-11-2009, 05:11 AM
Throwing around "Greatest of All Time" just lessens and degrades its meaning. Please stop using it like it's nothing. Out of the current generation, the only two that could possibly be even within the realm of consideration right now are Federer, who has a pretty strong case; and Nadal, who still has a lot of work to do on non-clay courts.

I agree with this but don't hold out for Federer. He was great for a few years but I think its all over and he is a long reach from being great for all time. Nadal doesn't impress me at all. I don't think he will last a year at #1.

Telepatic
01-11-2009, 06:34 AM
i say that murray or nadal could. nadal's knees worry me, because it could affect his longevity. i dont think djokavic will. federer is arguably already a g.o.a.t

Well, first of all, please learn to pronounce players name.

Since Federer is allready somewhat of a goat, Nadal is clay goat (and will probably remain like that), so next goat could be Murray/Djokovic.

egn
01-11-2009, 09:48 AM
Well, first of all, please learn to pronounce players name.

Since Federer is allready somewhat of a goat, Nadal is clay goat (and will probably remain like that), so next goat could be Murray/Djokovic.

the fact that you say there will be the next goat shows your goat is not a goat. When someone is crowned goat..nobody ever goes there will be somebody better. Babe Ruth is the goat of baseball, because hell nobody all around can be better than Babe Ruth and it stands like that. The GOAT doesn't have to hold every single last record, but they should be the overall best player ever..someone who was feared..someone who dominated..someone who was the greatest of their generation. So that simply leaves Murray and Djoker out for now because Nadal is right now the greatest of their generation.

ben_friendz
01-11-2009, 09:14 PM
How can you guys call federer a G.O.A.T.? Has any pro player been consistantly dominant for their entire career? No, all of them had ups and downs, Federer's game relies much less on physical ability, however, he still needed it, I will personally vouch that he will win at least three more slams by the end of his career if not more. He will figure it out. Nadal will for sure putter out and die if he does not drastically change his game soon, he is good, but man is he hard on his body.

coloskier
01-12-2009, 09:10 AM
Murray as the goat? It's not even funny.

The only way Murray will become a goat is if he lets his facial hair continue to grow.

Carlo Colussi
01-12-2009, 09:20 AM
Nobody even though I am a big Nadal fan. The GOAT title is the most abused title around here it seems.

Agree one hundred percent :twisted:

christos_liaskos
01-12-2009, 09:20 AM
I'm a big Murray fan but this is stupid. GOAT means greatest of all time right?

As things are, most people find it hard to settle on 1 single player as GOAT but it has to go to one of three; Federer, Sampras and Laver. That is 3 players from a sport which has spanned over 100 years! 1 generation does not throw up multiple contenders for the title of GOAT. We have been extremely lucky that Federer just happened to come in the generation after Sampras. That frequency of contenders for the GOAT title alone is pretty amazing. Not every generation throws up a contender for the title, and certainly doesnt throw up multiple contenders.

From this generation, Nadal will go down in history as being in the level just below contenders for the title, along with players like Borg and Agassi. And again, please have some respect for what Rafa is doing. I dont see Murray or Djokovic equalling him in their careers either. They will probably end up on the "3rd tier" of all time greats. Who would that be? Players like Becker maybe?

If this generation where to throw up 3 or 4 contenders for the GOAT title (WHICH IT WONT, IMPOSSIBLE!) then we certainly would be living in the golden era of tennis right now.

NickC
01-12-2009, 09:40 AM
Greatest of all time? Federer. That's it.

Murray_fan1
01-12-2009, 09:49 AM
I think Federer is the closest thing to a GOAT currently playing. Murray I think has the tools to be a GOAT but time will tell...

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 09:50 AM
Its one of the three who have legit claims for sure. (laver, sampras, fed).. Probably Laver has the most legit claim outside of the slam count. No fault of his own though.. he would have that if he could have played the slams in his prime. Close to 20 slams I would say for Laver. But what separates laver is the Grand Slam. Something Pete and Roger dont have. Laver is the GOAT or has the most legit claim to the title. Moreso than Pete and Roger. I will admit that. IF we go by just GS count, that isnt fair to laver

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 09:51 AM
Federer IS the GOAT. Only Laver has the same accolades, but he did not compete against the depth that modern players have too so I cannot put him above Fed. Sampras is second to those two, because of his lack of clay court accomplishments.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 09:52 AM
How could Fed or Sampras compete with Laver for the GOAT spot? Your domination is only as big as the era you are in and nobody Surpasses Laver in this regard. And Fed's domination in "his era" 04-07 didnt have the upper top talent as say what Pete was competing with in the early -mid 90s.

Unless you want to suggest Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick, Baghaditis Blake, young Nadal, Nalbandian is better competition than the guys like Becker, Edberg, Courier, etc which doesnt hold much water.

The competition today is better than the competition of 04-07. I mean 35 year old, plastic hipped, cortizone shot taking, Andre was in the top 10. That should say something

vtmike
01-12-2009, 10:02 AM
The only way Murray will become a goat is if he lets his facial hair continue to grow.

Agree +1

:) tht was funny

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 10:19 AM
How could Fed or Sampras compete with Laver for the GOAT spot? Your domination is only as big as the era you are in and nobody Surpasses Laver in this regard. And Fed's domination in "his era" 04-07 didnt have the upper top talent as say what Pete was competing with in the early -mid 90s.

Unless you want to suggest Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick, Baghaditis Blake, young Nadal, Nalbandian is better competition than the guys like Becker, Edberg, Courier, etc which doesnt hold much water.

There is no way to prove that Federer's era of dominance was due to a weak field. Actually, it's tin-hat, conspiracy theory, fanboy stuff to suggest it. Roddick could have had 4 or 5 slams without losing to Fed. Lleyton could have had more, just because Federer dominated more then Sampras is in no way proof that it was a weak era. If Federer doesn't stop Roddick and Hewitt from winning more slams then we are talking about them being just as good as Becker and Edberg today. Laver on the other hand is another story. The top levels of tennis were nowhere near as competive back then as they are now. It's like suggesting that Pete Marovich was better then Michael Jordan.


