PDA

View Full Version : Federer CLEARLY the greatest ever now!


AndreFan
06-07-2009, 11:01 AM
First of all, Sampras got to ONE semi-final in all his attempts at the French. When he got there, he lost sets 3 and 4 to Kafelnikov by 12 games to 1. He never had the skill to succeed on clay that way Fed has. Federer has been to one semi and FOUR French finals, winning one now. Just that alone puts him solidly above Sampras.

Borg could never win the US Open, although he came close. Laver went a bunch of years without winning even one major. Yes, the two calendar slams are incredible, but what about all the other years??? Federer has been MORE CONSISTENT than Laver, has the better serve, better slice, bigger forehand.

Who else??? Budge? Come on. Budge was great but did not possess Federer's athleticism. Connors? McEnroe?? Top 7 of all time for both but did not get to double digit slams. Neither could win the French. Mac got to finals once. Fed has been in FOUR finals.

Lendl?? Top 7 of all time but could not win Wimbledon and was 8-11 in Grand Slam finals compared to Roger's 14-3. Who else???????

Nadal could be in the mix if he can stay healthy and win the US Open at least once. But that's down the road. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT ANYONE CAN MAKE NOW THAT FEDERER IS NOT THE GREATEST EVER. HE WILL PASS PETE FOR MAJOR WINS BUT HAS ALREADY SURPASSED PETE DUE TO HIS CLAY RESULTS. HE'S ALSO WON MORE MASTER'S SERIES EVENTS THAN PETE. BETTER SLICE THAN PETE. BETTER RETURN THAN PETE. BETTER FOREHAND THAN PETE. BETTER DROP SHOTS THAN PETE. BETTER ONE HAND BACKHAND THAN PETE. DON'T EVEN BOTHER GIVING ME THIS PETE OR LAVER BULLCRAP. YOU SOUND STUPID.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 11:05 AM
Quality thread. Welcome to the circus.

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 11:12 AM
I don't know why some people will not give Federer his props. Nadal is the greatest clay courter in history, better than even Borg. Fed would have about 3 French Open titles or more by now if not for Rafa, just like Andre would have probably won 4 more majors or more if he didn't have to go against the greatest server of all-time in Sampras.

boredone3456
06-07-2009, 11:16 AM
I don't know why some people will not give Federer his props. Nadal is the greatest clay courter in history, better than even Borg. Fed would have about 3 French Open titles or more by now if not for Rafa, just like Andre would have probably won 4 more majors or more if he didn't have to go against the greatest server of all-time in Sampras.

lol...Nadal has not passed Borg on clay yet, and I doubt you will find a ton of people who feel he has. As for Fed, he has done more than Pete has, but does that make him GOAT in the minds of everyone...NO. If you think he is now...good. I for one, do not. I put him in the top 3 as of now...but I for one still believe Laver is the GOAT. There will never be general consensus or universal agreement so please don't try. Also..GOAT is not just about slams, which make up 2 months of a near 10 month schedule.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 11:29 AM
I don't know why some people will not give Federer his props. Nadal is the greatest clay courter in history, better than even Borg. Fed would have about 3 French Open titles or more by now if not for Rafa, just like Andre would have probably won 4 more majors or more if he didn't have to go against the greatest server of all-time in Sampras.

Your post was humorous, particularly amusing was your certitude expressed with such incessant ignorance.

The Laver part is my favorite - you pose the question about the "other" years in which he didn't win grand slam titles and yet don't even bother to discover why this was so. Why not do some reading and find out?

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 11:45 AM
First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3.

Secondly, Federer has only been beaten in big events by ONE guy--Rafa. He's also beaten Rafa in two Wimbledon finals.

Laver lost to guys like Roche, Emerson, Okker, Rosewall, Newcombe. There were five or six guys who beat Laver on multiple occasions. Federer has beaten EVERYBODY when it's counted--accept Rafa in France.

I love Borg and put him in the top 5 ever. But, he did not possess the physical strength of Nadal and would lose to Rafa head to head in their primes. Yes, Rafa has used a more powerful racket, but Rafa is simply stronger physically and consistently puts more pressure on opponents on clay due to incredible spin, depth and placement. There's no way Borg beats Rafa if they squared off in their primes. Yes, Rafa needs two more French Opens to tie him but he's won so many other clay events. Borg never faced a player on clay as good as Roger. Rafa has owned him in Paris. Rafa is simply stronger and more relentless than Borg and in my mind, has clearly established himself as the greatest clay courter ever.

scineram
06-07-2009, 11:45 AM
Laver it is.

markwillplay
06-07-2009, 11:50 AM
here is the thing though, I understand how the case is made for Federer...but...did any of these other guys being considered have an opponant who they played over 15 or more times and have such a losing record against them like Fed and Nadal. It's like Fed is the best ever..but, he could not overcome the Nadal matchup. I know Sampras and others had losing records against players but I don't think they did with that many matches, I could be wrong.

and by the way, I am not a fed hater, or nadal hater either one. I much rather like watching fed play but that is for stye alone. This is just an observation. So strange to have the "best ever" have such a losing record against one guy. I guess it proves that tennis is really a game of matchups.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 11:56 AM
First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3

You're embarrassing yourself. At least get the elementary facts straight first.

Medved
06-07-2009, 12:05 PM
That's all just sentimental talking about GOAT. Tennis barely even looks like the same sport now as when Borg played.

For me Fed is the best ever. I think he could have been better with a 2HBH, but I know that's not his style.

BreakPoint
06-07-2009, 12:07 PM
Federer is 14-5 in GS finals.

R_Federer
06-07-2009, 12:07 PM
here is the thing though, I understand how the case is made for Federer...but...did any of these other guys being considered have an opponant who they played over 15 or more times and have such a losing record against them like Fed and Nadal. It's like Fed is the best ever..but, he could not overcome the Nadal matchup. I know Sampras and others had losing records against players but I don't think they did with that many matches, I could be wrong.

and by the way, I am not a fed hater, or nadal hater either one. I much rather like watching fed play but that is for stye alone. This is just an observation. So strange to have the "best ever" have such a losing record against one guy. I guess it proves that tennis is really a game of matchups.

Federer overcame a tougher opponent than Nadal and his name is HISTORY.

Dimitrov_Fan
06-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Federer is the greatest for now, yes.

Cesc Fabregas
06-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Federer overcame a tougher opponent than Nadal and his name is HISTORY.

Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

R_Federer
06-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

But history > Nadal as an opponent. And he overcame history today. That was as tough as an opponent you could have today...

