PDA

View Full Version : Why Federer is Not the Greatest of All Time


gowrath
06-07-2009, 01:23 PM
I am a Federer fan--I catch almost all of his matches, whether on TV or Youtube.

But can we accurately label him the greatest? Mcenroe has done it, Sampras has does it.

I've stated this before, but it is my belief that "GOAT" does not make much sense. To be the greatest of ALL TIME, one must've lived and played for ALL of TIME.

In the game of tennis, there is only one empirical test of proof: what actually happens, ON the tennis court. Each player has to PLAY to prove his worth on court. Now Federer never played before 1981. How can we say he was the best player from 1971-1981?

To be the best player in the world (in the ATP), one must win matches and week in and week out. That is the ultimate test of who is great at any particular time.

Now we can make hypothetical match-ups: Federer vs. Borg, Federer vs. Laver... but these "scenarios" don't really make any sense at all. The context of each of these player's success was different. Laver... played in a era with both amateur and professional. Borg... played with wooden racquets. The conditioning was different. The competition was different.

Think about how hard it is to compare Federer and Sampras? Who is better? Who would beat whom on which surface? We do not know, because they only played one close match. Perhaps a younger Sampras would have beaten him.

Now on a more philosophical level: The very concept of GOAT is inadequate. It fails to recognize the differences between eras that are at heart inreconcilable.

Tennis players can only be "great" for a few years of their life, maybe five years. By great I mean dominating the game. Roger has done this. This is a short amount of time. Now maybe Sampras was unbeatable for a month in 1996. Can we call him the greatest of all time based on that one month? No. See what I am saying? Just because Federer was amazing from 2004-2008 does not mean he is the greatest of all time. He was the greatest from 2004-2008. Because he PLAYED... and he WON....

Two things are needed... actual playing... and winning... over all of history...

Til then, all one can do is be the greatest of his/her era.

morten
06-07-2009, 01:28 PM
the era now is weak imo... Also no s&v play.That said Fed is an amazing player, the most talented allcourt player ever IMO

FEDEXP
06-07-2009, 01:31 PM
So according to gowrath's "philosophy" the only candidate for GOAT status is Father Time.

JCo872
06-07-2009, 01:31 PM
I am a Federer fan--I catch almost all of his matches, whether on TV or Youtube.

But can we accurately label him the greatest? Mcenroe has done it, Sampras has does it.

I've stated this before, but it is my belief that "GOAT" does not make much sense. To be the greatest of ALL TIME, one must've lived and played for ALL of TIME.

In the game of tennis, there is only one empirical test of proof: what actually happens, ON the tennis court. Each player has to PLAY to prove his worth on court. Now Federer never played before 1981. How can we say he was the best player from 1971-1981?

To be the best player in the world (in the ATP), one must win matches and week in and week out. That is the ultimate test of who is great at any particular time.

Now we can make hypothetical match-ups: Federer vs. Borg, Federer vs. Laver... but these "scenarios" don't really make any sense at all. The context of each of these player's success was different. Laver... played in a era with both amateur and professional. Borg... played with wooden racquets. The conditioning was different. The competition was different.

Think about how hard it is to compare Federer and Sampras? Who is better? Who would beat whom on which surface? We do not know, because they only played one close match. Perhaps a younger Sampras would have beaten him.

Now on a more philosophical level: The very concept of GOAT is inadequate. It fails to recognize the differences between eras that are at heart inreconcilable.

Tennis players can only be "great" for a few years of their life, maybe five years. By great I mean dominating the game. Roger has done this. This is a short amount of time. Now maybe Sampras was unbeatable for a month in 1996. Can we call him the greatest of all time based on that one month? No. See what I am saying? Just because Federer was amazing from 2004-2008 does not mean he is the greatest of all time. He was the greatest from 2004-2008. Because he PLAYED... and he WON....

Two things are needed... actual playing... and winning... over all of history...

Til then, all one can do is be the greatest of his/her era.

You make some valid points. But Roger is the greatest of all time. The reason he is the greatest of all time is because the competition has never been tougher. Players are faster, fitter, stronger today than ever before. The difference between a guy 100 hundred in the world and top 10 isn't very much. And there are more countries producing world class players than ever before. So to dominate in this type of climate is just amazing.

Second of all, the incredible thing about Federer is that he dominates on ALL surfaces. Today we have clay court specialists. Guys that you will never see at Wimbledon or even the hard court season. We also have grass court specialists. Big servers that can show up and serve their way to the finals Yet Roger consistently gets to the final of all these surfaces year after year.

Roger is the greatest of all time on many levels. The record books speak it. The difficulty of today's competition testifies to it. Roger's peers are in agreement. Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time.

35ft6
06-07-2009, 01:37 PM
So according to gowrath's "philosophy" the only candidate for GOAT status is Father Time.Also, we don't know for sure if the USA Army of today could take out the Egyptian army of 2000 b.c. I mean, unless we build a time machine, it's all speculative.

dlesser13
06-07-2009, 01:40 PM
actually the technology testifies the level of competition IMO. Tennis has become a game similar to golf dominated by new technology. I' m not saying the players aren't more fit or greater, but technology plays a big role on the tennis that you see on T.V today.

gowrath
06-07-2009, 02:22 PM
Also, we don't know for sure if the USA Army of today could take out the Egyptian army of 2000 b.c. I mean, unless we build a time machine, it's all speculative.

The reason why this analogy does not work actually relates to the effect of technology on tennis. Say that we had an amazing general who won all of his battles in the US Army. Would he be an amazing general in 2000 B.C? You and I are actually arguing different things. You are saying things are qualitatively better in this era than the one preceding it. (i.e., could Roger Federer take out Rod Laver?) I am saying a person is as much as product of his context. (i.e., could Roger Federer take out Rod Laver with a wooden racquet?)

gowrath
06-07-2009, 02:25 PM
So according to gowrath's "philosophy" the only candidate for GOAT status is Father Time.

YES! That's absolutely correct!

gowrath
06-07-2009, 02:33 PM
You make some valid points. But Roger is the greatest of all time. The reason he is the greatest of all time is because the competition has never been tougher. Players are faster, fitter, stronger today than ever before. The difference between a guy 100 hundred in the world and top 10 isn't very much. And there are more countries producing world class players than ever before. So to dominate in this type of climate is just amazing.

Second of all, the incredible thing about Federer is that he dominates on ALL surfaces. Today we have clay court specialists. Guys that you will never see at Wimbledon or even the hard court season. We also have grass court specialists. Big servers that can show up and serve their way to the finals Yet Roger consistently gets to the final of all these surfaces year after year.

Roger is the greatest of all time on many levels. The record books speak it. The difficulty of today's competition testifies to it. Roger's peers are in agreement. Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time.

My caveat with your post is that hardline data has not been produced on whether tennis players are indeed "faster, fitter, stronger" than those of earlier eras. Borg "won a 100m dash at an ALL STAR GAME in Gothenburg in 83 against Pelť and other sportstars. I guess on 10,2 or so. Untrained!" (Quote from Borgforever)

Now I doubt Federer or even Nadal could run a 100 meter dash in 10.2 seconds. So there are exceptions to the "faster" rule.

Until someone crunches the numbers and comes up with average physical capabilities for tennis players in the 60s or 80s and compares them to now, your claim will have to go unsubstantiated. If you want to make an assertion like that, you'd better have some scientific proof.

R.Federer
06-07-2009, 02:34 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2mnr8mu.jpg

Aykhan Mammadov
06-07-2009, 02:41 PM
gowrath,

sorry but I didn't read your post number 1. Simply having seen the name of your thread I understood that u are wrong.

After today with 14 slams and all 4 types by 28 years Federer is the greatest player in the history of the humankind.

Madhoshi22
06-07-2009, 02:51 PM
The reason why this analogy does not work actually relates to the effect of technology on tennis. Say that we had an amazing general who won all of his battles in the US Army. Would he be an amazing general in 2000 B.C? You and I are actually arguing different things. You are saying things are qualitatively better in this era than the one preceding it. (i.e., could Roger Federer take out Rod Laver?) I am saying a person is as much as product of his context. (i.e., could Roger Federer take out Rod Laver with a wooden racquet?)

Or could Laver take Federer out with today's frames....

gowrath
06-07-2009, 03:12 PM
gowrath,

sorry but I didn't read your post number 1. Simply having seen the name of your thread I understood that u are wrong.

After today with 14 slams and all 4 types by 28 years Federer is the greatest player in the history of the humankind.

Federer's record of 14 slams is only a record in the open era. If we were to take the pre-open era into account, it would be much more complicated. This would mean picking the 4 major tournaments of each year and counting how many each pre-open era player won. Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver end with 23 and 19 majors respectively in this count.