The competition today is better than the competition of 04-07. I mean 35 year old, plastic hipped, cortizone shot taking, Andre was in the top 10. That should say something

You're talking about maybe the greatest ballstriker in tennis history, who was as committed to his fitness as anybody on tour. You wanna talk about old men competing in a weak era? Take a look at Rosewall and Laver winning pro titles around the age of 40.

Alexio92
01-12-2009, 10:21 AM
Murray, Djokovic, Simon, del Potro

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 10:23 AM
There is no way to prove that Federer's era of dominance was due to a weak field. Actually, it's tin-hat, conspiracy theory, fanboy stuff to suggest it. Roddick could have had 4 or 5 slams without losing to Fed. Lleyton could have had more, just because Federer dominated more then Sampras is in no way proof that it was a weak era. If Federer doesn't stop Roddick and Hewitt from winning more slams then we are talking about them being just as good as Becker and Edberg today. Laver on the other hand is another story. The top levels of tennis were nowhere near as competive back then as they are now. It's like suggesting that Pete Marovich was better then Michael Jordan.




You're talking about maybe the greatest ballstriker in tennis history, who was as committed to his fitness as anybody on tour. You wanna talk about old men competing in a weak era? Take a look at Rosewall and Laver winning pro titles around the age of 40.


First I will admit Pete's competition suffered the late 90s. No question. It certainly wasnt what it was early to mid 90s. Youre impying like Hewitt, Murray, Blake, are better top rivals than say a Murray, Djoker, or prime Nadal or an Edberg, Becker, Agassi, etc? These guys were NOT better players and these were the only competition Fed had to deal with during his dominance. These guys didnt have the talent of some the names I mentioned. People want to say, Fed's passed his prime blah blah... How about the fact that Nadal has primed or peaked? How about the fact that guys like Murray and Djoker are just plain flat out BETTER PLAYERS than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc?

Its DENIAL if you think the likes of Roddick, Hewitt etc are better top competition than the top 4 today that Fed deals with. We have seen how Murray and Djoker took care of Roddick like yesterday's garbage. Murray and Djoker at ANY TIME would give Fed his fair share or problems. More than a Roddick, hewitt, baghaditis, Gonzales or Blake.

Of course when regarding the GOAT, all you can look at is domination over a certain era and no one really comes close to Laver regardless nor his accomplishments on all surfaces

oneleggedcardinal
01-12-2009, 11:25 AM
I maintain that there is no one GOAT. There are the greatest of their generation and by a lot of other subjective elements, separate themselves so far from their contemporaries that the qualify as GOATs, plural, an ultra elite group, who are worthy of sitting at the same table together.

Yeah, the premise is a little odd on its face. But I think that may be the result of two contenders showing up back to back.

While there were those kind of links in tennis history, there have also been gaps especially in the Open Era.

For instance, many have Laver, Borg, Sampras and Fed on their top tier of candidates.

(I consider Federer, winning nothing else as having qualified for consideration)

What I think some younger fans are "spoiled" by and/or a victim of is the Federer followed almost immediately behind Sampras.

What's lost on them is that guys in the etherial GOAT conversation are rare, very.

There was a huge gap after Laver and until Borg. A bigger gap if one is of the mind to disqualify Lendl from this conversation, between Borg and Sampras.

There was even a four or five year gap between Sampras and Federer.

And that is not saying that Nadal is not a great player, he is, but if history again repeats itself it is unlikely that anyone near the top of the game right now will push the inside of the GOAT envelope, and if it happens it will probably be from a generation not yet having made a significant impact.

5

QFT

10 char.

egn
01-12-2009, 11:34 AM
First I will admit Pete's competition suffered the late 90s. No question. It certainly wasnt what it was early to mid 90s. Youre impying like Hewitt, Murray, Blake, are better top rivals than say a Murray, Djoker, or prime Nadal or an Edberg, Becker, Agassi, etc? These guys were NOT better players and these were the only competition Fed had to deal with during his dominance. These guys didnt have the talent of some the names I mentioned. People want to say, Fed's passed his prime blah blah... How about the fact that Nadal has primed or peaked? How about the fact that guys like Murray and Djoker are just plain flat out BETTER PLAYERS than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc?

Its DENIAL if you think the likes of Roddick, Hewitt etc are better top competition than the top 4 today that Fed deals with. We have seen how Murray and Djoker took care of Roddick like yesterday's garbage. Murray and Djoker at ANY TIME would give Fed his fair share or problems. More than a Roddick, hewitt, baghaditis, Gonzales or Blake.

Of course when regarding the GOAT, all you can look at is domination over a certain era and no one really comes close to Laver regardless nor his accomplishments on all surfaces


Please take your bias bull and back off. What on earth has Murray or Djokovic done that allows you to say they are better than a prime Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Moya I refuse to continue the list. Aruging with you is pointless because you talk like you know everything. Murray had an above average season. One slam final, one other slam finish quarter final, 4 or 5 titles, 2 ms? Big deal. You are saying him in his prime is better than Hewitt or Safin who actually won slams to go with their master series? Last time I chekced between Djokovic and Murray they have one slam? Between Hewitt and Safin there are 4. 4>1. It could still very well wind up that none of these guys finish with another slam in their life and Djokovic and Murray finish with no more than they have. I would kill to see Federer come back and win 3 out of 4 again this year just so you would have to eat your words. If you honestly say Murray right now in his prime has done more than Safin you nothing about tennis. Safin in his prime beat a prime Federer in a five set slam match...Murray what did he do to an out of prime Fed in a slam match..oh yea lost in straight sets.

Lefty5
01-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Greatest of all time? Federer. That's it.

What about the guy who holds the current Grand Slam Record? Fed's got 2 more to go to be in contention.

nevisben
01-12-2009, 11:48 AM
Some unfairness here on Federer. When he was in his prime he looked unbeatable.

I agree with an earlier poster who said the next goat won't be along any time soon.

Anyway I would rather have 3 or 4 potential winners for each slam than one domininant player.