R.Federer
06-07-2009, 12:11 PM
federer is the greatest

slicefox
06-07-2009, 12:19 PM
Federer was greatest after he won his 5th straight US open.

Today's win just puts him miles ahead of anyone else.

BreakPoint
06-07-2009, 12:20 PM
Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.
Why? He doesn't have to, that's why.

Borg never overcame McEnroe at the US Open. Does that diminish Borg's greatness because he couldn't beat a certain opponent at a certain tournament? Nope. And Borg never won the US Open (even when it was on clay) while Federer HAS won the French Open. That's ALL that matters.

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 01:36 PM
ďNow that heís won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion,Ē Sampras said. ďIím a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didnít have an opportunity to win majors. But you canít compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rodís.Ē


There you have it. Spoken by Laver's GREATEST admirer. Go back and watch film. Laver was great but did not possess Roger's vast array of shotmaking. He had great hands and feel--but Roger's are better. And Laver did not move as well as Federer. He did not serve as well.

Remember, Federer is at his best on grass and hard court. If you look at his greatest matches ever, Laver simply never played at that level.

MCENROE, SAMPRAS, AGASSI, BECKER and even BORG. They ALL have said that Federer is the greatest ever. It's time for some of you to get your heads out of your butts and face the truth. You really sound like morons.

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 01:47 PM
Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

No, you're wrong. Federer BEAT Nadal in two Wimbledon finals, beat the guy Nadal lost to in the US Open, beat the guy Nadal lost to this year in France.
He just beat Rafa within the last month on clay.

Rafa has won 6 majors since 2005. In that same span, Federer has won '06 and '07 Australian, '05, '06, '07 and '08 US OPEN, '09 French and '05, '06, and '07 Wimbledon.

So...in the same span of 4 1/2 years that Rafa has emerged on the scene and been so great...FEDERER HAS WON NINE majors to RAFA's SIX. If you want to just look at 2006 and on, it's FEDERER SEVEN, RAFA FIVE. If you want to look at the last 2 1/2 years...it's FEDERER FIVE, RAFA FOUR. If you want to look at 2008 and this year, it's RAFA THREE, FEDERER TWO.

You make no sense. Nadal will always be better than Roger on clay but Federer won his huge clay event when Rafa was present. Roger has nothing to prove anymore. He's the greatest even if he doesn't win a 15th major--which of course he will. He'll end up with 16-18 majors.

Cenc
06-07-2009, 01:49 PM
First of all, Sampras got to ONE semi-final in all his attempts at the French. When he got there, he lost sets 3 and 4 to Kafelnikov by 12 games to 1. He never had the skill to succeed on clay that way Fed has. Federer has been to one semi and FOUR French finals, winning one now. Just that alone puts him solidly above Sampras.

Borg could never win the US Open, although he came close. Laver went a bunch of years without winning even one major. Yes, the two calendar slams are incredible, but what about all the other years??? Federer has been MORE CONSISTENT than Laver, has the better serve, better slice, bigger forehand.

Who else??? Budge? Come on. Budge was great but did not possess Federer's athleticism. Connors? McEnroe?? Top 7 of all time for both but did not get to double digit slams. Neither could win the French. Mac got to finals once. Fed has been in FOUR finals.

Lendl?? Top 7 of all time but could not win Wimbledon and was 8-11 in Grand Slam finals compared to Roger's 14-3. Who else???????

Nadal could be in the mix if he can stay healthy and win the US Open at least once. But that's down the road. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT ANYONE CAN MAKE NOW THAT FEDERER IS NOT THE GREATEST EVER. HE WILL PASS PETE FOR MAJOR WINS BUT HAS ALREADY SURPASSED PETE DUE TO HIS CLAY RESULTS. HE'S ALSO WON MORE MASTER'S SERIES EVENTS THAN PETE. BETTER SLICE THAN PETE. BETTER RETURN THAN PETE. BETTER FOREHAND THAN PETE. BETTER DROP SHOTS THAN PETE. BETTER ONE HAND BACKHAND THAN PETE. DON'T EVEN BOTHER GIVING ME THIS PETE OR LAVER BULLCRAP. YOU SOUND STUPID.

i will make you sound just a little stupid:
can you tell me when exactly did u see budge play live so that u can talk about his movements?

JeMar
06-07-2009, 01:50 PM
First of all, Sampras got to ONE semi-final in all his attempts at the French. When he got there, he lost sets 3 and 4 to Kafelnikov by 12 games to 1. He never had the skill to succeed on clay that way Fed has. Federer has been to one semi and FOUR French finals, winning one now. Just that alone puts him solidly above Sampras.

Borg could never win the US Open, although he came close. Laver went a bunch of years without winning even one major. Yes, the two calendar slams are incredible, but what about all the other years??? Federer has been MORE CONSISTENT than Laver, has the better serve, better slice, bigger forehand.

Who else??? Budge? Come on. Budge was great but did not possess Federer's athleticism. Connors? McEnroe?? Top 7 of all time for both but did not get to double digit slams. Neither could win the French. Mac got to finals once. Fed has been in FOUR finals.

Lendl?? Top 7 of all time but could not win Wimbledon and was 8-11 in Grand Slam finals compared to Roger's 14-3. Who else???????

Nadal could be in the mix if he can stay healthy and win the US Open at least once. But that's down the road. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT ANYONE CAN MAKE NOW THAT FEDERER IS NOT THE GREATEST EVER. HE WILL PASS PETE FOR MAJOR WINS BUT HAS ALREADY SURPASSED PETE DUE TO HIS CLAY RESULTS. HE'S ALSO WON MORE MASTER'S SERIES EVENTS THAN PETE. BETTER SLICE THAN PETE. BETTER RETURN THAN PETE. BETTER FOREHAND THAN PETE. BETTER DROP SHOTS THAN PETE. BETTER ONE HAND BACKHAND THAN PETE. DON'T EVEN BOTHER GIVING ME THIS PETE OR LAVER BULLCRAP. YOU SOUND STUPID.

No, not really. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=266359)

Cenc
06-07-2009, 01:52 PM
First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3.

Secondly, Federer has only been beaten in big events by ONE guy--Rafa. He's also beaten Rafa in two Wimbledon finals.

Laver lost to guys like Roche, Emerson, Okker, Rosewall, Newcombe. There were five or six guys who beat Laver on multiple occasions. Federer has beaten EVERYBODY when it's counted--accept Rafa in France.