Perhaps we should look at singles titles. Federer with 58 is not even close to Laver's 198 and Connors' 147. It's not likely he'll reach that mark. Sure, we need to look at the context. But still, shouldn't a discussion of "great" include more than # of slams or surface success?

Aykhan Mammadov
06-07-2009, 03:58 PM
Federer's record of 14 slams is only a record in the open era. If we were to take the pre-open era into account, it would be much more complicated. This would mean picking the 4 major tournaments of each year and counting how many each pre-open era player won. Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver end with 23 and 19 majors respectively in this count.

Perhaps we should look at singles titles. Federer with 58 is not even close to Laver's 198 and Connors' 147. It's not likely he'll reach that mark. Sure, we need to look at the context. But still, shouldn't a discussion of "great" include more than # of slams or surface success?

We can't take pre-open era. Otherwise one must count all victories somebody had in his own yard, it is not serious.

There are 3 mathematical criterias with different coefficients ( weights) by which GOAT must be determined in open era ( see another thread where recently discussed it): 1) number of GS won (2) how many different GS were won (3) how consequitive were slams cathed - 4 in the same year or just consequitively say from W to RG of the next year, 3, 2 or 1.

Just 3 critearias. First has bigger coefficient, second -less, third-least. Say if a player A won 100 times USopen, a player B- 10 times W and 10 times AO what means 20 totally, and a player C - only 4 slams but all 4 in the same year, we count A>B>C.

There are many complications, it is not simple task.

morten
06-08-2009, 01:37 AM
You make some valid points. But Roger is the greatest of all time. The reason he is the greatest of all time is because the competition has never been tougher. Players are faster, fitter, stronger today than ever before. The difference between a guy 100 hundred in the world and top 10 isn't very much. And there are more countries producing world class players than ever before. So to dominate in this type of climate is just amazing.

Second of all, the incredible thing about Federer is that he dominates on ALL surfaces. Today we have clay court specialists. Guys that you will never see at Wimbledon or even the hard court season. We also have grass court specialists. Big servers that can show up and serve their way to the finals Yet Roger consistently gets to the final of all these surfaces year after year.

Roger is the greatest of all time on many levels. The record books speak it. The difficulty of today's competition testifies to it. Roger's peers are in agreement. Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time.

i could not disagree more, you say now we have grass court specialists, clay court specialists!!! not before!??? Completely opposite is what it is, nowadays almost all players can win on any surface, gone are the different surface specialists, and serve and volley! not too interresting IMHO. And they have made the surfaces very similar too.. number 100 now is better now than 10-15 years ago yes, but the level of top 15 were much higher back then...

adidas_wilson
06-08-2009, 01:56 AM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2mnr8mu.jpg

This has to be the banner for at least 8,000 or so threads that have been started on this board in the last 12 hours!

Priceless..

adidas_wilson
06-08-2009, 01:58 AM
i could not disagree more, you say now we have grass court specialists, clay court specialists!!! not before!??? Completely opposite is what it is, nowadays almost all players can win on any surface, gone are the different surface specialists, and serve and volley! not too interresting IMHO. And they have made the surfaces very similar too.. number 100 now is better now than 10-15 years ago yes, but the level of top 15 were much higher back then...

How can anyone be a grass court specialist in this day and age, when the grass court season is only like 3 weeks long. Yet the clay court season takes up half the year..

kimizz
06-08-2009, 02:22 AM
Its all subjective, certain people deny hes goat out of hate and others disagree because they are such big fans. Lets be honest, how many of us are able to objectively evaluate Lavers career? To us hes just a vague name from the past so we just forget about him completely.

What I dont understand is why ppl feel like everyone should agree with them?(Fed is GOAT-No he Isnt-Yes he is!!!) If you feel like Federer is the goat and you love him then thats fine, but why is there such a despetate need to get everyone agreeing with their own opinions??I think thats crazy. I got news, ppl will always disagree about everything and if you cant live with this fact you are going to have a difficult life ahead of you ;)

borg number one
09-12-2009, 05:47 AM
Good philosophical argument. Yet, of course I have to still lean towards Borg, slightly ahead of Sampras and Federer. Technology has changed the game DRAMATICALLY. Athletes did not all of a sudden become MUCH greater starting in the mid-1980's. No, it was the use of graphite racquets, which transformed the hitting in tennis. I know because I learned how to play with a Jack Kramer Autograph wood racquet when I was about 9-10. When I started using graphite racquets at about 13-14, the change was unbelieveable. To hit a powerful shot with a wood racquet, with great placement, takes great skill, with a tiny sweet spot. Put those racquets in the hands of Nadal and Federer (even after practice for weeks/months...and I think we would be amazed at how difficult it was for Borg/McEnroe to do what they did in just 1980-1981. Borg would have absolutely killed the ball with a Babolat, Head, or Wilson frame, with today's strings..ESPECIALLY if he had grown up with those frames. He was super strong in the shoulders/arms and his fitness/stamina have only been matched by perhaps R. Nadal. Here is something to note. Up until about 1981, you have an "apples to apples" comparison, in that all the players from the advent of tennis until Borg dominated were exposed to primarily grass/clay courts, with wood frames, and same balls. There is not question that Borg was the best player until that time. Laver may have been close, but head to head in their respective primes, you can actullay envision their rallies. You just can't do that with say Federer vs. Borg because of the technology changes. In closing, Nadal is chasing Borg at the French, and Federer was chasing Borg at Wimbledon. Is it a coincidence that both consider him one of the all time greats? No, I don't think so. His record in the 3 slams he played in during his career speaks for itself. By 25-26, he had 6 french opens, 5 straight Wimbleson's, with a loss in 1 final, AND his big failure? 4 US Open Finals, during a time they kept changing surfaces in New York. He even led Sweden to a Davis Cup win when he was just starting out. With Borg's conditioning, he would have killed Federer at the French and competed with him very well on faster surfaces. With Nadal, it would have been a slugfest on Clay, with tough matches on all other surfaces. I would rank them in the following order for NOW: 1. Borg. 2. Federer 3. Sampras 4. Laver 5. Connors? Nadal? McEnroe? Lendl? Emerson? Tilden? It's tough beyond about #4. Thanks, good discussion.

The-Champ
09-12-2009, 05:57 AM
Why?

Because a crippled guy has been kicking his butt all over creation since 2004, that's why.


Other former greats wouldn't allow that.

carlos djackal
09-12-2009, 05:59 AM
You make some valid points. But Roger is the greatest of all time. The reason he is the greatest of all time is because the competition has never been tougher. Players are faster, fitter, stronger today than ever before. The difference between a guy 100 hundred in the world and top 10 isn't very much. And there are more countries producing world class players than ever before. So to dominate in this type of climate is just amazing.

Second of all, the incredible thing about Federer is that he dominates on ALL surfaces. Today we have clay court specialists. Guys that you will never see at Wimbledon or even the hard court season. We also have grass court specialists. Big servers that can show up and serve their way to the finals Yet Roger consistently gets to the final of all these surfaces year after year.

Roger is the greatest of all time on many levels. The record books speak it. The difficulty of today's competition testifies to it. Roger's peers are in agreement. Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time.





I agree......

JankovicFan
09-12-2009, 06:10 AM
Most useless debate of all time.

hoodjem
09-12-2009, 06:11 AM
Roger is the greatest of all time on many levels. The record books speak it. The difficulty of today's competition testifies to it. Roger's peers are in agreement. Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time.

Sorry to throw a fly in your ointment, but the "difficulty of competition" argument is very debatable. Today's players may be stronger or taller, but they are not faster or more accurate.

Also, the record books put Fed down at about fifth.

SLD76
09-12-2009, 06:19 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

"Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time."

* Rod Laver, winner of 11 Grand Slams, considered by some the greatest player to ever play the game of tennis.[23]


"What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion. I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s."

* Pete Sampras, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final[8]



* "He’s the most complete tennis player in the history of tennis, that’s for sure. With all due respects to (Andre) Agassi and (Pete) Sampras and the rest of the gang. But I never felt so uncomfortable against any of the players before."
o Marat Safin, after losing 2009 Australian Open 3rd Round to Federer

* "I had a great tournament but I came up against, in my opinion, the best player ever to play the game today."
o Andy Murray, after losing 2008 US Open Final to Federer

"I had a taste of what the best is tonight and I think Roger has that extra gear. He has good volleys and he has this little backhand flick that honestly, I have never seen before... it’s something that I didn’t have. I am happy with my performance tonight. I hung in there right until the end."

* Pete Sampras, after playing his second exhibition match with Roger Federer, Kuala Lumpur, Nov. 22, 2007


"I would so like to be Lenny Kravitz"- roger federer

Omega_7000
09-12-2009, 06:24 AM
Why?

Because a crippled guy has been kicking his butt all over creation since 2004, that's why.


Other former greats wouldn't allow that.

Cripppled guy??? Are you fuc*ing kidding me!?