I switched off to tennis during Sampras's reign.

tintin
01-12-2009, 11:49 AM
What about the guy who holds the current Grand Slam Record? Fed's got 2 more to go to be in contention.

unlike Sampras who managed just 1 semis his whole career at Roland Garros,Federer had it not been for Nadal who he keeps losing to since the semis of 2005 has made 3 straight finals.
he's won Hamburg and again has lost to Nadal in Rome and Monte Carlo

with all due respect to Sampras but imho his win in Rome was nothing but a big fat FLUKE!

I'll take Federer making ALL 4 major FINALS(winning 3 out 4 and losing in the finals against the same opponent in Paris) when he made ALL 4 slam finals then Sampras record and not even a final at RG

unlike Sampras we know Federer can play on clay;either fast or slow(Rome/Hamburg or Monte Carlo)
ain't no shame in losing to the GCCPOAT(greatest clay court player of all time)

had it not been for Nadal in his way;this whole GOAT thing would have been settled since 2005 because with all due respect to Mariano Puerta;I don't a crap about him being on the juice and all but Federer would have whooped his bum and won RG.

Federer would have beaten anyone and won 4 Coupe des Mousquetaires right now and not only tie but surpassed Sampras

game set match 46 TIMES!!
01-12-2009, 11:55 AM
Nadal possible.

Murray is already giving federer a hard time possible him.

well i forgot somthing here. i think federer is one. if not then hes one.

christos_liaskos
01-12-2009, 01:17 PM
Just as a bit of extra info to you all, I'm currently reading Sampras' autobiography and his contenders for GOAT are; Laver, Borg, Lendl, Federer and himself

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 01:24 PM
Just as a bit of extra info to you all, I'm currently reading Sampras' autobiography and his contenders for GOAT are; Laver, Borg, Lendl, Federer and himself
It's funny he doesn't put Connors in the mix. I agree with him but I would have added Connors: amazing longevity, won on all surfaces, only player to have won more than 100 tournaments in his career...

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 02:42 PM
It's funny he doesn't put Connors in the mix. I agree with him but I would have added Connors: amazing longevity, won on all surfaces, only player to have won more than 100 tournaments in his career...

Well, Laver won almost 200, the majority of which are not counted by the ATP. Connors was around a long time and only won 8 slams. IMO you don't get to being the GOAT by managing to play tennis long enough to win a million dinky little tournaments. Connors had serious losing records against all his "rivals" (Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, even Nastase). Not anywhere near being the GOAT.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 02:45 PM
Please take your bias bull and back off. What on earth has Murray or Djokovic done that allows you to say they are better than a prime Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Moya I refuse to continue the list. Aruging with you is pointless because you talk like you know everything. Murray had an above average season. One slam final, one other slam finish quarter final, 4 or 5 titles, 2 ms? Big deal. You are saying him in his prime is better than Hewitt or Safin who actually won slams to go with their master series? Last time I chekced between Djokovic and Murray they have one slam? Between Hewitt and Safin there are 4. 4>1. It could still very well wind up that none of these guys finish with another slam in their life and Djokovic and Murray finish with no more than they have. I would kill to see Federer come back and win 3 out of 4 again this year just so you would have to eat your words. If you honestly say Murray right now in his prime has done more than Safin you nothing about tennis. Safin in his prime beat a prime Federer in a five set slam match...Murray what did he do to an out of prime Fed in a slam match..oh yea lost in straight sets.

LOL.. Sorry but Fed aint winning 3 a year anymore. Not with an prime Nadal, Murray, and Djoker around. More like 3 more the rest of his career.


I cant believe you can sit there and say Hewitt and Safin are greater than Murray and Djoker. LOL. Thats hillarious. Safin may have more talent than both but when does Safin play like he did at the US OPEN 2000, AO 2005? Once every 5 years? old Safin spent more times in the bars and partying and more outside of the top 10 then he did IN IT. So Safin was never a rival. He had no work ethic and had mental issues. Similiar to Nalbandian.
When it comes right down to it in the end.. I would bet 100 bucks that Murray and Djoker will have TWICE the careers that Safin and Hewitt ever had.

Did Safin even have a prime?? Was Safin even EVER a RIVAL to anyone? A player who brings his A game once every 4-5 years is not a rival or even very relevant. Nalbandian and Safin showed us that you can have exceptional talent, but if you cant bring it all together and have the focus, drive, consistency, determination, its means JACK DIDDLY SQUAT!

NickC
01-12-2009, 03:01 PM
Federer would have beaten anyone and won 4 Coupe des Mousquetaires right now and not only tie but surpassed Sampras

Anyone? Like Guga? As in the Guga that's never lost to him on Clay? That Guga?

Emelia21
01-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Some unfairness here on Federer. When he was in his prime he looked unbeatable.

I agree with an earlier poster who said the next goat won't be along any time soon.

Anyway I would rather have 3 or 4 potential winners for each slam than one domininant player.

I switched off to tennis during Sampras's reign.

Just out of interest who do you support now?

egn
01-12-2009, 03:16 PM
LOL.. Sorry but Fed aint winning 3 a year anymore. Not with an prime Nadal, Murray, and Djoker around.


I cant believe you can sit there and say Hewitt and Safin are greater than Murray and Djoker. LOL. Thats hillarious. Safin may have more talent than both but when does Safin play like he did at the US OPEN 2000, AO 2005? Once every 5 years? old Safin spent more times in the bars and partying and more outside of the top 10 then he did IN IT. So Safin was never a rival. He had no work ethic and had mental issues. Similiar to Nalbandian.
When it call downs down to it in the end.. I would bet 100 bucks that Murray and Djoker will have TWICE the careers that Safin and Hewitt ever had

Yea leaving out key fact Fed is out of prime.