I love Borg and put him in the top 5 ever. But, he did not possess the physical strength of Nadal and would lose to Rafa head to head in their primes. Yes, Rafa has used a more powerful racket, but Rafa is simply stronger physically and consistently puts more pressure on opponents on clay due to incredible spin, depth and placement. There's no way Borg beats Rafa if they squared off in their primes. Yes, Rafa needs two more French Opens to tie him but he's won so many other clay events. Borg never faced a player on clay as good as Roger. Rafa has owned him in Paris. Rafa is simply stronger and more relentless than Borg and in my mind, has clearly established himself as the greatest clay courter ever.


fed lost 3? in the last 365 days yes
i bet you wont spend much time on this board if you continue with this, im just wondering who you are

JeMar
06-07-2009, 01:53 PM
A fan of Andre Sa, clearly.

Cenc
06-07-2009, 02:01 PM
No, you're wrong. Federer BEAT Nadal in two Wimbledon finals, beat the guy Nadal lost to in the US Open, beat the guy Nadal lost to this year in France.
He just beat Rafa within the last month on clay.

Rafa has won 6 majors since 2005. In that same span, Federer has won '06 and '07 Australian, '05, '06, '07 and '08 US OPEN, '09 French and '05, '06, and '07 Wimbledon.

So...in the same span of 4 1/2 years that Rafa has emerged on the scene and been so great...FEDERER HAS WON NINE majors to RAFA's SIX. If you want to just look at 2006 and on, it's FEDERER SEVEN, RAFA FIVE. If you want to look at the last 2 1/2 years...it's FEDERER FIVE, RAFA FOUR. If you want to look at 2008 and this year, it's RAFA THREE, FEDERER TWO.

You make no sense. Nadal will always be better than Roger on clay but Federer won his huge clay event when Rafa was present. Roger has nothing to prove anymore. He's the greatest even if he doesn't win a 15th major--which of course he will. He'll end up with 16-18 majors.


can you please remind me of feds head to head score with nadal? especially in slam finals if possible please

Cenc
06-07-2009, 02:02 PM
A fan of Andre Sa, clearly.

wow, i meant which former forum member? toko?

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 03:23 PM
i will make you sound just a little stupid:
can you tell me when exactly did u see budge play live so that u can talk about his movements?

I will make you sound stupid. I've watched loads of film on Budge and have read others commentary on him. Enough said.

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 03:28 PM
can you please remind me of feds head to head score with nadal? especially in slam finals if possible please

Doesn't matter. Much of Nadal's wins over him have been on clay.
Nadal has not been able to win the US Open yet. He lost to Murrey, Roger beat him. Nadal has won one major on hardcourt. Roger has won Eight. Roger beat him two Wimby finals and has won three majors over guys who beat Rafa. Roger also has about 30 more titles than the next nearest person--Rafa.

If Rafa can win a US Open, add a couple more French titles and win another Wimbledon, I'd gladly put Rafa on par or even better than Roger. I like Rafa but facts are facts. Roger has 14 majors, eight more than Rafa. Rafa has plenty of time to catch up, but his knees could not allow that to happen.

I love Nadal. I already feel he's the best clay courter ever. And I loved Borg and watched so many of his matches.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:30 PM
I will make you sound stupid. I've watched loads of film on Budge and have read others commentary on him. Enough said.

You've watched loads of film on Budge? Really? Where?

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 03:30 PM
fed lost 3? in the last 365 days yes
i bet you wont spend much time on this board if you continue with this, im just wondering who you are

Okay, he's lost five grand slam finals. Three French finals, One Australian and One Wimbledon. Rafa is 4-2 against him in slam finals. But don't forget that Roger has beaten the guy who beat Nadal on THREE occasions in slam finals.

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 03:38 PM
You've watched loads of film on Budge? Really? Where?

http://www.woodtennis.com/courtkings.html

Two videos. I have two others.

bruce38
06-07-2009, 03:52 PM
Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

Nadal doesn't make it to enough GS finals for Fed to have the opportunities to overcome him. Talk about Nadal when he has made 20 consecutive Major semis. Mind-boggling to say the least.

Rhino
06-07-2009, 03:56 PM
Andy Roddick is also saying Federer is the GOAT:

"props to fed.... thats an unreal accomplishment and puts and end to the GOAT question in my humble opinion "

http://www.tennistweets.com/go/8/andyroddick

ag200boy
06-07-2009, 04:00 PM
Andy Roddick is also saying Federer is the GOAT:

"props to fed.... thats an unreal accomplishment and puts and end to the GOAT question in my humble opinion "

http://www.tennistweets.com/go/8/andyroddick

as did Mcenroe

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 04:01 PM
http://www.woodtennis.com/courtkings.html

Two videos. I have two others.

You could have fooled me. When I read your post I thought it was written by a monkey.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 04:03 PM
Was Tilden playing in khakis? LOL

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 04:14 PM
Was Tilden playing in khakis? LOL

In 50 years from now, they'll really be playing in khakis and I mean super air-defiant alien-skin khakis.

This revolutionary "pant" technology will change the game is played and fans will look back on this era and make fun of these funny 'shorts' that pros once wore.

AndreFan
06-07-2009, 04:54 PM
You could have fooled me. When I read your post I thought it was written by a monkey.

you felt that way due to your pompous and arrogance. The truth is hard for you to bear, isn't it??

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 05:01 PM
you felt that way due to your pompous and arrogance. The truth is hard for you to bear, isn't it??

Yeah, when I was reading your incoherent post it definitely hit me very hard.

It made me a bit hungry actually.

DoubleDeuce
06-07-2009, 05:32 PM
Laver would be as good as a Davydenko today.

Short, too short to be considered anything serious in today's game.

By today's standards, he played good badminton.

Arzon
06-07-2009, 06:09 PM
quick question, does the 14 grand slam titles federer has include the wimbledon he won in 1998?

BreakPoint
06-07-2009, 08:05 PM
quick question, does the 14 grand slam titles federer has include the wimbledon he won in 1998?
Of course not. That was a juniors title not a main tour title.

GoaLaSSo
06-07-2009, 08:28 PM
Why laver over fed?
Fed has to be at the moment. He must. Watching him play and destroy his opponents is an experience no one should go without.

Cenc
06-08-2009, 01:08 AM
I will make you sound stupid. I've watched loads of film on Budge and have read others commentary on him. Enough said.

commentary
wow lol
you heard how budge played so amazing

Cenc
06-08-2009, 01:09 AM
Doesn't matter. Much of Nadal's wins over him have been on clay.
Nadal has not been able to win the US Open yet. He lost to Murrey, Roger beat him. Nadal has won one major on hardcourt. Roger has won Eight. Roger beat him two Wimby finals and has won three majors over guys who beat Rafa. Roger also has about 30 more titles than the next nearest person--Rafa.