Mafia13
09-12-2009, 06:30 AM
Sorry to throw a fly in your ointment, but the "difficulty of competition" argument is very debatable. Today's players may be stronger or taller, but they are not faster or more accurate.

Also, the record books put Fed down at about fifth.

Forgive me, but who would be your top 4 then?
And on what are you basing the fact that today's players aren't faster?

gpt
09-12-2009, 06:31 AM
gowrath,

sorry but I didn't read your post number 1. Simply having seen the name of your thread I understood that u are wrong.

After today with 14 slams and all 4 types by 28 years Federer is the greatest player in the history of the humankind.

Pancho, Rosewall, and Laver all most likey would have more than 14 majors each, had they been eligible throughout their careers.

So, a player's number of major titles alone is simply not a valid measure of their GOAT status.

Iron Man
09-12-2009, 06:34 AM
Federer is a living legend , so enjoy these days before he retires !

pame
09-12-2009, 06:35 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

And what about all of Federer's records that the other contenders can't catch a sniff of? We conveniently discount all of them?
Where are all the other GOATS match-ups to Fed's zillion records? Oh right, a Nobel prize winner in say literature is awarded the prize based on one single book, not on the entire body of his work.. lol

SLD76
09-12-2009, 06:36 AM
no one has ever dominated the field like Roger. Period. And domination is not all about the majors. His records besides the 15 are crazy and too innumerable to name. Some guy down the road may get 15 majors or more, but I will have truly seen it all if that guy dominates the field and breaks all of roger's streaks and records.

ETA: lol pame, I was channeling you in my post it seems.

pame
09-12-2009, 06:47 AM
Sorry to throw a fly in your ointment, but the "difficulty of competition" argument is very debatable. Today's players may be stronger or taller, but they are not faster or more accurate.

Also, the record books put Fed down at about fifth.

The record books put Fed about 5th?

So who are the other four who have:

1) Won 15 GS
2) Made 22 consecutive GS semi-finals
3) Made 10 consecutive finals
4) Won 3 GS in each of 3 calendar years
5) Held the record for the most consecutive number of weeks at #1
6) Held 5 consecutive titles at 2 different GS
7) Won the same two GS back to back for 4 years
8) Won at least 2 Grand Slam titles for four consecutive years
9) Won their first eight GS finals on any surface
10) Won 15 GS titles in 25 attempts
11) Equalled the Fed record of reaching 16 of 17 finals
12) Won three consecutive GS titles at least twice

Name me the four who have come near to matching those... won't even bother with the other records... 12 are enough for starters

ArrowSmith
09-12-2009, 07:35 AM
Why?

Because a crippled guy has been kicking his butt all over creation since 2004, that's why.


Other former greats wouldn't allow that.

Rafa was crippled in 2004- Jan 2009? Really I hadn't noticed. The "crippled" part only seem to happen around June 2009.

ArrowSmith
09-12-2009, 07:36 AM
The record books put Fed about 5th?

So who are the other four who have:

1) Won 15 GS
2) Made 22 consecutive GS semi-finals
3) Made 10 consecutive finals
4) Won 3 GS in each of 3 calendar years
5) Held the record for the most consecutive number of weeks at #1
6) Held 5 consecutive titles at 2 different GS
7) Won the same two GS back to back for 4 years
8) Won at least 2 Grand Slam titles for four consecutive years
9) Won their first eight GS finals on any surface
10) Won 15 GS titles in 25 attempts
11) Equalled the Fed record of reaching 16 of 17 finals
12) Won three consecutive GS titles at least twice

Name me the four who have come near to matching those... won't even bother with the other records... 12 are enough for starters

Nobody approaches that resume. But the haters will bring out the Nadal H2H as though that negates the entire list, which is nonsense of course. Federer's achievements are simply too staggering to ignore.

Polvorin
09-12-2009, 08:39 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

I find this argument silly. If Sampras had actually tried on clay and faced his rivals over and over on the red stuff, he would likely have losing records against some of them as well. Lucky for him, he lost early to low ranked players instead of blemishing his head-to-heads with his top opponents. Being so poor on slow surfaces should totally knock him out of serious contention for GOAT.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 08:58 AM
I find this argument silly. If Sampras had actually tried on clay and faced his rivals over and over on the red stuff, he would likely have losing records against some of them as well. Lucky for him, he lost early to low ranked players instead of blemishing his head-to-heads with his top opponents. Being so poor on slow surfaces should totally knock him out of serious contention for GOAT.

Pete wasnt the best player on slow surfaces, but he does have some success on both. Some people on here make it seem as if Pete had NO SUCCESS at all on clay or other slow surfaces. Playing arguably the greatest rebound ace player of all time in Andre doesnt help matters either which would have given him two more aussie titles.

My question is why hanst Roger seen more success on slower surfaces on clay and slower HC? He did grow up playing on clay you know. Pete who didnt grow up playing on clay, has won Rome along with the Davis Cup on clay along with 2 Australian Open titles along with deep quarterfinals and a semi run at the French.. Thats hardly "poor results"



This is debate of whether Roger is GOAT, will be over if Nadal beats Del Potro and beats Fed in the finals. No GOAT contender should be able to claim they had their behind kicked at every slam final there is

Polvorin
09-12-2009, 09:08 AM
Pete wasnt the best player on slow surfaces, but he does have some success on both. Some people on here make it seem as if Pete had NO SUCCESS at all on clay or other slow surfaces.

Uhh...he had 3 career clay court titles and never even made a final in Paris. One of my favorite players, Alex Corretja won 10 hc titles and yet was known as a clay court specialist. Why isn't Sampras labeled a fast court specialist?

My question is why hanst Roger seen more success on slower surfaces? He did grow up playing on clay you know.

I think we all know the answer to this one. One word: Nadal. He'd have won 5 French Opens and likely be at a total of 22 slams overall if not for this one man, who is simply a beast on clay...arguably the best ever and only 23 years old.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 09:11 AM
Uhh...he had 3 career clay court titles and never even made a final in Paris. One of my favorite players, Alex Corretja won 10 hc titles and yet was known as a clay court specialist. Why isn't Sampras labeled a fast court specialist?



I think we all know the answer to this one. One word: Nadal. He'd have won 5 French Opens and likely be at a total of 22 slams overall if not for this one man, who is simply a beast on clay...arguably the best ever and only 23 years old.



Exactly, and thats why he isnt the GOAT IMO. 7-13 overrall h2h with a 2-6 h2h in slam finals, If the h2h would have just remained on clay, it could be overlooked more. Since it stretches out along every surface in the game, thats worse.

And now if Nadal beats Fed in the USO final, its really over. Fed has no claim anymore it that happens IMO. You cant be GOAT, and be systematically dismantled again and again by your main and only true rival, without you at least getting some of revenge on that player slam wise

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:11 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

None of the other GOATS had 15 slams. :)

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:12 AM
Exactly, and thats why he isnt the GOAT IMO. 7-13 overrall h2h with a 2-6 h2h in slam finals, If the h2h would have just remained on clay, it could be overlooked more. Since it stretches out along every surface in the game, thats worse.

And now if Nadal beats Fed in the USO final, its really over. Fed has no claim anymore. You cant be GOAT, and be systematically dismantles again and again by your main rival, without you at least getting some of revenge on that player slam wise

So Fed should tank in the semifinals of the US Open? Would that be better than reaching another final?

Fed should have followed Nadal and Sampras' advice - lost earlier in tournaments to random players. Fed is just being punished here for losing in finals, which is actually better than going out earlier. I mean, people seem to have less of a problem with Sampras sucking on clay than with Federer sucking against Nadal. If Sampras was better on clay, he'd have losing H2Hs with good claycourt players.

フェデラー
09-12-2009, 09:15 AM
ok people dont seem to understand that sampras and agassi played 34 times, nadal and fed have played 20 times. and to say that his losing record is horrendous, is absolute rubbish. if you think h2h determines a goat, you clearly dont understand what it means to be goat.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 09:15 AM
So Fed should tank in the semifinals of the US Open? Would that be better than reaching another final?

Fed should have followed Nadal and Sampras' advice - lost earlier in tournaments to random players. Fed is just being punished here for losing in finals, which is actually better than going out earlier.



Fed has the accolades of results.. But we we factor in Nadal, should the true hands down GOAT of a game have an equal? Should there be another player especially your rival be on equal footing as you? Should someone have their advantage with you in most of the slam finals you play against ech other?

Pete isnt the GOAT either IMO due to his lack of week in week in out success and domination. Thats strictly for Laver or Pancho. But Pete can say he never let Agassi on equal footing as him. He was hands down above and beyond his next competitor

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:18 AM
Fed has the accolades of results.. But we we factor in Nadal, should the true hands down GOAT of a game have an equal? Should there be another player especially your rival be on equal footing as you? Should someone have their advantage with you in most of the slam finals you play against ech other?