Cool when they have better careers fine..lets see it happen. Murray still has done nothing and even if he wins one slam thats still behind Safin and Hewitt. Your 100 dollar bet shows how ridiculous you are..you think you are intimidating and proving a point. The point is nobody knows how Murray's career will play out, because every said the same thing about Safin they said he will have 5 or 6 slams and same goes for Hewitt and what happened they ran into Federer. Federer shut down their careers. Murray and Djoker are now playing when Federer is out. If you are telling me Federer now is playing just as good in 2004 then you are just as stupid as that 100 dollar bet you made. Federer is an image of his former self. Besides Safin probably beat two of the greatest players ever in slam finals, Sampras and Federer. Murray still hasn't won a slam, made it to more than one final yet you are quick to jump on this bandwagon. Stop being such a bandwagon jumper and wait till facts appear. Hell if Murray wins all 4 slams this year hey you were right Murray was better than Federer omg but don't say Fed's career is not highlighted by good competition. Because a Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and crew were all pretty damn good in their prime, and b Nadal has be in his prime for quite some time now whether you *********s like to believe it or not. Making Wimbledon finals 3 times in a row if you are a claycourter shows you are in your prime, winning at least 2 master series every year shows prime. Nadal peaked, which is different from prime. Like 2006 Fed peaked, 2004-2005 Fed is simply prime. Yet this was all a waste of time it will go right in and right out. As you will continue to go YOU ARE STUPID HOW DO YOU SAY SAFIN IS BETTER THAN MURRAY? and some other stuff say I know nothing about tennis.

Face it as of right now Safin's career is far greater than Murray's and same goes for Hewitt and hell Roddick has even has had a better career.

Safin - 2 slams, 2 runner ups, 5 MS
Hewitt- 2 slams, 2 runner ups, 2 MS, 2 master cups (2 time year end no.1)
Roddick - 1 slam, 3 runner ups, 4 Ms (1 time year end no.1)

Lets see Murray have his year 3 or 4 times..hell have him win a slam before you diss Safin and Hewitt.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 03:19 PM
Yea leaving out key fact Fed is out of prime.

Cool when they have better careers fine..lets see it happen. Murray still has done nothing and even if he wins one slam thats still behind Safin and Hewitt. Your 100 dollar bet shows how ridiculous you are..you think you are intimidating and proving a point. The point is nobody knows how Murray's career will play out, because every said the same thing about Safin they said he will have 5 or 6 slams and same goes for Hewitt and what happened they ran into Federer. Federer shut down their careers. Murray and Djoker are now playing when Federer is out. If you are telling me Federer now is playing just as good in 2004 then you are just as stupid as that 100 dollar bet you made. Federer is an image of his former self. Besides Safin probably beat two of the greatest players ever in slam finals, Sampras and Federer. Murray still hasn't won a slam, made it to more than one final yet you are quick to jump on this bandwagon. Stop being such a bandwagon jumper and wait till facts appear. Hell if Murray wins all 4 slams this year hey you were right Murray was better than Federer omg but don't say Fed's career is not highlighted by good competition. Because a Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and crew were all pretty damn good in their prime, and b Nadal has be in his prime for quite some time now whether you *********s like to believe it or not. Making Wimbledon finals 3 times in a row if you are a claycourter shows you are in your prime, winning at least 2 master series every year shows prime. Nadal peaked, which is different from prime. Like 2006 Fed peaked, 2004-2005 Fed is simply prime. Yet this was all a waste of time it will go right in and right out. As you will continue to go YOU ARE STUPID HOW DO YOU SAY SAFIN IS BETTER THAN MURRAY? and some other stuff say I know nothing about tennis.

Face it as of right now Safin's career is far greater than Murray's and same goes for Hewitt and hell Roddick has even has had a better career.

Safin - 2 slams, 2 runner ups, 5 MS
Hewitt- 2 slams, 2 runner ups, 2 MS, 2 master cups (2 time year end no.1)
Roddick - 1 slam, 3 runner ups, 4 Ms (1 time year end no.1)

Lets see Murray have his year 3 or 4 times..hell have him win a slam before you diss Safin and Hewitt.


Ok But Djoker and Murray are just beginning theirs. And Safin is on the last leg of his career. Djoker already has a YEC and a slam under his belt. Murray will start getting his. Hasnt Murray and Djoker even at the beginning of their careers spent more time in the top 5 than Safin has his ENTIRE CAREER? LOL. Most including myself, are very certain when its all said and done djoker and murray will have a much greater career than Safin.

Im not even going to mention Roddick.. Hes been trashed on quite a few occasions by Murray and Djoker. Hes nowhere NEAR Djoker and Murray level as a player. As for Hewitt, Djoker and Murray are like Cyborg versions of Hewitt. They have close to his speed but they have a much more rounded game, much more strength and 100 times the arsenal Hewitt ever had. Hewitt had a very good few years.. But was pretty insignifcant thereafter once the wheels went and he never had the game to back it up once his speed left him

egn
01-12-2009, 03:31 PM
Ok But Djoker and Murray are just beginning theirs. And Safin is on the last leg of his career. Djoker already has a YEC and a slam under his belt. Murray will start getting his. Hasnt Murray and Djoker even at the beginning of their careers spent more time in the top 5 than Safin has his ENTIRE CAREER? LOL. (you fail because even you know thats wrong as Safin had more time, Murray has been barely top 5 for 3 or 4 months.)

Im not even going to mention Roddick.. Hes been trashed on quite a few occasions by Murray and Djoker. Hes nowhere NEAR Djoker and Murray level as a player. As for Hewitt, Djoker and Murray are like Cyborg versions of Hewitt. They have close to his speed but they have a much more rounded game, much more strength and 100 times the arsenal Hewitt ever had. Hewitt had a very good few years.. But was pretty insignifcant thereafter once the wheels went and he never had the game to back it up once his speed left him


Murray does not have a rounded game...do we watch the same tennis player, or are our definitions of rounded different. Murray stands behind the baseline and hits the ball. Murray barely moves in, the fact that Nadal actually played net against him in the US Open SF proves that Murray is stuck at the baseline. He plays a very good baseline game but he is not well rounded. Djokovic yes, but even look at Federer vs. Murray at Doha, Murray never really approached the net and spent most of the time hitting balls deep back at Federer. Oh yea he throws in a drop shot or two, but Murray plays like most of the rest of the top 10 just he is slightly better at it. At least rounded to me means someone who can incorporate and arsneal of shots, Murray hits the same stuff over and over again. I will be glad for you to prove me wrong though but from what I have seen from Murray is the same thing.

jaggy
01-12-2009, 03:35 PM
I am really excited by Murrays talent so ticked him, time will tell however.