If Rafa can win a US Open, add a couple more French titles and win another Wimbledon, I'd gladly put Rafa on par or even better than Roger. I like Rafa but facts are facts. Roger has 14 majors, eight more than Rafa. Rafa has plenty of time to catch up, but his knees could not allow that to happen.

I love Nadal. I already feel he's the best clay courter ever. And I loved Borg and watched so many of his matches.

however nadal has positive h2h even on hardcourt against fed as far as i know right?
and yeah it really doesnt matter that he is owned by player of his OWN era, and you are saying he is the best ever

Cenc
06-08-2009, 01:10 AM
Okay, he's lost five grand slam finals. Three French finals, One Australian and One Wimbledon. Rafa is 4-2 against him in slam finals. But don't forget that Roger has beaten the guy who beat Nadal on THREE occasions in slam finals.

guy who beat nadal is not nadal

Cenc
06-08-2009, 01:13 AM
Why laver over fed?
Fed has to be at the moment. He must. Watching him play and destroy his opponents is an experience no one should go without.

oh god HE MUST BE HE MUST BE WATCHING HIM IS SO EXCITING
grow up people and stop thinking just about what you see now

AndreFan
06-08-2009, 06:00 AM
commentary
wow lol
you heard how budge played so amazing


see below. You're not paying attention. Do you have ADD?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by CyBorg
You've watched loads of film on Budge? Really? Where?

http://www.woodtennis.com/courtkings.html

Two videos. I have two others

GoaLaSSo
06-08-2009, 07:00 AM
oh god HE MUST BE HE MUST BE WATCHING HIM IS SO EXCITING
grow up people and stop thinking just about what you see now
Don't be so crabby. i need to grow up? anyone can sit there and criticize. All i'm saying is federer completely dominates his opponents in ways that no one else does. Now that his record backs it up i don't see whats the problem. i'm not even a fan of federer. i wanted nadal to win 2008 Wimbledon and this french. Still i must give it to fed.

boredone3456
06-08-2009, 09:04 AM
First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3.

Secondly, Federer has only been beaten in big events by ONE guy--Rafa. He's also beaten Rafa in two Wimbledon finals.

Laver lost to guys like Roche, Emerson, Okker, Rosewall, Newcombe. There were five or six guys who beat Laver on multiple occasions. Federer has beaten EVERYBODY when it's counted--accept Rafa in France.

I love Borg and put him in the top 5 ever. But, he did not possess the physical strength of Nadal and would lose to Rafa head to head in their primes. Yes, Rafa has used a more powerful racket, but Rafa is simply stronger physically and consistently puts more pressure on opponents on clay due to incredible spin, depth and placement. There's no way Borg beats Rafa if they squared off in their primes. Yes, Rafa needs two more French Opens to tie him but he's won so many other clay events. Borg never faced a player on clay as good as Roger. Rafa has owned him in Paris. Rafa is simply stronger and more relentless than Borg and in my mind, has clearly established himself as the greatest clay courter ever.

Lol you are truly funny...Fed has lost 5 slam finals as has already been pointed out to you. He has lost in slam competition to Safin, Djokovic and Ancic as well. so thats 4 guys including Nadal unless I am counting incorrectly? Not to mention being taken the full ride by guys like Haas, Berdych, Del Potro...its not like Fed has steamrolled everyone with bagels, he is not immortal you know.

As for Laver, are you seriously suggesting that Rosewall, Emerson, and Newcombe are worse slam competition than Hewitt, well past prime Agassi, Soderling, Bagdatis (I know I spelled his name wrong), just to name a few? Because if you are I really think you are quite ignorant of things. As for Laver, he also missed several competitive years going Pro, and was not allowed to play grand slams during those years because he gave up his amatuer status, do you not think he could have won more slams in those years?

also, Greatest is not about who could travel back and forth in time and beat other people, it is about performance vs their rivals and taking in other factors, Borg on clay accomplished quite a lot and I think you would be surprised, having watched footage on Borg he would probably do well against Nadal, although you seem to be saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. As for Borg having no Clay court competition, do names like Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas mean anything....they were no sloaches at all on clay and Vilas held the record for most consecutive clay court wins before Nadal. I think you really need a clue Nadal really hs 1 clay rival..whom he owns on the surface, Borg had a handful.

TennezSport
06-08-2009, 09:21 AM
In an intense investigation by the ITF, it was recently discovered that there indeed was a conspiracy at the FFT and the FO organizers against Nadal at this years FO.

It seems that the plot began to take shape after this yearís Australian Open when Federer broke down at the ceremony. The FFT, whose members still remember the Spanish Inquisition, decided that Nadal should not win the FO this year and want to make sure that Fed made history at Nadals best tournament.

Special arrangements were made with Soderling and instructions were reportedly delivered to Soderling in the best way to defeat Nadal. To guarantee success, wind vents were placed at strategic points around court Chatrier to always blow in Nadals face and remove the top surface on his side of the court as this made the court play more like a HC on Rafa's side. The balls were also specially selected to be lighter when Nadal hit them to make control more difficult for him.

Additionally, it was also reported that while in Madrid Ninjas were hired to enter Nadalís room and night and perform acupuncture on his knees to inflame his chronic patella tendonitis without his knowledge. Rafa did mention on several occasions of having vivid dreams of masked men with RF logos chasing him on the terre bateau.

(NOTE: For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, this article was a sarcastic joke) Congrats to Fed; history has another great chapter.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

AndreFan
06-08-2009, 10:07 AM
Lol you are truly funny...Fed has lost 5 slam finals as has already been pointed out to you.

I already admitted it was 5, not 3. Do you read the whole thread?

He has lost in slam competition to Safin, Djokovic and Ancic as well. so thats 4 guys including Nadal unless I am counting incorrectly? Not to mention being taken the full ride by guys like Haas, Berdych, Del Potro...its not like Fed has steamrolled everyone with bagels, he is not immortal you know.

Never said Federer was "immortal". Did you mention that Fed was 19 or 20when he lost to Ancic? Did you mention that he lost 7-5 in the FIFTH set to Safin in Aussie semis--who went on to win the Australian? did you mention that DelPotro is considered to be among the top 3-4 clay courters in the world now?


As for Laver, are you seriously suggesting that Rosewall, Emerson, and Newcombe are worse slam competition than Hewitt, well past prime Agassi, Soderling, Bagdatis (I know I spelled his name wrong), just to name a few? Because if you are I really think you are quite ignorant of things. As for Laver, he also missed several competitive years going Pro, and was not allowed to play grand slams during those years because he gave up his amatuer status, do you not think he could have won more slams in those years?