Pete isnt the GOAT either IMO due to his lack of week in week in out success and domination. Thats strictly for Laver or Pancho. But Pete can say he never let Agassi on equal footing as him. He was hands down above and beyond his next competitor

But he had his fair share of early exits at slams, whereas Fed just accumulates all of his exits in finals against Nadal. I don't really think one is worse than the other. (Indeed, making finals more consistently should probably be seen as better, but it doesn't make much difference.)

True about Sampras not being the GOAT either. Impossible when you factor in Krajicek. The true GOAT should not have an equal.

フェデラー
09-12-2009, 09:18 AM
Fed has the accolades of results.. But we we factor in Nadal, should the true hands down GOAT of a game have an equal? Should there be another player especially your rival be on equal footing as you? Should someone have their advantage with you in most of the slam finals you play against ech other?

Pete isnt the GOAT either IMO due to his lack of week in week in out success and domination. Thats strictly for Laver or Pancho. But Pete can say he never let Agassi on equal footing as him. He was hands down above and beyond his next competitor

but Federer has no competitors in terms achievements. If he had a winning record against nadal more people would call this a weak era.

Polvorin
09-12-2009, 09:21 AM
Exactly, and thats why he isnt the GOAT IMO. Since it stretches out along every surface in the game, thats worse.


The H2H is 5-4 Federer on courts other than clay. And would be better if Nadal had actually made a US Open final in the last 5 years or stopped skipping tournaments like Wimbledon.

Polvorin
09-12-2009, 09:23 AM
but Federer has no competitors in terms achievements. If he had a winning record against nadal more people would call this a weak era.

This is the truth. I'm glad Federer doesn't have 5 French Opens and 22 slams, else we'd have grafselesfan posting even more nonsense. Fed needs a challenge, it's a good thing.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 09:23 AM
But he had his fair share of early exits at slams, whereas Fed just accumulates all of his exits in finals against Nadal. I don't really think one is worse than the other. (Indeed, making finals more consistently should probably be seen as better, but it doesn't make much difference.)

True about Sampras not being the GOAT either. Impossible when you factor in Krajicek. The true GOAT should not have an equal.

Well every h2h is not going to be peachy..Sampras went 4-5 h2h overrall vs. Krajieck and 1-1 at the slams.. Fed also has his share meaningless h2h problems. Simon, Murray ring a bell?


Its when the big slam matches start dipping into a a 2-6 h2h in finals matches, than it becomes questionable.


We should take into context the h2hs. A poor h2h in big slam matches is worse than just regular match h2hs IMO or not slam finals at least

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:25 AM
Well every h2h is not going to be peachy..Sampras went 4-5 h2h overrall vs. Krajieck and 1-1 at the slams.. Fed also has his share meaningless h2h problems. Simon, Murray ring a bell?


Its when the big slam matches start dipping into a a 2-6 h2h in finals matches, than it becomes questionable.


We should take into context the h2hs. A poor h2h in big slam matches is worse than just regular match h2hs IMO or not slam finals at least

Yes I agree slam H2H is worse. But bear in mind Fed is quite unlucky that his main rival is such a bad matchup for him. If Federer's bad matchup was some fairly average player, they wouldn't have to meet often in slams. Also, 4 of Nadal's wins were on clay in those slam matches. When they meet on grass in Fed's prime (04-07), Fed won. They never met in hardcourt slam during Fed's prime.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 09:27 AM
Yes I agree slam H2H is worse. But bear in mind Fed is quite unlucky that his main rival is such a bad matchup for him. If Federer's bad matchup was some fairly average player, they wouldn't have to meet often in slams.

Possibly.. But shouldnt the hands down GOAT find a way regardless of the surface? Especially when its your rival.. You have played 20 times and know what to expect then.

DRII
09-12-2009, 09:28 AM
Nobody approaches that resume. But the haters will bring out the Nadal H2H as though that negates the entire list, which is nonsense of course. Federer's achievements are simply too staggering to ignore.

Need a towel?

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:29 AM
Possibly.. But shouldnt the hands down GOAT find a way regardless of the surface? Especially when its your rival.. You have played 20 times and know what to expect then.

Yes, which is why I guess the H2H is a blemish. But, Fed's other records basically make this blemish insignificant IMO. Why do some slam losses matter when you have more slams than anyone else anyway?

Polvorin
09-12-2009, 09:31 AM
Its when the big slam matches start dipping into a a 2-6 h2h in finals matches, than it becomes questionable.


We should take into context the h2hs. A poor h2h in big slam matches is worse than just regular match h2hs IMO or not slam finals at least

4 of those losses are at the French...losing to probably the best clay court player ever in those finals is still quite an accomplishment.

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:35 AM
4 of those losses are at the French...losing to probably the best clay court player ever in those finals is still quite an accomplishment.

Yeah, he should've been like Sampras and been rubbish on clay. People had no problems calling Sampras the GOAT when he held the slam record.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 09:45 AM
Yes, which is why I guess the H2H is a blemish. But, Fed's other records basically make this blemish insignificant IMO. Why do some slam losses matter when you have more slams than anyone else anyway?

I think a 2-6 problem against your main rival would be a blemish regardless of how many slams you have won and regardless of the player. A 7-13 overral vs your rival. You dont think a Sampras, Laver or Borg would get attacked if they had a 2-6 h2h slam final against they're main rival and 7-13 h2h overrall? Or had lost in 3 of the 4 slam finals in a row they played?


I think the GOAT (if in fact there is really one) should have NO EQUAL. Fed has shown he doesnt have one except when it comes to Nadal.


I do think Fed has proven to be the best of his era overrall though however. Due to Nadal inability at HC slams though over the years. I think thats all we can truly prove objectively beyond a reasonable doubt. The best overrall of an era. When he begin comparing eras is when things get complicated

Rippy
09-12-2009, 09:48 AM
I think a 2-6 problem against your main rival would be a blemish regardless of how many slams you have won and regardless of the player. A 7-13 overral vs your rival. You dont think a Sampras, Laver or Borg would get attacked if they had a 2-6 h2h slam final against they're main rival and 7-13 h2h overrall? Or had lost in 3 of the 4 slam finals in a row they played?


I think the GOAT (if in fact there is really one) should have NO EQUAL. Fed has shown he doesnt have one except when it comes to Nadal.


I do think Fed has proven to be the best of his era overrall though however. Due to Nadal inability at HC slams though. I think thats all we can truly prove objectively beyond a reasonable doubt. The best overrall of an era. When he begin comparing eras is when things get complicated


I really don't understand.

Nadal has won 6 slams. Federer has won 15. They don't look equal to me.

Yes, Nadal is good at beating Federer. Every player has a bad matchup. In fact... I believe Borg retired partly because of McEnroe...

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 09:53 AM
I really don't understand.

Nadal has won 6 slams. Federer has won 15. They don't look equal to me.

Yes, Nadal is good at beating Federer. Every player has a bad matchup. In fact... I believe Borg retired partly because of McEnroe...



Bad matchup, regardless. There have been many bad matchups in history. Should we use that in defense.. You can argue Mac was a bad matchup for Borg, Pete was a bad matchup for Andre. But at the end of the day its about RESULTS. Nadal overtook Fed at the top spot and very well could still remain there if he didnt get injured. What happens if Nadal finally beats Fed at the USO, where Fed is arguably at his best? Then what? I dont know about using a bad matchup as a crux when youre a legit GOAT contender.

As ive said before, a true GOAT should overcome regardless of the matchup. Most of the Fed-Nadal slams have gone down to the wire at least on grass and Hardcourts. I think it has more or less to do with the mental aspect as opposed to the physical matchup issue.

timnz
09-12-2009, 09:58 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

Every one knows that Nadal is the better clay court player. But Federer leads the non-clay head to head 5 to 4. Their head to head is skewed because 11 times out of 20 they have played on clay which is Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best.

Rippy
09-12-2009, 10:01 AM
Bad matchup, regardless. There have been many bad matchups in history. Should we use that in defense.. You can argue Mac was a bad matchup for Borg, Pete was a bad matchup for Andre. But at the end of the day its about RESULTS. Nadal overtook Fed at the top spot and very well could still remain there if he didnt get injured. What happens if Nadal finally beats Fed at the USO, where Fed is arguably at his best? Then what? I dont know about using a bad matchup as a crux when youre a legit GOAT contender.

As ive said before, a true GOAT should overcome regardless of the matchup. Most of the Fed-Nadal slams have gone down to the wire at least on grass and Hardcourts. I think it has more or less to do with the mental aspect as opposed to the physical matchup issue.

Exactly, it's about results.

Federer: 15 slams
All other tennis players: less than 15 slams

(Last time I checked, tennis was about winning tournaments, not beating a specific player)

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 10:01 AM
Every one knows that Nadal is the better clay court player. But Federer leads the non-clay head to head 5 to 4. Their head to head is skewed because 11 times out of 20 they have played on clay which is Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best.