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 04:03 PM
Well, Laver won almost 200, the majority of which are not counted by the ATP. Connors was around a long time and only won 8 slams. IMO you don't get to being the GOAT by managing to play tennis long enough to win a million dinky little tournaments. Connors had serious losing records against all his "rivals" (Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, even Nastase). Not anywhere near being the GOAT.
Maybe but he included Lendl who has won the same numeber of slams as Connors...

pepe01
01-12-2009, 04:12 PM
Well, i can not even figure why OP is considering Nadal, Murray or Novak.......please, there are only three players who can take this honor, Roger, Pete and Rod......and Roger has a strongest case than Pete and Rod.

Beside those three i can not see any other even close...

Aggro
01-12-2009, 04:14 PM
Federer at this precise moment of time is the only one on the list to have a claim of GOAT. He has won multiple slams, masters on all surfaces, number 1 ranking for an extended period. Although not faced much competition when compared to Sampras, Lendl, Borg etc i still belive he has a claim to GOAT as he is the most complete tennis player and a role model off the court.

Nadal is argueable the greatest clay courter ever to play the game. GOAT . . . he has a long way to go. Hard court success is a high goal also more wins on grass and reaching more finals of slams and masters, too often he is knocked out in the Q or Semi's by the hard hitters on the H/C's - Murray, Djkovic, Tsonga, Gonzalez etc etc.

Murray and Djokovic TBH have just become Grand Slam title seekers. Murray is on amazing form atm whilst Djokovic is having a little bit of a slump. I think to properly establish whether these 2 could be GOAT really relies on a few things.
1. There performance in 2009/10
2. Federer and Nadals performance in 2009/10
3. Upcoming Youngsters in a few years

Just my thoughts on the matter - don't bash me for saying anything its just my opinion :)

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 04:18 PM
All the players on this list (other than Federer) are too young to make a career assessment about them.

zagor
01-12-2009, 05:16 PM
Youre impying like Hewitt, Murray, Blake,

Fed's main rivals during his prime years were Nadal,Hewitt,Safin,Roddick,Ferrero,Nalbandian and 33-35 year old Agassi(who was not you ordinary 30+ year old player since he won 5 of his 8 slams in the age of 29-33 and had a career year at the age of 29).A solid bunch,maybe not the greatest competition but on the other hand IMO Fed made some of them look more ordinary then they really are.

Edberg, Becker, Agassi, etc?

Sampras never beat Edberg in a slam,Becker was a very early bloomer who was arguably already past his prime in '93(year Sampras started his dominance) and the only years Agassi played up to his potential in the 90s IMO are '95 and '99.

Sampras main rival at Wimbledon(where he won half his slams)was Ivanisevic who pushed Sampras on old grass somewhat similarly to how Nadal pushed Fed on modern grass,however he never had the mental strength Nadal has.

The guy who had all the potential to be Sampras's greatest rival at Wimbledon was Krajicek who was a very tough match-up for Sampras(beat him in straights at Wimbledon in Pete's prime in their one sole encounter there and after that match beat him 3 times in a row as well)but was plagued by injuries,inconsistency and lack of motivation(mostly by injuries though sadly).

People want to say, Fed's passed his prime blah blah

Sure they do and not only because of his losses to Nadal last year,no,Nadal was always able to beat Fed even during Fed's best years.But rather because of losses to Roddick,Fish,Karlovic,Stepanek,Blake etc. players to whom Fed mostly never lost before.What does the fact that aside from USO Fed failed to reach the final in ANY HC tourney during the WHOLE year tell you? That's not prime Fed IMO but you're free to think otherwise.

More like 3 more the rest of his career.

Maybe,but you never know.He might yet surprise you(not just you,a lot of people here),just like he did at USO last year when he beat both of the "strong era" players back-to-back and please don't come with "Djokovic and Murray were tired at USO"excuse,it's sounds ridiculous when they're only 21 while Fed is 27-28 and has played just as much as them the whole season.

II would bet 100 bucks that Murray and Djoker will have TWICE the careers that Safin and Hewitt ever had.

Maybe but the fact remains that they still have some proving to do,especially Murray who for all the recent hype he got here(is Murray GOAT? and similar threads)has yet to win a slam.Maybe you should wait unitl he does before you jump on the bandwagon.Unlike him,atleast Djokovic already has a slam to his name.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 05:47 PM
Fed's main rivals during his prime years were Nadal,Hewitt,Safin,Roddick,Ferrero,Nalbandian and 33-35 year old Agassi(who was not you ordinary 30+ year old player since he won 5 of his 8 slams in the age of 29-33 and had a career year at the age of 29).A solid bunch,maybe not the greatest competition but on the other hand IMO Fed made some of them look more ordinary then they really are.



Sampras never beat Edberg in a slam,Becker was a very early bloomer who was arguably already past his prime in '93(year Sampras started his dominance) and the only years Agassi played up to his potential in the 90s IMO are '95 and '99.

Sampras main rival at Wimbledon(where he won half his slams)was Ivanisevic who pushed Sampras on old grass somewhat similarly to how Nadal pushed Fed on modern grass,however he never had the mental strength Nadal has.

The guy who had all the potential to be Sampras's greatest rival at Wimbledon was Krajicek who was a very tough match-up for Sampras(beat him in straights at Wimbledon in Pete's prime in their one sole encounter there and after that match beat him 3 times in a row as well)but was plagued by injuries,inconsistency and lack of motivation(mostly by injuries though sadly).



Sure they do and not only because of his losses to Nadal last year,no,Nadal was always able to beat Fed even during Fed's best years.But rather because of losses to Roddick,Fish,Karlovic,Stepanek,Blake etc. players to whom Fed mostly never lost before.What does the fact that aside from USO Fed failed to reach the final in ANY HC tourney during the WHOLE year tell you? That's not prime Fed IMO but you're free to think otherwise.



Maybe,but you never know.He might yet surprise you(not just you,a lot of people here),just like he did at USO last year when he beat both of the "strong era" players back-to-back and please don't come with "Djokovic and Murray were tired at USO"excuse,it's sounds ridiculous when they're only 21 while Fed is 27-28 and has played just as much as them the whole season.