Agassi was not past his prime. He won the Australian Open in '02 and '03. He was a US Open finalist in '02 and '05. Hewitt was phenomenol from '01 to '04. Soderling just BEAT NADAL and then beat GONZOLEZ!! You are also not mentioning Federer's two victories over Nadal in Wimbledon finals. And last year, Nadal had to go to 9-7 in the fifth set to finally break Roger's streak. You also forget how good Roddick has been at various times--good enough to get to US Open finals, win one, get to two Wimbledon finals. Federer has also consistently schooled Davedenko, Berdych, Haas and other great players. He's taken care of everybody but Rafa on clay. Even there, he has two wins over Rafa on clay.

also, Greatest is not about who could travel back and forth in time and beat other people, it is about performance vs their rivals and taking in other factors, Borg on clay accomplished quite a lot and I think you would be surprised, having watched footage on Borg he would probably do well against Nadal, although you seem to be saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. As for Borg having no Clay court competition, do names like Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas mean anything....they were no sloaches at all on clay and Vilas held the record for most consecutive clay court wins before Nadal. I think you really need a clue Nadal really hs 1 clay rival..whom he owns on the surface, Borg had a handful.

I'm not saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. But I do think he'd be too strong physically for Bjorn. He hits even deeper than Bjorn with more pace and even more spin. He also is a better volleyer and drop shotter than Borg. Also, did you forget Bjorn RETIRED at the beginning of '82, when Wilander and Lendl were just starting out??? He never had to play Lendl or Wilander at their peak from '83-'90!!!!!!!!!!! do you even know what you're talking about????

boredone3456
06-08-2009, 11:37 AM
I'm not saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. But I do think he'd be too strong physically for Bjorn. He hits even deeper than Bjorn with more pace and even more spin. He also is a better volleyer and drop shotter than Borg. Also, did you forget Bjorn RETIRED at the beginning of '82, when Wilander and Lendl were just starting out??? He never had to play Lendl or Wilander at their peak from '83-'90!!!!!!!!!!! do you even know what you're talking about????

First of all I said Fed lost, the scores being whatever they were a loss is a loss, i was proving your argument of how only Nadal was beating Fed in big events, which is not true at all and you know it.

Second, you make a big deal of how Borg never had to play a peak lendl, do you not remember who Borg had to beat in his last French Title in 1981, Lendl and it took him 5 sets to do it, and since you say this is pre prime Lendl what exactly do you make of that? wilander, he was still a threat then, and you never did answer my question regarding Vilas, who was quite a strong clat courter back then.

You bring up beating Soderling this year for the French, please Soderling played his worst match of the entire fortnight in that final, the 1st set Soderling was playing like a lost puppy, he was playing his first slam final and playing terribly even after he raised his game in the second set. As has also been pointed out to you beating the person Who beat Nadal is not the same as beating Nadal. Soderling than beat gonzalez, who gagged big time after getting back in the match and was playing in his first ever French open Semi. Fed beat Soderling, ok Soderling beat Nadal, that doesn't equal Fed actually beating Nadal himself. Del Potro, yeah he is a top clay courter in the world now, ok, fed struggles against the 3 or 4th ranked clay courter and is virtually dominated on clay by the best in the world of the last few years on clay.

You also missed another of my points, I said clearly that Nadal dominated his one nearest clay court rival on clay, his nearest Rival is Fed and on clay Rafa pretty much dominates him. Fed beat Nadal at Wimbledon, and last I check Wimbledon is played on grass, not clay Also, you seem to taunt me by saying Nadal needed 9-7 in the 5th last year, Fed needed Nadal to barely be able to walk to beat him at Wimbledon the year before, to win the last 2 slams he won Fed needed to have Nadal lose first. If the men played there slams to best of 3 Fed would have lost Wimbledon last year in straights, and he would have been out of this years french in the 4th round.

Agassi by 2005 was well past his prime, he was past it really starting in 2004 and was playing for love of the game and his fans, he had a grand Hurrah, and a much deserved one at the US Open in 2005 but he was well past his prime and after that was not able to consistantly deliver the form that got him there at all.

Also, I was comparing Hewitt and others I mentioned to Lavers competition, and as good as they were during those years you pointed out, Lavers prime competition was a lot closer to Lavers level (some are also all time greats) than any of Fed's rivals consistantly were until the emergence of Rafa Nadal, which was my point which you obviously missed. Fed had little to challenge him like other greats did, mentally they all folded to him until Nadal came along and refused to. You say i don't know what I'm talking about, you didn't even seem to read what I was talking about, i'll leave it at this, because i am not going to waste my time anymore.

safin is a ledgend
06-08-2009, 11:42 AM
I am a fan of federer but you must look at the competition that he has had compared to sampras. For me sampras had to beat better players and more of them than federer has. The competition for federer has only really come in the last 2 years and only from the likes of nadal and murray. Whereas sampras had to beat the likes of Agassi, Rafter, Courier etc. So for me sampras is still the greatest player ever and i think fed will have to get 15 slams before he really rivals sampras.

Blade0324
06-08-2009, 12:59 PM
I think this has been a funny thread to read. You guys are all heated about a debate that will never end. Really look at it this way. There will never be a definitave GOAT. There are numerous people that were the best of there time and Fed certainly fits that mold but there is no one GOAT it's just not a notion that consensus can agree on.

AndreFan
06-09-2009, 08:27 AM
"Second, you make a big deal of how Borg never had to play a peak lendl, do you not remember who Borg had to beat in his last French Title in 1981, Lendl and it took him 5 sets to do it, and since you say this is pre prime Lendl what exactly do you make of that? wilander, he was still a threat then, and you never did answer my question regarding Vilas, who was quite a strong clat courter back then."

Lendl did not truly begin believing in himself until he won his first major in his comeback against McEnroe in '84 French. In '82 and '83, he played poorly against Connors in both US Open finals. Lendl truly became LENDL from mid '84 on. That's when he became an absolute machine for about 5-6 years.


You bring up beating Soderling this year for the French, please Soderling played his worst match of the entire fortnight in that final, the 1st set Soderling was playing like a lost puppy, he was playing his first slam final and playing terribly even after he raised his game in the second set. As has also been pointed out to you beating the person Who beat Nadal is not the same as beating Nadal. Soderling than beat gonzalez, who gagged big time after getting back in the match and was playing in his first ever French open Semi. Fed beat Soderling, ok Soderling beat Nadal, that doesn't equal Fed actually beating Nadal himself. Del Potro, yeah he is a top clay courter in the world now, ok, fed struggles against the 3 or 4th ranked clay courter and is virtually dominated on clay by the best in the world of the last few years on clay.