And Fed renown as a better Grass and hardcourt player than Nadal but nadal has managed to beat Fed in the finals of Wimbeldon and the AO

Rippy
09-12-2009, 10:04 AM
And Fed renown as a better Grass and hardcourt player than Nadal but nadal has managed to beat Fed in the finals of Wimbeldon and the AO

Federer was injured, so it doesn't count.

(Using offical ********* logic, Copyright RG and Wimbledon 2009)

I don't get where you're coming from still. Using the popular example of Sampras... Didn't he lose to Yzaga? Even though Sampras was the superior tennis player?

フェデラー
09-12-2009, 10:06 AM
and if federer won the us open beating rafa more excuses will come that is for sure. also if you look at Rafa he has a losing record against djokovic (6-4) on hard courts. which i believe is truly indicative of how somewhat poor Nadal is on HC, which more so confirms the fact that if Fed and Nadal were on the same side of the draw in HC tourneys, the h2h would be much more even.

DRII
09-12-2009, 10:10 AM
and if federer won the us open beating rafa more excuses will come that is for sure. also if you look at Rafa he has a losing record against djokovic (6-4) on hard courts. which i believe is truly indicative of how somewhat poor Nadal is on HC, which more so confirms the fact that if Fed and Nadal were on the same side of the draw in HC tourneys, the h2h would be much more even.

Let me see you say that when Novak beats Federer in the semis.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Federer was injured, so it doesn't count.

(Using offical ********* logic, Copyright RG and Wimbledon 2009)

I don't get where you're coming from still. Using the popular example of Sampras... Didn't he lose to Yzaga? Even though Sampras was the superior tennis player?

Pete was injured vs. Yzaga as well.. In terms of Andre-Pete.. Well Andre never could beat Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO. Kind of a difference considering Nadal beat Fed everywheres if he does in fact beat Roger at the USO

Rippy
09-12-2009, 10:13 AM
Pete was injured vs. Yzaga as well.. In terms of Andre-Pete.. Well Andre never could beat Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO. Kind of a difference considering Nadal beat Fed everywheres if he does in fact beat Roger at the USO

Why does only Andre matter? What about the other people Sampras lost to? You can't only include the main rival since it suits your case against Federer.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Why does only Andre matter? What about the other people Sampras lost to? You can't only include the main rival since it suits your case against Federer.

Because Andre was Pete's rival wasnt he? He didnt have another rivalry which stretched 12 years did he that I know about

Rippy
09-12-2009, 10:20 AM
Because Andre was Pete's rival wasnt he? He didnt have another rivalry which stretched 12 years did he that I know about

...

But why are you only counting results against the main rival?! Tennis consists of beating more than one other player.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 10:22 AM
...

But why are you only counting results against the main rival?! Tennis consists of beating more than one other player.

Because I was comparing both rivalries here. I wasnt comparing h2hs vs. the entire field of players. Am I not allowed to compare rivalries?

Polvorin
09-12-2009, 10:23 AM
Pete was injured vs. Yzaga as well.. In terms of Andre-Pete.. Well Andre never could beat Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO. Kind of a difference considering Nadal beat Fed everywheres if he does in fact beat Roger at the USO

Agassi would have beaten him on green clay in London. Errr, grass I mean.

Rippy
09-12-2009, 10:24 AM
Because I was comparing both rivalries here. I wasnt comparing h2hs vs. the entire field of players. Am I not allowed to compare rivalries?

But why would you compare H2Hs against entire fields of players? Tennis is about winning tournaments.

You can have a winning H2H against everyone without ever winning anything. Federer could have done it if he tanked in the first rounds of tournaments to some random opponents.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Agassi would have beaten him on green clay in London. Errr, grass I mean.

I agree.. I think Andre's chances would have been a bit better if they match up on this wimbeldon surface.

Andre would have a field day at Wimbledon these days

NamRanger
09-12-2009, 10:33 AM
I agree.. I think Andre's chances would have been a bit better if they match up on this wimbeldon surface.

Andre would have a field day at Wimbledon these days



I think alot of players would have had a field day with the new grass.

kishnabe
09-12-2009, 12:10 PM
So according to gowrath's "philosophy" the only candidate for GOAT status is Father Time.

Precisely!

フェデラー
09-12-2009, 12:34 PM
Let me see you say that when Novak beats Federer in the semis.

why would say this? you mean how he force fed Djokovic a breadstick in cinci? dont make me laugh.

aenri86
09-12-2009, 02:17 PM
I don't know if any of you watched Basketball Hall of Fame's Enshrinement, but when MJ got asked what he thought about being called the greatest of all time... he said he grinned every time he heard it because he feels it's not true... reason... because he never played against great legends like chamberlain, bob cusy, etc... he has a really good point... with this... i think Federer maybe one of the greatest tennis players... but not THE greatest and only!

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 02:19 PM
I don't know if any of you watched Basketball Hall of Fame's Enshrinement, but when MJ got asked what he thought about being called the greatest of all time... he said he grinned every time he heard it because he feels it's not true... reason... because he never played against great legends like chamberlain, bob cusy, etc... he has a really good point... with this... i think Federer maybe one of the greatest tennis players... but not THE greatest and only!




This is true about every sport. You can be the most accomplished but at the same time it does not prove you are the greatest. To be the greatest you have to play the greatest and there is no time machine

And this is coming from MJ, arguable the best to ever play the game.

Mafia13
09-12-2009, 02:23 PM
This is true about every sport. You can be the most accomplished but at the same time it does not prove you are the greatest. To be the greatest you have to play the greatest and there is no time machine

And this is coming from MJ, arguable the best to ever play the game.

Your statement is a paradox. If you are the greatest and you have to beat the greatest in order to be great , what does that mean? Fed has to beat himself?

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 02:27 PM
Your statement is a paradox. If you are the greatest and you have to beat the greatest in order to be great , what does that mean? Fed has to beat himself?

It means you can be the greatest of your era but you can prove beyond a reasonable you are the greatest of all time without playing the other greatest players of different eras? Not saying Fed has to play himself. But like MJ, he never got to battle it out with prime Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Oscar, etc. Fed never got to battle it out with prime Borg, Pete, Laver etc

Rippy
09-12-2009, 02:28 PM
Your statement is a paradox. If you are the greatest and you have to beat the greatest in order to be great , what does that mean? Fed has to beat himself?

I think he means you would have to beat all the past greats, eg Fed would have to play with Sampras, Borg etc, which is obviously impossible.

I don't necessarily agree though. You can determine GOAT by who has been the most successful.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 02:32 PM
I think he means you would have to beat all the past greats, eg Fed would have to play with Sampras, Borg etc, which is obviously impossible.

I don't necessarily agree though. You can determine GOAT by who has been the most successful.



Well in that case Russell and Kareem and Wilt are better than MJ since individually Wilt was more successful than MJ and in terms of winning Russell was superior by leading his team to more rings.


Numbers are numbers and records are records but the only to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is to play against all the greats at their respective peaks. And thats impossible.

Records were meant to be broken.. But whos to say whos greater than who without when comparing different eras?

Mafia13
09-12-2009, 02:47 PM
It means you can be the greatest of your era but you can prove beyond a reasonable you are the greatest of all time without playing the other greatest players of different eras? Not saying Fed has to play himself. But like MJ, he never got to battle it out with prime Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Oscar, etc. Fed never got to battle it out with prime Borg, Pete, Laver etc

I understood what you meant, I was being sarcastic to prove just how crazy your statement is. How can he play these guys when they played some 30 years before him? The record books are the only thing we have to determine who the greatest is. He made those records by beating the current field, the only field he could beat, what more do you want?

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 03:27 PM
I think Michael said it best, when asked by a New York times reporter, about the heir to his thrown as the best ever ..

Michael said, "Dont be in a rush to find another Jordan.. There will NEVER be another jordan."

And he is dead on.. There will never be another Laver, there will never be another sampras, there will never be another Federer another Borg or Nadal. The game is different the eras are different and players are different and special in their own ways


Such lets just sit back on watch guys with their own greatness succeed in different ways

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 03:30 PM
I understood what you meant, I was being sarcastic to prove just how crazy your statement is. How can he play these guys when they played some 30 years before him? The record books are the only thing we have to determine who the greatest is. He made those records by beating the current field, the only field he could beat, what more do you want?