Maybe but the fact remains that they still have some proving to do,especially Murray who for all the recent hype he got here(is Murray GOAT? and similar threads)has yet to win a slam.Maybe you should wait unitl he does before you jump on the bandwagon.Unlike him,atleast Djokovic already has a slam to his name.

Did Fed lose to Fish, Karlo, Blake in the slams? No he didnt. And Fed reached at the very least a semi's at each of he slams. He went the entire Wimbledon all the way up the finals without dropping 1 FREAKING SET. I dunno how people would think Fed is passed his prime when you look at his overrall results in the slams and his dominance at Wimbeldon. That doesnt strike me as player passed his prime. He may have leveled off a bit but the fact still remains if Djoker wasnt around or Nadal didnt hit his prime this past year, Fed still gets 3 out of the 4 slams in 2008. Even during his peak years.(05-06) Fed still had a few losses during the season. Its not like he didnt have matches where he dipped a bit. He lossed to Murray one of the years in Cincinatti.. Lost to Nalbandian at the Masters one year. Had a few losses to Canas. And his FH at times was erratic at times as well. I really dont see much of a difference in Fed to be honest at least in his , other than the fact that I think hes had some mental letdowns. His game is still certainly solid. But like I said before, Murray is a tougher opponent than Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Ferrero, Ljubicic, Gonzales and the rest were. Thats just a fact. Hes a better player. I dunno how anyone can dispute that. I certainly think Fed is still in his prime. Hes had no major injuries to speak of. He may not be at 06 PEAK, but he still damn good. Only difference is with Nadal more improved, Djoker and Murray, around thats better rivals and more talented players. The only players Fed lost to at the slams were DJoker and Nadal.

egn
01-12-2009, 06:25 PM
Did Fed lose to Fish, Karlo, Blake in the slams? No he didnt. And Fed reached at the very least a semi's at each of he slams. He went the entire Wimbledon all the way up the finals without dropping 1 FREAKING SET. I dunno how people would think Fed is passed his prime when you look at his overrall results in the slams and his dominance at Wimbeldon. That doesnt strike me as player passed his prime. He may have leveled off a bit but the fact still remains if Djoker wasnt around or Nadal didnt hit his prime this past year, Fed still gets 3 out of the 4 slams in 2008. Even during his peak years.(05-06) Fed still had a few losses during the season. Its not like he didnt have matches where he dipped a bit. He lossed to Murray one of the years in Cincinatti.. Lost to Nalbandian at the Masters one year. Had a few losses to Canas. And his FH at times was erratic at times as well. I really dont see much of a difference in Fed to be honest at least in his , other than the fact that I think hes had some mental letdowns. His game is still certainly solid. But like I said before, Murray is a tougher opponent than Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Ferrero, Ljubicic, Gonzales and the rest were. Thats just a fact. Hes a better player. I dunno how anyone can dispute that. I certainly think Fed is still in his prime. Hes had no major injuries to speak of. He may not be at 06 PEAK, but he still damn good. Only difference is with Nadal more improved, Djoker and Murray, around thats better rivals and more talented players. The only players Fed lost to at the slams were DJoker and Nadal.

1. People say Fed is out of his prime for the following reason 925 (2006 record) 6615 (2008 record.) Take 2004+2005+2006 loses and you get 2008 record. That makes a point right there. Sure out of his prime he still won a slam, but out of his prime he has better seasons than players who you can say are in there prime like Djokovic..case point that Djokovic aint a goat.

2. Back on Murray..yea so Murray 08 provided bettter competition to Federer than Roddick 04?..NOPE. Roddick 04 is basically identical to what Murray did this year. Oh go ahead say MURRAY WON 2 MASTER SERIES CROWNS...i know you want to..Roddick and Murray basicaly balance out, Roddick didnt play all 9 because back then that was normal and Roddick had a better slam year than Murray did this year. So really Murray posed no more of a threat this year than Roddick did in 04...Stop making Murray out to more than he is in the moment. Let him actually prove himself. Don't give him credit he does not deserve. If and when Murray wins more then give him credit you seem to be missing this. P.S. Roddick had a far superior record in that year than Murray and oh yea he pushed a prime Federer to four sets on grass..once again Murray went down in 3 straight sets to Fed in the US Open...where is the challenge there?

3. Sampras past his prime dominated wimbledon from 1999-2000 the case can be made Sampras was out of his prime. The only slam he could muster a win at was Wimbledon. His season were cut short and he was starting to show signs of age. Yet he still won a slam in both of those years..but most would agree in both of those years his prime was far gone. Yet in 2000 he made 3 good slam runs..but it wasn't prime Sampras. Why? Oh yes I know why he saved it for the slams, because that was what was important to him. Sampras played at a level far above the rest of his tennis in slams from 1999-2003. He wanted to win them, it was no longer about anything else, it was about the slams. Federer has that same drive, he comes out in slams playing his hardest. Federer likes the venue..he likes to play at slams. That is what matters to him the most now. He is exiting his prime now, but that still means he can win slams. Hell according to all of you Nadal won 3 French Opens not even playing "prime tennis" so why can't it go the other way around? *zing* =]

4. Nadal is just as good as he was in 07. The key to this year was Nadal's fitness, Nadal simply had a stronger body. He didn't flame out after Wimbledon, he flamed out after US Open. I know Nadal had apparent easy draws at both slams, but for years past the US Open would come around and Nadal even with an easy draw would bounce early, same goes for summer hard court slams. What made Nadal so good this year was his body was strong. He was playing just as good as 2007, his game did not change much and hell in 2007 WImbledon he could have won, 2008 Wimbledon he could have easily lost..no huge gap, a bounce or two the other way in each outcomes change. Nadal's key to this year was fitness. No offense to Djokovic he is playing the same as last year, just this year he has a nice slam in his belt. 2 master series, and only one slam final just this time he won. Give him props but to say he is better is ehh, his season was better but he himself eh. Murray is definitly better but not where you seem to put him.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 06:31 PM
LOL.... Yea Roddick was such more of a threat to Roger than Murray. I mean Roddick in 04 a threat to roger? Did Roddick win 4 straight matches against Roger? Roddick was virtually NO THREAT to Roger bottom line. Roddick would probably be sitting on 1 slam in ANY ERA. How many weapons has Roddick ever had outside a serve and a FH that he waved bye-bye to long ago?