I don't know what the he#@ your point is here. You just ramble on trying to minimize Federer's play. He didn't play his best but STILL won. He played unbelievable clutch tennis with all that pressure on him.

"You also missed another of my points, I said clearly that Nadal dominated his one nearest clay court rival on clay, his nearest Rival is Fed and on clay Rafa pretty much dominates him. Fed beat Nadal at Wimbledon, and last I check Wimbledon is played on grass, not clay Also, you seem to taunt me by saying Nadal needed 9-7 in the 5th last year, Fed needed Nadal to barely be able to walk to beat him at Wimbledon the year before, to win the last 2 slams he won Fed needed to have Nadal lose first. If the men played there slams to best of 3 Fed would have lost Wimbledon last year in straights, and he would have been out of this years french in the 4th round."

Not totally true. Federer reeled off 4 straight games in the fifth set in an absolutely stunning rise in level of play. Nadal never had a chance and stated afterward that Federer played brilliantly in that fifth set. Your point is ridiculous about three sets vs. five. Yeah, if the Capitals played the Penguins in a best of five series this year, they win. But, it was 7 games. Stupid point.


"Agassi by 2005 was well past his prime, he was past it really starting in 2004 and was playing for love of the game and his fans, he had a grand Hurrah, and a much deserved one at the US Open in 2005 but he was well past his prime and after that was not able to consistantly deliver the form that got him there at all. "

Think about how ridiculous you sound saying Andre was WELL past his prime when he got to the FINALS of the US freaking Open. Yes, he had slowed a bit and could not play back to back as well. But, on any given day, he could still play top 5 tennis and PROVED it at the Open.

"Also, I was comparing Hewitt and others I mentioned to Lavers competition, and as good as they were during those years you pointed out, Lavers prime competition was a lot closer to Lavers level (some are also all time greats) than any of Fed's rivals consistantly were until the emergence of Rafa Nadal, which was my point which you obviously missed. Fed had little to challenge him like other greats did, mentally they all folded to him until Nadal came along and refused to. You say i don't know what I'm talking about, you didn't even seem to read what I was talking about, i'll leave it at this, because i am not going to waste my time anymore.[/QUOTE]

Guys like Doko, Murray, Roddick, Davedenko, Safin, Hewitt in his prime, and many others. These guys are all better than Laver's competition. They are stronger, more fit, more explosive, bigger serves, better fitness. Federer has overcome every challenge thrown his way except beating Rafa at French. But, he still won a French. You can never take that back. His French record since 2005 is 30-4!!!--his worse grand slam to play.

crazylevity
06-09-2009, 08:45 AM
In an intense investigation by the ITF, it was recently discovered that there indeed was a conspiracy at the FFT and the FO organizers against Nadal at this years FO.

It seems that the plot began to take shape after this yearís Australian Open when Federer broke down at the ceremony. The FFT, whose members still remember the Spanish Inquisition, decided that Nadal should not win the FO this year and want to make sure that Fed made history at Nadals best tournament.

Special arrangements were made with Soderling and instructions were reportedly delivered to Soderling in the best way to defeat Nadal. To guarantee success, wind vents were placed at strategic points around court Chatrier to always blow in Nadals face and remove the top surface on his side of the court as this made the court play more like a HC on Rafa's side. The balls were also specially selected to be lighter when Nadal hit them to make control more difficult for him.

Additionally, it was also reported that while in Madrid Ninjas were hired to enter Nadalís room and night and perform acupuncture on his knees to inflame his chronic patella tendonitis without his knowledge. Rafa did mention on several occasions of having vivid dreams of masked men with RF logos chasing him on the terre bateau.

(NOTE: For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, this article was a sarcastic joke) Congrats to Fed; history has another great chapter.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

This was priceless, TS! Thanks for the laughs!:mrgreen:

Cyan
06-09-2009, 02:08 PM
For sure Fed is the GOAT and will win 20 slams.

AndreFan
06-10-2009, 01:05 PM
who else has been in 15 of 16 grand slam finals??? Incomprehensible.

timnz
06-10-2009, 05:55 PM
Laver went a bunch of years without winning even one major. Yes, the two calendar slams are incredible, but what about all the other years??? Federer has been MORE CONSISTENT than Laver,...


All the other years?

How about being number 1 in the world for 5 of the 6 years in between?

Laver's first slam was in 1962. By the end of 1963 he was number 2 in the world. 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 he was number 1 in the world. 1969 came the Pro Grand Slam. He wasn't number 1 in the world for nothing. It came from winning a huge number of tournaments.

Regarding consistency - being number 1, 5 out of 6 years between the two Grand Slams counts for being fairly consistent. Also don't forget his Pro Grand Slam of 1967. 1967 IMHO counts as the most dominant year of any male player in history.

Having said that I am a huge Federer fan. I love is style of play and his approach to the game.

CyBorg
06-10-2009, 07:15 PM
People remark about Federer making all of these consecutive major finals - 15 of 16 I'm reading - but it's not really all that unprecedented. Laver, of course, was making one final after another in pro major competition as was Rosewall. But these are not grand slam finals, as amateurs played in those until the open era. The important events of those times are not events that survive to this day.

However, even if we look at the open era, we'll find that Bjorn Borg made the final in 14 of 16 grand slam events entered between 1976 and 1981. However he did not enter the Australian at any time in that stretch for reasons I'm sure known by many.

Borg's two losses in that stretch are: 4th round defeat at the 1977 US Open to Stockton; Borg led, but retired due to an injury (RET). As well as that shocking defeat to Tanner in the QF of the 1979 US Open.

So, perhaps not as impressive as Federer's streak, but pretty close.

Federer's records, as incredible as they are, are not untouchable. All things considered, they seem better than they are, because most people are so ignorant of the greatness of past superstars.

drake
06-10-2009, 09:27 PM
I think this has been a funny thread to read. You guys are all heated about a debate that will never end. Really look at it this way. There will never be a definitave GOAT. There are numerous people that were the best of there time and Fed certainly fits that mold but there is no one GOAT it's just not a notion that consensus can agree on.

Agreed but let them debate, it makes them feel better. The GOAT assumes that they're immortal and will be greater than some other prodigy 50 years from now.

timnz
06-10-2009, 10:10 PM
First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3


Federer has lost 5 - 3 French Opens and 1 Australian Open and 1 Wimbledon.