As in most achieved... Yes.. But again.. Are numbers and statistics the be all end all? No... The game and its history and eras go deeper than numbers. Different situations, a totally different game. Fed is no doubt one of the best to ever play the game and has been the most achieved of his era. I think thats good enough and all u can ask for

pame
09-12-2009, 03:35 PM
As in most achieved... Yes.. But again.. Are numbers and statistics the be all end all? No... The game and its history and eras go deeper than numbers. Different situations, a totally different game. Fed is no doubt one of the best to ever play the game and has been the most achieved of his era. I think thats good enough and all u can ask for

So what's the obsession with one set of statistics then.. the H2H? Petard, meet Bruguera! hahaha

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 03:38 PM
So what's the obsession with one set of statistics then.. the H2H? Petard, meet Bruguera! hahaha

it secures your place in history to mentioned along all time greats that came before you to be mentioned with them but it doesnt prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you are hands down the best to ever play.

pame
09-12-2009, 03:40 PM
it secures your place in history to mentioned along all time greats that came before you to be mentioned with them but it doesnt prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you are hands down the best to ever play.

But that's not been your argument throughout this thread. You have been almost exclusively preoccupied with postulating that ONE single stat, Fe'd's H2H with Nadal, is to be used to discount the overwhelming body of records he holds.... and which no other GOAT contenders hold in anywhere near that extensive combination

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 03:42 PM
But that's not been your argument throughout this thread. You have been almost exclusively preoccupied with postulating that ONE single stat, Fe'd's H2H with Nadal, is to be used to discount the overwhelming body of records he holds.... and which no other GOAT contenders hold in anywhere near that extensive combination

As winning a countless slams as Fed has can help secure your place in history as one of the best, failing to overcome your rival on the big stage more times than not people remember as well and wont easily forget. Same as leading your team in the playoffs or failing to take your team to a championship or not leading your team to championships in the finals. It all ends up How you produce on the big stage is very important in creating a legacy for yourself. Dont kid yourself

bonga77
09-12-2009, 04:01 PM
As winning a countless slams as Fed has can help secure your place in history as one of the best, failing to overcome your rival on the big stage more times than not people remember as well and wont easily forget. Same as leading your team in the playoffs or failing to take your team to a championship or not leading your team to championships in the finals. It all ends up How you produce on the big stage is very important in creating a legacy for yourself. Dont kid yourself
Lets wait till Nadal and Federer careers are over before making that judgment. Maybe he will turn around H2H in his favor before he retires. BTW winning countless slams is winning on a big stage.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 04:05 PM
Lets wait till Nadal and Federer careers are over before making that judgment. Maybe he will turn around H2H in his favor before he retires. BTW winning countless slams is winning on a big stage.

It is.. But also losing countless times to your rival on the big stage hurts it too. You cant have one without the other. I know people dont like when you reference other sports. But these guys are all the best in their respecive sports Bu.t do u how much flack Lebron or Kobe gets when they fail to lead their team to championships even if they take their teams to finals? You know how much Alex Rodriguez gets cause he cant lead a his yankees or produce well enough in the post season even though he gets a ridiciulous salary yet cant produce in the post season? You have to take the good with the bad I guess. No player is above criticism even the best players

SLD76
09-12-2009, 05:22 PM
Ok, Brugera. According to you Fed's h2h agaisnt Nadal stops him from being goat. Ok fine. the fact that he matches up poorly with the 2nd best player of his era. Prevents him from being Goat. Ok fine

When Nadal or any other player manages to do say 45%of the following, I will gladly proclaim them goat. Or at least GOAT of Federer's era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

ETA: I would have copied and pasted all of that in a post, but it would have taken me at least 3 posts to do so.
No, Im not exaggerating.

Keep a special count of all those achievments listed as "federer is the only male player to......."

Seriously, when people bleat on and on about this h2h business, Im truly astounded, when you look at the sheer amount of records and streaks that Federer has either broken, tied or (mostly) has established for himself, you realize how ludicrous *********s' h2h argument truly is. Yes, Fed has an unfavorable record against one player. But its funny how his record agaisnt the rest of the field(arguably all players ranked 200 or better) is impeccable, while Nadal's is not even close.

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 05:34 PM
Ok, Brugera. According to you Fed's h2h agaisnt Nadal stops him from being goat. Ok fine. the fact that he matches up poorly with the 2nd best player of his era. Prevents him from being Goat. Ok fine

When Nadal or any other player manages to do say 45%of the following, I will gladly proclaim them goat. Or at least GOAT of Federer's era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

ETA: I would have copied and pasted all of that in a post, but it would have taken me at least 3 posts to do so.
No, Im not exaggerating.

Keep a special count of all those achievments listed as "federer is the only male player to......."

Seriously, when people bleat on and on about this h2h business, Im truly astounded, when you look at the sheer amount of records and streaks that Federer has either broken, tied or (mostly) has established for himself, you realize how ludicrous *********s' h2h argument truly is. Yes, Fed has an unfavorable record against one player. But its funny how his record agaisnt the rest of the field(arguably all players ranked 200 or better) is impeccable, while Nadal's is not even close.




Fed's been ridiculously dominating in tennis.. Im not denying this am I? But you also have that one guy who he just hasnt been able to get the best of who has been the 2nd best of this era which is Nadal. Nadal isnt just a h2h matchup problem for Fed.. Hes been a matchup problem for most guys. Not every player but most especially since Nadal peak last year some time

SLD76
09-12-2009, 05:40 PM
Until Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the entire field. how can he be goat? GOAT is the best right? The best should dominate right? by your own logic no matter that Fed has been able to completely dominate 99.99% of men's tennis but for one, countem 1 player, since he fails to utterly dominate Nadal he cant be goat. Ok fine. Nadal has a good h2h agaisnt Federer. When he can equal/surpass what Federer has done to the overall field, then he can be goat.


ETA: historically speaking, Big tall strong guys that can hit hard and flat have given and continue to give Nadal fits. Or guys with all court game who have talent and two handed backhands(Djoker, Murray)
Most recently? Del Potro, Soderling. Historically Youhzny, Blake, Gonzo, Tsonga, Berdych etc.

and again, will you agree that when Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the field, then he can be goat?

heck, if he can do 75%, given the h2h, I will give him goat

RFLEGEND
09-12-2009, 05:44 PM
actually he is right i am a federer fan and the only way to be greatest of all time is to beat every player win all grand slams in a year win every tournament

Bruguera
09-12-2009, 05:46 PM
Until Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the entire field. how can he be goat? GOAT is the best right? The best should dominate right? by your own logic no matter that Fed has been able to completely dominate 99.99% of men's tennis but for one, countem 1 player, since he fails to utterly dominate Nadal he cant be goat. Ok fine. Nadal has a good h2h agaisnt Federer. When he can equal/surpass what Federer has done to the overall field, then he can be goat.


ETA: historically speaking, Big tall strong guys that can hit hard and flat have given and continue to give Nadal fits. Or guys with all court game who have talent and two handed backhands(Djoker, Murray)
Most recently? Del Potro, Soderling. Historically Youhzny, Blake, Gonzo, Tsonga, Berdych etc.

and again, will you agree that when Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the field, then he can be goat?

heck, if he can do 75%, given the h2h, I will give him goat


GOAT is the greatest Usually coinciding with numbers and stats and results etc. In terms of the "best". Well thats up in the air. Many guys can lay claim to that.

Best on grass-Pete, roger or borg

Best on hardcourts- Pete or Roger and maybe the rebound ace Best in Agassi

Best on clay-Nadal Borg lendl guga etc. and my personal fav Bruguera:)

SLD76
09-12-2009, 05:46 PM
lol....i think?:shock:

timothybryce
09-12-2009, 05:50 PM
As winning a countless slams as Fed has can help secure your place in history as one of the best, failing to overcome your rival on the big stage more times than not people remember as well and wont easily forget. Same as leading your team in the playoffs or failing to take your team to a championship or not leading your team to championships in the finals. It all ends up How you produce on the big stage is very important in creating a legacy for yourself. Dont kid yourself

Out of interest if Fed went out in the first round of Roland Garros every year and never played Nadal on clay

and in doing so had a better H2H versus Nadal, would you then consider Federer the GOAT?

SLD76
09-12-2009, 05:51 PM
GOAT is the greatest Usually coinciding with numbers and stats and results etc. In terms of the "best". Well thats up in the air. Many guys can lay claim to that.
no actually they cant. As great NFL coaches of old say, you are what your record says your are. only a handful of guys' resume even come close to Roger's and noone's surpasses him. Laver and Borg are the only 2 that can hang, period.

Best on grass-Pete, roger or borg(thats 1)



Best on hardcourts- Pete or Roger and maybe the rebound ace Best in Agassi(thats2)

Best on clay-Nadal Borg
Id say FEd is top 10. the only person that stopped him from being best on clay in his own era is Nadal after all, who may go down as clay GOAT

So, remind me again how Roger, with his body of achievments and by your own admission one of the all time greats on THREE surfaces and by my reckoning among top ten all time on a 4th, and he isnt goat?

nfor304
09-12-2009, 05:59 PM
Any GOAT argument is very unfair to players of the past imo.