Some threat Roddick was. A 15-2 losing H2h Record against Fed. Meanwhile Murray leads Fed 5-2 and also with a win over Roger when Roger was at his Peak in 2006 in Cincinnati. Murray was one of the 5 that beat him.

If you really think Roddick was any kind of threat to Roger, youre crazy.. I mean 15-2 h2h.. What kind of a "threat" is that? That is more like a walk in the park. Roddick is more like a pimple on Feds butt, as opposed to any kind of "threat."

egn
01-12-2009, 06:50 PM
a. competition and threat two different words look them up you will be surprised, roddick was federer's competition

b. yes federer did beat roddick all 3 of their meetings in 2004 but than that is no surprise.

c. you can't compare roddick record in 2004 vs murray record in 2008 against federer on the same levels as fed 08 is far weaker than 04, you are still convinced otherwise but all the stats, video footage etc. prove it

d. one win...wow...Filippo Volandri did that in 2007 Rome against Federer...the fact that right now you just were like who is that proves my points. A fluke win against the number one in his prime in a first round match does not make you better competition than a guy who consistently contested with him slam finals. I will give you Murray has the better record but 2008 Fed is not 2004 Fed. I don't care if Fed and Murray end with a head to head murray 8-4. If 3 of those 4 Fed victories come in slam finals then it proves one thing. Fed wins when it actually matters. As of right now Fed wins when it matters most. Also lets how head to head is after clay and grass, I give Fed wins over Murray there anyway.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 07:01 PM
Alright well can agree to disagree. Im sorry I just never felt Roddick to be on par as the type of competition to Fed that Djoker or Murray would later become. A 15-2 record is not much support if you are really if you are trying to provide Roddick as some sort of competition or threat to Roger. Murray has gave Roger more problems in just a short few matches than Roddick was able to do his whole career against Fed. I think this year will show alot of just how much tougher Murray is for Fed than Roddick ever if Murray meets Fed at the slams.

unprotennis
01-12-2009, 07:51 PM
LOL.... Yea Roddick was such more of a threat to Roger than Murray. I mean Roddick in 04 a threat to roger? Did Roddick win 4 straight matches against Roger? Roddick was virtually NO THREAT to Roger bottom line. Roddick would probably be sitting on 1 slam in ANY ERA. How many weapons has Roddick ever had outside a serve and a FH that he waved bye-bye to long ago?

Some threat Roddick was. A 15-2 losing H2h Record against Fed. Meanwhile Murray leads Fed 5-2 and also with a win over Roger when Roger was at his Peak in 2006 in Cincinnati. Murray was one of the 5 that beat him.

If you really think Roddick was any kind of threat to Roger, youre crazy.. I mean 15-2 h2h.. What kind of a "threat" is that? That is more like a walk in the park. Roddick is more like a pimple on Feds butt, as opposed to any kind of "threat."

hey, any pimple on your butt is a **** off.

Beasty54
01-12-2009, 07:55 PM
LOL.... Yea Roddick was such more of a threat to Roger than Murray. I mean Roddick in 04 a threat to roger? Did Roddick win 4 straight matches against Roger? Roddick was virtually NO THREAT to Roger bottom line. Roddick would probably be sitting on 1 slam in ANY ERA. How many weapons has Roddick ever had outside a serve and a FH that he waved bye-bye to long ago?

Some threat Roddick was. A 15-2 losing H2h Record against Fed. Meanwhile Murray leads Fed 5-2 and also with a win over Roger when Roger was at his Peak in 2006 in Cincinnati. Murray was one of the 5 that beat him.

If you really think Roddick was any kind of threat to Roger, youre crazy.. I mean 15-2 h2h.. What kind of a "threat" is that? That is more like a walk in the park. Roddick is more like a pimple on Feds butt, as opposed to any kind of "threat."

Strongly disagree with that. The three slam finals he lost were all to Federer, and his career could have been quite different if not for Fed.

lambielspins
01-12-2009, 08:03 PM
Strongly disagree with that. The three slam finals he lost were all to Federer, and his career could have been quite different if not for Fed.

Sorry but while I disagree with GameSampras on alot of things he is right on Roddick. You say he lost those slam finals to Federer. True, but in the 90s he would have instead lost them to Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. In the 80s he would have lost them to Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg. In the 70s he would have lost out to Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Nastase, Newcombe. In the 60s there would have been Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, to stop him.

Even for now if Federer was out he could have lost instead to players like Hewitt, old Agassi, Nalbandian (who he nearly lost in straight sets in the semis while playing the tennis of his life), Safin, all to potentialy take those slams away from him. All those guys have pretty good success vs him so what makes one think Roddick would clean up anytime he made finals or semis without Federer around. Just because you lose to Federer in the final, semis, or quarters doesnt mean you were gauranteed to win. There are players that were either in Federer's half or other half you might otherwise have had to play. Anyway until Nadal began to emerge in 2005, later Djokovic in 2007, Federer and his greatness was holding the mens game up almost on its own. So without Federer it would have been a real sucky field Roddick maybe ekes out a couple more majors against, a field he would not face in any other era, again if we exclude Federer from the field.

Beasty54
01-12-2009, 08:13 PM
Sorry but while I disagree with GameSampras on alot of things he is right on Roddick. You say he lost those slam finals to Federer. True, but in the 90s he would have instead lost them to Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. In the 80s he would have lost them to Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg. In the 70s he would have lost out to Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Nastase, Newcombe. In the 60s there would have been Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, to stop him.

Even for now if Federer was out he could have lost instead to players like Hewitt, old Agassi, Nalbandian (who he nearly lost in straight sets in the semis while playing the tennis of his life), Safin, all to potentialy take those slams away from him. All those guys have pretty good success vs him so what makes one think Roddick would clean up anytime he made finals or semis without Federer around. Just because you lose to Federer in the final, semis, or quarters doesnt mean you were gauranteed to win. There are players that were either in Federer's half or other half you might otherwise have had to play. Anyway until Nadal began to emerge in 2005, later Djokovic in 2007, Federer and his greatness was holding the mens game up almost on its own. So without Federer it would have been a real sucky field Roddick maybe ekes out a couple more majors against, a field he would not face in any other era, again if we exclude Federer from the field.