Not that that is bad. It an achievement even making a final.

I see a 14-5 lifetime record as being superior to a 14-3 lifetime record. The percentages are worse, but it recognises that even making a final is an achievment in itself. Say the 5 losses were tournament A, B, C, D & E. If instead of making the final in all of those tournament the record was:

A-Final
B-Final
C-Final
D-Lost 1st round
E-Lost 1st round.

In that case the record would be 14-3 - but superior? I don't think so.

BreakPoint
06-10-2009, 11:22 PM
However, even if we look at the open era, we'll find that Bjorn Borg made the final in 14 of 16 grand slam events entered between 1976 and 1981. However he did not enter the Australian at any time in that stretch for reasons I'm sure known by many.

Borg's two losses in that stretch are: 4th round defeat at the 1977 US Open to Stockton; Borg led, but retired due to an injury (RET). As well as that shocking defeat to Tanner in the QF of the 1979 US Open.

So, perhaps not as impressive as Federer's streak, but pretty close.

Federer's records, as incredible as they are, are not untouchable. All things considered, they seem better than they are, because most people are so ignorant of the greatness of past superstars.
You forgot that Borg also lost in the QF of the 1976 French Open to Panatta.

abmk
06-11-2009, 12:05 AM
You forgot that Borg also lost in the QF of the 1976 French Open to Panatta.

I think he referred to the finals after that loss to panetta ; from 76 Wimbledon to 81 USO, 14 out of 16

laboule
06-11-2009, 01:14 AM
Federer is the greatest of all time.

Steve132
06-11-2009, 09:41 AM
People remark about Federer making all of these consecutive major finals - 15 of 16 I'm reading - but it's not really all that unprecedented. Laver, of course, was making one final after another in pro major competition as was Rosewall. But these are not grand slam finals, as amateurs played in those until the open era. The important events of those times are not events that survive to this day.

However, even if we look at the open era, we'll find that Bjorn Borg made the final in 14 of 16 grand slam events entered between 1976 and 1981. However he did not enter the Australian at any time in that stretch for reasons I'm sure known by many.

Borg's two losses in that stretch are: 4th round defeat at the 1977 US Open to Stockton; Borg led, but retired due to an injury (RET). As well as that shocking defeat to Tanner in the QF of the 1979 US Open.

So, perhaps not as impressive as Federer's streak, but pretty close.

Federer's records, as incredible as they are, are not untouchable. All things considered, they seem better than they are, because most people are so ignorant of the greatness of past superstars.

Federer has (at least) THREE separate major records - for wins, finals and semi-finals. Let's examine each of them in turn in relation to what others achieved.

Wins - Federer won 11 majors over a 4 year period (2004-2007). This dominance is unparalled in tennis history. No one else - male or female, Open or amateur eras - has ever matched this.

Finals - Federer reached 10 consecutive Slam finals. The closest by any male player is 7 by Jack Crawford in the 1930's. The closest by any Open era male player is 5, by .... Federer, his current streak. Even if you restrict the metric to Slams entered Borg's best streak is 6, which is significantly below Federer's record.

Semi finals - Federer's record, a current streak, is 20. If wins in majors indicate dominance, semi-final appearances show consistency. Federer's nearest rival for consecutive semi final appearances is Lendl, with 9. Borg's best streak, considering only the tournaments in which he played, is 6.

I should add that in my view these achievements do not make Federer the GOAT. If I were forced to choose I would opt for Rod Laver, who has the most perfect resume of any tennis player. It's possible that if Laver had been allowed to play in majors between 1962 and 1968 he would have achieved similar success. This does not, however, detract from Federer's achievements, which are as remarkable as they are generally considered to be. No other Open era male player has come close to matching them.

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 10:42 AM
Federer has (at least) THREE separate major records - for wins, finals and semi-finals. Let's examine each of them in turn in relation to what others achieved.

Wins - Federer won 11 majors over a 4 year period (2004-2007). This dominance is unparalled in tennis history. No one else - male or female, Open or amateur eras - has ever matched this.

Very impressive - don't get me wrong. But keep in mind that the tour has only been standardized since 1990. Until then, how many players even averaged four majors played per year? Not many.

Finals - Federer reached 10 consecutive Slam finals. The closest by any male player is 7 by Jack Crawford in the 1930's. The closest by any Open era male player is 5, by .... Federer, his current streak. Even if you restrict the metric to Slams entered Borg's best streak is 6, which is significantly below Federer's record.

See above. The whole point is that Federer's record exists in a kind of vacuum, created by the standards of the ATP manufactured in 1990.

Steve132
06-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Very impressive - don't get me wrong. But keep in mind that the tour has only been standardized since 1990. Until then, how many players even averaged four majors played per year? Not many.



See above. The whole point is that Federer's record exists in a kind of vacuum, created by the standards of the ATP manufactured in 1990.

Even if you restrict the comparison to majors entered (as opposed to all majors) Federer's records remain. Can you identify any male players who have:

1. Won 11 out of 16 consecutive majors entered?
2. Reached the finals of ten consecutive majors entered?
3. Reached the semi finals of 20 consecutive majors entered?

Federer has done all three.

AllDownTheLine
06-11-2009, 04:02 PM
Federer is the greatest of all time.

I thought that was the debate and you here you had the answer all this time.:shock:

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 04:24 PM
Fed has to be at the moment.

Is this Zen or just nonsensical?

helloworld
06-11-2009, 07:18 PM
Did Federer win 7 Wimbledon? Did Federer finish the year at number 1 for 6 straight years? Did Federer stay at number 1 for a record of 286 weeks? I guess not.

BreakPoint
06-11-2009, 08:29 PM
Did Federer win 7 Wimbledon? Did Federer finish the year at number 1 for 6 straight years? Did Federer stay at number 1 for a record of 286 weeks? I guess not.
Did Sampras win 5 straight US Opens? Did Sampras win 5 straight Wimbledons? Did Sampras win the Wimbledon-US Open double for 4 consecutive years? Did Sampras win 3 Australian Opens? Did Sampras win even one French Open? Did Sampras make even one French Open final, let alone 4 straight? Did Sampras make it to 19 Grand Slam finals? Did Sampras win 14 Grand Slams in less than 6 years? Did Sampras make 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals? Did Sampras make 15 of 17 Grand Slam finals? Was Sampras ranked #1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks? Does Sampras have an Olympic gold medal?

I rest my case.