You can really only judge by accomplishments, and even that is grossly unfair to players who played in different circumstances to the players of today.

Judging by hypothetical match ups is the most ridiculous way to judge however.

Its not like people watched Bill Tilden back in the 20's and though 'Yeah he's pretty good, but is he good enough to beat players who will be playing in 80 years time wielding rackets we cant even imagine?'

You cant judge players based on matchups with theoritcal players from the future.

If you could than Federer cant possible be the GOAT.
The cybernetically enhanced players who compete in Universal Davis cup against aliens in the 50th century would eat Federer for breakfast.

SLD76
09-12-2009, 06:02 PM
true its unfaiir. we can never know for certain.

the bottom line. If people want to argue best of their era. nadal vs Fed. I contend its not even close. When Fed retires and leaves the field to Rafa it still wont be close. period.

ETA: nfor304, your avatar just makes me happy :)

Mafia13
09-12-2009, 11:48 PM
Any GOAT argument is very unfair to players of the past imo.

You can really only judge by accomplishments, and even that is grossly unfair to players who played in different circumstances to the players of today.

Judging by hypothetical match ups is the most ridiculous way to judge however.

Its not like people watched Bill Tilden back in the 20's and though 'Yeah he's pretty good, but is he good enough to beat players who will be playing in 80 years time wielding rackets we cant even imagine?'

You cant judge players based on matchups with theoritcal players from the future.

If you could than Federer cant possible be the GOAT.
The cybernetically enhanced players who compete in Universal Davis cup against aliens in the 50th century would eat Federer for breakfast.

This seems like a reasonable post to me. The bolded part sums it up nicely.

borg number one
09-13-2009, 09:31 PM
Here are some interesting facts (for Borg fans anyway) from wikipedia: "In 2008, ESPN.com asked tennis analysts, writers, and former players to build the perfect open era player. Borg was the only player mentioned in four categoriesódefense, footwork, intangibles, and mental toughnessówith his mental game and footwork singled-out as the best in open era history." Also, "Borg's physical conditioning was legendary as he could outlast most of his opponents under the most grueling conditions. Contrary to popular belief, however, this wasn't due to his exceptionally low resting heart rate, often reported to be near 35 beats per minute. In his introduction to Borg's autobiography My Life and Game, Eugene Scott relates that this myth arose from a medical exam the 18-year-old Borg once took for military service, where his pulse was recorded as 38. Scott goes on to reveal Borg's true pulse rate as "about 50 when he wakes up and around 60 in the afternoon." Borg is credited with helping to develop the style of play that has come to dominate the game today. " I personally think that Borg has served as great modern inspiration for both Federer and Nadal, and many others. Nadal, Federer, Sampras, and even a older Agasssi play/played the game the way "it is supposed to be played", much like Borg did. Such players revere/revered Borg much more so than Connors or Borg for those main reasons. He combined unmatched athleticism, with a mind like a "super computer" as well as unmatched sportsmanship. Simply put, when he would lose rarely, he would never say for example, try to create distractions/crown noise, etc. to somehow "change the flow of the match" (Connors, McEnroe, Nastase, and Serena all do/did this by the way). Modern players such as Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, and Federer were undoubtedly influenced by Borg's "never say die" playing style, which was coupled with a unflappable demeanor. It was extremely difficult to EVER rattle/distract Borg. If one tried it would only cause Borg to grow stronger during a match. He was truly a "silent assassin". He played an "athletic" style of tennis that had never been seen before, by using fitness and speed in the men's game in a revolutionary way. So, even the great Roger Federer is actually a LOT like Bjorn Borg. They have many similarities and I am sure Borg was one of his idols growing up in Switzerland. The same is true for Nadal, who is very well behaved on the court and who always plays the game the way it was meant to be played, with great reverence. There was no Borg for Borg to follow, he was the first, but I assert that he has been the most influential player perhaps in the history of the game, which is a somewhat different, but related argument to the very interesting arguments as to who is truly the "greatest of all time". He absolutely revolutionized the sport.

borg number one
09-13-2009, 09:41 PM
Sorry sentence above should read "Such players revere/revered Borg much more so than Connors or McEnroe for those main reasons." It's so funny to me by the way. When Borg was playing everyone of my junior friends would argue with me about how much better Connors and McEnroe were than Borg, but no one now argues that either was better than Borg, not even McEnroe. That's another reason why it's not a given that neither Sampras nor Federer is "greater" than Borg was. The only players Borg ever lost to in a Grand Slam Final were Connors and McEnroe, who would each "fight you to the death". The competition between these 3 greats, meant that they faced stiffer competition "at the top" than Federer did. Federer went for years having to only really face competition from say Roddick in a final, BEFORE Nadal came on the scene. Borg always had to deal with the likes of Connors who would be perfectly willing to "die on the court" if that's what it took to win a match.

AJK1
09-13-2009, 09:48 PM
It should be "Greatest So Far" GSF
Federer is the GSF

timnz
09-14-2009, 04:04 AM
And Fed renown as a better Grass and hardcourt player than Nadal but nadal has managed to beat Fed in the finals of Wimbeldon and the AO

Wimbledon - yes, Federer leads there 2-1 in Finals. You only have quoted one match on Grass (which Nadal barely one) and one on Hard (again Nadal winning in a close match). Match-ups are over many matches.

Compare Federer and Nadal's final reaching on fast hard - US Open and Masters Cup.

Federer - US Open 6 Finals, Masters Cup 5 Finals
Nadal - US Open 0 Finals, Masters Cup 0 Finals.

beernutz
09-14-2009, 06:39 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

Sampras never said that.

Federer only has a losing record to Nadal on clay. On non-clay surfaces he is 5-4 against him.

Your post is a complete and total FAIL.

tudwell
09-14-2009, 09:02 AM
actually in grand slams Federer has only beaten nadal on Grass. if you take grass out (which is about as logical as taking clay out)....Federer is actually
0-5!!!!!!!!!!

Only grand slams count...no one remembers anything else.

They've met once in a hardcourt grand slam. Hardly a significant sample size. And it's not Federer that's kept those meetings from happening. He's there, every time, in the finals. But Nadal's busy losing to the flavor of the week.

three eights
09-14-2009, 09:10 AM
He is the best human who ever played tennis. I don't know about the future, but i'm pretty sure he's the best human o play tennis in history. (By default new players > old players as the game evolves.)

Sentinel
09-14-2009, 09:17 AM
what if the greatest players of each era acknowledge him to be better than them ???

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 09:52 AM
what if the greatest players of each era acknowledge him to be better than them ???

They already have. It's just these ******** who have a hard time accepting it. Also...you are supposed to put a player's name before "*****," not follow Serena's example. :lol:

Rippy
09-14-2009, 09:53 AM
He is injured and going through some serious crap with his parents. Even so at 23 he has made it to 8 grand slam finals....what more could you possibly ask for??? Most people cant do that in their entire careers!

Of course it's very impressive. Nobody's denying that. However, it does not make him better than Federer.

Rippy
09-14-2009, 09:59 AM
When Federer is in top form and Nadal is in top form...Nadal wins. Thats why Nadal is better.

Even if that were true (which is doubtful), it doesn't mean Nadal is better. What if a player can only sustain their top play for one day a year (stupid example to make my point), during which he can beat ANYONE? Does that make him better than everyone else? No, because you have to sustain your level of play.

tudwell
09-14-2009, 09:59 AM
He is injured and going through some serious crap with his parents. Even so at 23 he has made it to 8 grand slam finals....what more could you possibly ask for??? Most people cant do that in their entire careers!

I see. So what's the excuse for the 2008 Australian Open or the 2008 U.S. Open or the 2007 Australian or the 2007 U.S. Open or the...?

Face it. Since the start of 2004, Federer has been in 10 out of the 12 hard court slam finals played. Nadal has been in one. It's pretty obvious who's better.

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 10:02 AM
When Federer is in top form and Nadal is in top form...Nadal wins on clay. Thats why Nadal is better on clay.

fix'd
10 char

tudwell
09-14-2009, 10:15 AM
It doesnt matter...Its really obvious to me...if someone keeps beating me then they are better than me.

You can explain it away for pages and pages....but I personally dont buy it. In my opinion Nadal is just a better than fed because he has beaten him on every surface. Its as simple as that.

You can get into saying fed is better against everyone eklse bla bla bla bla....but Im sorry I dont buy any of it. To me If someomne beats you then they are better than you. Simple.

I knew David Nalbandian was better than Rafael Nadal. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

And I guess Del Potro has had a better 2009 than Nadal, because he's 3-1 against him???

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 10:18 AM
I'm just sad Nadal didn't make the final. We'd have a scoreline like the 2008 French final, but with a different winner. Even the silliest fanboy knows that would likely be the case, JEU. But, I guess we'll have to keep waiting for Nadal to make his first final.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 10:20 AM
I'm just sad Nadal didn't make the final. We'd have a scoreline like the 2008 French final, but with a different winner. Even the silliest fanboy knows that would likely be the case, JEU. But, I guess we'll have to keep waiting for Nadal to make his first final.