I agree with what your saying, I was just saying I think Roddick could have won atleast another major or two if Fed wasnt around. Im also not saying he would have won majors in previous era's either. I was just mentioning the one we are currently in, minus Fed, there is a good possibility at him winning more than one major.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 08:17 PM
Id say Roddick may have eeked out a another slam or two a few years ago if Fed wasnt around. He may have had an on serving day of course and may have been able to defeat a Baghaditis or Gonzales or Hewitt possibly. But like lambielspins mentioned, there were more than enough players in each era these past few decades who would have no problem of disposing of Roddick.. Any great player who could penetrate Roddick's first line of defense, the serve, has Roddick on the ropes almost automatically. Its always been that way. I just dont see Roddick have much more success than he did if he just happened to fall in any different era period. That being said, I never seen Roddick as much of a threat at all. No disrespect to Roddick. Most players would love to have just one slam. Roddick was just the typical era filler. Good Enough to maintain a top 10 ranking. Not good enough to be a GS champion a ton of times over

JeMar
01-12-2009, 08:26 PM
Maybe but he included Lendl who has won the same numeber of slams as Connors...

I think he went with Lendl because of what he did for the modern game, in addition to his career wins.

zagor
01-13-2009, 02:58 AM
Did Fed lose to Fish, Karlo, Blake in the slams?

He still didn't lose to Murray in slams either(as a matter of fact,in their sole slam meeting,Murray got blown off court)yet you have been constantly bringing his losses to Murray in this entire thread.If we go by your logic at looking ONLY at slam results then you should stop using Murray to base your argument on until he beats Fed in a slam.You're contradicting yourself very badly here.

Also,while it wasn't a slam Fed stated that Olympics was one of his highest priorities this season yet he lost to James Blake,a guy who usually has trouble taking sets from Federer,conclude what you want from that fact.

And Fed reached at the very least a semi's at each of he slams.

A player of Fed's caliber doesn't neet to play his best to go deep into slams since 90% of his best still beats most players on tour.However his erratic results if we look at the whole year(not a single masters title and not a single HC final until USO)and the fact that he got pushed so hard(5 set matches he could have easily lost if he wasn't so clutch with his serve)in early rounds in both AO and USO by somewhat lower ranked players(Janko's highest ranking is 33 and Andreev's 18) which never happened during 2004-2007 period(if he got pushed in slams during that period he got pushed by the best not guys out of or barely in top 20)leads me to believe that he's past his prime.

However if you insist that we should only concentrate on Fed's results from 2008 onward cause that's the period that best suits your agenda then we should apply those same standards to other GOAT candidates as well(including Sampras).I personally tend to look at a player's whole career and not isolate parts that best suit my argument/agenda.

He went the entire Wimbledon all the way up the finals without dropping 1 FREAKING SET.

Let's draw a parallel here,Sampras lost only one set on the route to 2000 USO final(and that was to his nemesis Krajicek),the feat he only duplicated in 1995 USO in his whole career.Do you presume that Sampras level play going into the 2000 USO final was the same as it was going into the '95 USO final? I personally disagree,I think Sampras played well in 2000 but was clealy past his prime.But since you like to bring only slam results,Pete's slam results in 2000 were clearly better than in '98 and arguably better than in '96(when Pete was 2 and 4 years younger respectively),he lost to Agassi(on Agassi's best surface)and Safin at AO and USO in 2000,his FO result is not of that big of importance as he had early exits on clay even during his absolute prime.

So going by your logic Sampras was still in his prime in 2000 when Guga beat both him and Agassi in YEC(and on indoor carpet at that) and finished ahead of them both.I personally don't go by that logic.

The conclusion is that sets lost before final can be misleading.I for example feel that in 2005 AO Fed played even better tennis than in 2007 AO yet he lost in semis in 2005 and in 2007 he won without dropping a set.

Even during his peak years.(05-06) Fed still had a few losses during the season.

His winning percentage in 2005 and 2006 was 95%.In 2006 he reached a final in every single tournament he entered save one and lost only to 2 players in whole year while in 2005 he was one match away of tieng Mcenroe's record for the best winning percentage in a single season in the HISTORY OF TENNIS.

If you really think that those years are really comparable to 2008 where Fed didn't win a single masters tourney,until USO didn't reach a single final on HC(a surface he basically dominated during his prime)and had more losses than in 2005 and 2006 combined then fine.The fact remains that anyone even remotely objective would disagree with you on this one.

I really dont see much of a difference in Fed to be honest.

You're one of the few who don't.

But like I said before,Murray is a tougher opponent than Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Ferrero, Ljubicic, Gonzales and the rest were.

Never beat Fed in slams which according to you is the only thing that matters.In fact according to you slams matter so much that we should just discount all of Fed's numerous non-slam losses in 2008 mostly to guys he used to own and conclude that he's still in his prime.

Thats just a fact. Hes a better player. I dunno how anyone can dispute that.

Not a fact yet,he has the potential to be a better player than Safin/Hewitt or whatever but he's not there yet.We do not evaluate players based on their potential but based on their achievements,as in every sport,in tennis it's results that matter.

Nadal more improved, Djoker and Murray, around thats better rivals and more talented players.

Again you bring up Murray even though he has yet to beat Fed in slams.You really can't have it both ways.Either losses outside slams still count and should be considered if we're arguing whether Fed is still in his prime or they are irrelevant and you can't use Murray as a proof of anything(yet you constantly bring him in this thread to strengthen your argument).So what it's gonna be?

Leublu tennis
01-13-2009, 05:46 AM
Talkin bout Fartz aint'we. wankstas with no skillz that will be U-nads lap beeothc and wut not... ay?
I think I agree, but them maybe I don't agree. Take it either way... ay?

veroniquem
01-13-2009, 07:22 AM
I think I agree, but them maybe I don't agree. Take it either way... ay?
I think I can translate: "talking about Fed, he's a wanker with no skills who is Nadal's b**** among other things". Still agree with him?