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 08:32 PM
Even if you restrict the comparison to majors entered (as opposed to all majors) Federer's records remain. Can you identify any male players who have:

1. Won 11 out of 16 consecutive majors entered?
2. Reached the finals of ten consecutive majors entered?
3. Reached the semi finals of 20 consecutive majors entered?

Federer has done all three.

Contemporary standards don't apply to the entirely of the sport's history.

For reasons that should be obvious.

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 08:33 PM
Does Sampras have an Olympic gold medal?

I rest my case.

Yeah, that doubles gold really puts Federer over the top.

BreakPoint
06-11-2009, 08:39 PM
Yeah, that doubles gold really puts Federer over the top.
Does Sampras have one? Nope.

Does Nadal have one? Nope, he lost in the first round.

Doubles is hard. Federer had to beat the #1 team of the Bryan brothers in straight sets to get to the final.

People are very proud to be an Olympic gold medalist. Both Agassi and Gilbert have said that their Olympic medals are one of the most proudest achievements of their careers. In fact, Gilbert displays his Olympic bronze medal more prominently than any other of his other trophies.

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 08:44 PM
Does Sampras have one? Nope.

Does Nadal have one? Nope, he lost in the first round.

Doubles is hard. Federer had to beat the #1 team of the Bryan brothers in straight sets to get to the final.

People are very proud to be an Olympic gold medalist. Both Agassi and Gilbert have said that their Olympic medals are one of the most proudest achievements of their careers. In fact, Gilbert displays his Olympic bronze medal more prominently than any other of his other trophies.

Yeah - that sounds really relevant.

paulorenzo
06-11-2009, 08:55 PM
Contemporary standards don't apply to the entirely of the sport's history.

For reasons that should be obvious.

if you say that, then old-time standards of yesteryear don't apply to
the entirety of the sport's ongoing history.
if what you say is true:

since, as you say, players' attendance in tournaments were not mandated back then which showed since it wasn't too common to see people actually play four majors a year, then don't the grandeur of the slams seem less grand back then when compared to today?

i would then imagine that people didn't take the slams as seriously as people do today, but wouldn't that translate to a much harder time at attaining a slam nowadays since the heightened interest, especially when compared to days long past?

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 09:00 PM
if you say that, then old-time standards of yesteryear don't apply to
the entirety of the sport's ongoing history.

That's the point. Standards constantly change.

if what you say is true:

since, as you say, players' attendance in tournaments were not mandated back then which showed since it wasn't too common to see people actually play four majors a year, then don't the grandeur of the slams seem less grand back then when compared to today?

i would then imagine that people didn't take the slams as seriously as people do today, but wouldn't that translate to a much harder time at attaining a slam nowadays since the heightened interest, especially when compared to days long past?

English, please.

paulorenzo
06-11-2009, 09:02 PM
That's the point. Standards constantly change.



English, please.

i believe what i composed is comprehendible by anyone who has a grasp on the english language.

paulorenzo
06-11-2009, 09:05 PM
basically what i am trying to convey is this, cyborg:

since the standards of today do not equal the standards of, say, rod laver's era (since back then players did not even play full seasonal schedules or even attempt to participate in all of the slams), wouldn't it have been easier to attain slams back then, as opposed to today?

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 09:06 PM
i believe what i composed is comprehendible by anyone who has a grasp on the english language.

It is harder to win a major (of the grand slam) now than it was 50 years ago, because everyone is eligible to participate in majors now - unlike then. But majors were always popular.

paulorenzo
06-11-2009, 09:10 PM
It is harder to win a major (of the grand slam) now than it was 50 years ago, because everyone is eligible to participate in majors now - unlike then. But majors were always popular.

retract that. why did players, as you stated in a previous post, choose not to play all 4 within a year back then?

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 09:18 PM
retract that. why did players, as you stated in a previous post, choose not to play all 4 within a year back then?

- Until '68, pros were banned from majors and played on a separate tour than amateurs

- Also, for the first 15 or so years of the open era, majors were far behind other events in terms of giving out prize money; the Australian suffered in particular as a result

paulorenzo
06-11-2009, 09:27 PM
- Until '68, pros were banned from majors and played on a separate tour than amateurs

- Also, for the first 15 or so years of the open era, majors were far behind other events in terms of giving out prize money; the Australian suffered in particular as a result

how were the majors "always popular" then?
i take it they weren't as important back then as they are now when compared to tournaments on the tour in each respective time.
this, in a way, belittles rod's accomplishments.

NamRanger
06-11-2009, 09:34 PM
Does Sampras have one? Nope.

Does Nadal have one? Nope, he lost in the first round.

Doubles is hard. Federer had to beat the #1 team of the Bryan brothers in straight sets to get to the final.

People are very proud to be an Olympic gold medalist. Both Agassi and Gilbert have said that their Olympic medals are one of the most proudest achievements of their careers. In fact, Gilbert displays his Olympic bronze medal more prominently than any other of his other trophies.



That's probably because he has no other prominent trophies.

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 09:37 PM
how were the majors "always popular" then?
i take it they weren't as important back then as they are now when compared to tournaments on the tour in each respective time.
this, in a way, belittles rod's accomplishments.

The grand slam was always very big and well attended, even in the amateur days. When the open era began, for the first few years all the majors were extremely well attended. Then a lot of politics began in the 70s and things got really complicated.

BreakPoint
06-11-2009, 09:46 PM
That's probably because he has no other prominent trophies.
Well, he did get to #4 in the world and did win 20 titles so he does have quite a few trophies.

Agassi's Olympic gold medal is one of his most prized achievements because his father was a boxer in two Olympic Games. Agassi also became the first male player to win the Career Golden Slam (http://www.answers.com/topic/grand-slam-tennis), consisting of all four Grand Slam tournaments plus an Olympic (http://www.answers.com/topic/olympic-games) gold medal. I guess Federer is the second. :)

tahiti
06-12-2009, 09:18 AM
That's probably because he has no other prominent trophies.

I love this answer, it's brilliant! Made my day :)

bizarre_opinion
06-13-2009, 02:07 PM
Who is the best ever? is it fed? laver? sampras?

I find some of the posts on this subject a tad bit disrespectful to the past and present champions. I don't know much history when it comes to tennis and don't really watch much tennis, apart from the slams where i'm glued to the tv. However, even i can tell when guys are belittling players achievements, whether it's laver, federer or any player for that matter.

I don't know who is the best ever, maybe they should be put into tier's, i don't know. One thing is true, federer, laver or any past or present player, have achieved much more then any of the guys on this discussion board.

nadal for number1
06-17-2009, 06:07 AM
fed is GOAT. period