I think its terrible shame for Nadal because the injuries which sidelined him came at the worst possible time.. Right when he was reaching the peak of his career and was beginning to show complete domination over the field.

FlamEnemY
09-14-2009, 10:25 AM
It doesnt matter...Its really obvious to me...if someone keeps beating me then they are better than me.

You can explain it away for pages and pages....but I personally dont buy it. In my opinion Nadal is just a better than fed because he has beaten him on every surface. Its as simple as that.

You can get into saying fed is better against everyone eklse bla bla bla bla....but Im sorry I dont buy any of it. To me If someomne beats you then they are better than you. Simple.


^^ Yep, Nadal is better than him on clay. I'm sure Federer agrees on this.

FlamEnemY
09-14-2009, 10:38 AM
I think its terrible shame for Nadal because the injuries which sidelined him came at the worst possible time.. Right when he was reaching the peak of his career and was beginning to show complete domination over the field.

I'm tired of this argument. It's his own fault for playing this style, there's no excuses like 'oh but he could have achieved so much more if not the injuries'. It's his own way, he knew his body can't keep up with his schedule and style. The same style that allowed him to dominate and achieve so much.

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 10:45 AM
I would have to say that Del Potro is better on hard courts at the moment. No question.

I dont know why you bring up Nalbandian. Has Nalbandian ever beaten nadal on grass or clay? bhecause Nadal has beaten Fed on everything.

:cry:

Wake me up when Nadal beats Fed in the US. Although at this rate, Fed's going to be 35 by the time he makes the final, so you guys may be right...he might up the H2H after all.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 10:47 AM
Who is this Jeu de Peaume guy? Must be a old member as well.

i8myshirt
09-14-2009, 10:51 AM
It doesnt matter...Its really obvious to me...if someone keeps beating me then they are better than me.

You can explain it away for pages and pages....but I personally dont buy it. In my opinion Nadal is just a better than fed because he has beaten him on every surface. Its as simple as that.

You can get into saying fed is better against everyone eklse bla bla bla bla....but Im sorry I dont buy any of it. To me If someomne beats you then they are better than you. Simple.

But Federer has beaten Nadal on every surface as well.

todd03blown
09-14-2009, 10:55 AM
But Federer has beaten Nadal on every surface as well.

you are just wasting your time with this bozo...save your breath...

todd03blown
09-14-2009, 10:56 AM
I think its terrible shame for Nadal because the injuries which sidelined him came at the worst possible time.. Right when he was reaching the peak of his career and was beginning to show complete domination over the field.

complete domination???????????????????????????????????????? ??????? LMFAO, boy we really do have some complete and utter idiots!

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 10:58 AM
complete domination???????????????????????????????????????? ??????? LMFAO, boy we really do have some complete and utter idiots!

Yes COMPLETE dominance. He beat Fed in 3 of the 4 slams in a row, overtook him at #1 and was dominating other tournaments. And his injuries came at the worst time RIGHT DURING this time

AAAA
09-14-2009, 11:02 AM
You coulda fooled the record books for the last six years when it comes to slams.
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad

Federer will shortly play his 6th USO final against his 6th different opponent and none of them were Nadal.

todd03blown
09-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Yes COMPLETE dominance. He beat Fed in 3 of the 4 slams in a row, overtook him at #1 and was dominating other tournaments. And his injuries came at the worst time RIGHT DURING this time

hahahahahahahahahaha, this is funny....to bad Nadal cannot stay healthy against someone who is 4-5 yrs older than him. I don't call complete dominance a period of 12 months or less...next arguement.

davaimyskina
09-14-2009, 11:09 AM
There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!! :)

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:12 AM
There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!! :)

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

There are more Fed supporters because they have got to experience Roger first hand and Laver was in his prime 40 plus years ago and they never got to experience his domination over the field first hand.

davaimyskina
09-14-2009, 11:13 AM
hahahahahahahahahaha, this is funny....to bad Nadal cannot stay healthy against someone who is 4-5 yrs older than him. I don't call complete dominance a period of 12 months or less...next arguement.

Pathetic...

Nadal is dominating Federer since 3 years now...
We don't speak about a 12-months period... but 36 or 48 months period...
Domination on clay, domination on hard (and now he defeats roger even on Grass :) )

Nadal has 6 Gran Slam titles at 23, Federer had only 1 at this time...
Federer need to be 28 to win 15 masters series... Nadal only 23...
Do you want another statistics ?

There are so much statistics for Nadal against Federer... :)

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:13 AM
There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!! :)

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

Another trolling post. Federer is not the greatest because he doesn't have 22 grand slams titles? Moron.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:14 AM
There are more Fed supporters because they have got to experience Roger first hand and Laver was in his prime 40 plus years ago and they never got to experience his domination over the field first hand.

Really? I don't think Laver ever managed 10 consecutive GS finals like Rog. Tell me about this supposed domination by Laver. I'm all ears.

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 11:15 AM
There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!! :)

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

That's a nice sock account you have there. Afraid to show your name or did you get banned?

I didn't realize you only had to beat one player to be the greatest player of an era.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:15 AM
Really? I don't think Laver ever managed 10 consecutive GS finals like Rog. Tell me about this supposed domination by Laver. I'm all ears.

Of course.. Laver also didnt get to compete in the slams during his prime for like 5-6 years which would have only increased his title count and his GS finals appearances. And Roger doesnt have the number of overrall titles as Laver does either.

What do u think Roger's achievements would be if he didnt get to compete in the slams for half a decade?

Rippy
09-14-2009, 11:16 AM
Pathetic...

Nadal is dominating Federer since 3 years now...
We don't speak about a 12-months period... but 36 or 48 months period...
Domination on clay, domination on hard (and now he defeats roger even on Grass :) )

Nadal has 6 Gran Slam titles at 23, Federer had only 1 at this time...
Federer need to be 28 to win 15 masters series... Nadal only 23...
Do you want another statistics ?

There are so much statistics for Nadal against Federer... :)

Ultimate troll post.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:17 AM
Of course.. Laver also didnt get to compete in the slams during his prime for like 5-6 years which would have only increased his title count and his GS finals appearances. And Roger doesnt have the number of overrall titles as Laver does either.

Tell me about all these prestigious titles that Laver won... Oh yeah Connors won 109 titles, very prestigious I've heard! :twisted::twisted:

davaimyskina
09-14-2009, 11:17 AM
There are more Fed supporters because they have got to experience Roger first hand and Laver was in his prime 40 plus years ago and they never got to experience his domination over the field first hand.

Of course, you're right :)

But it explains why a lot of people think roger is the greatest (and it's wrong).

There is the same situation in every sport... Football supporters think the actuals team are better than the past teams (because most of them havn't seen the past teams playing...). It's like that for Federer and Laver...

But Rod Laver won 4 Gran Slams titles in 1962, stop to play gran slam, and won 4 other titles when he was authorized to play back...
When Roger will be able to win 8 consecutiv gran slam, he will be the greatest !

But it will never happen looool

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:18 AM
Tell me about all these prestigious titles that Laver won... Oh yeah Connors won 109 titles, very prestigious I've heard! :twisted::twisted:

Again i ask.. If Roger didnt get to compete for 5 or so years in the slams especially during his prime years, what kind of success would he see? 15 slams? I doubt that

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:20 AM
Again i ask.. If Roger didnt get to compete for 5 or so years in the slams especially during his prime years, what kind of success would he see? 15 slams? I doubt that

So I show how those title counts are inflated with mickey mouse and you switch the subject back to slams. Face it, GS - Fed is the slam king! :twisted::twisted::twisted:

Rippy
09-14-2009, 11:20 AM
Of course, you're right :)

But it explains why a lot of people think roger is the greatest (and it's wrong).

There is the same situation in every sport... Football supporters think the actuals team are better than the past teams (because most of them havn't seen the past teams playing...). It's like that for Federer and Laver...

But Rod Laver won 4 Gran Slams titles in 1962, stop to play gran slam, and won 4 other titles when he was authorized to play back...
When Roger will be able to win 8 consecutiv gran slam, he will be the greatest !

But it will never happen looool

Or you could just say the opposite... When Laver wins 15 slams, he will be the greatest!

But it will never happen looool

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
What you said is so stupid :)

We don't speak about one match... It's not because Gilles Simon has defeated one time Roger Federer that Gilles is better than Roger...

We are speaking about 20 matchs...

We don't say that Nadal is the best of the era because he beats Roger...
It's just that Roger isn't the greatest of his time (because Rafa is better)

And you want that we believe that a player who is not the greatest of his era... you really want that we believe that this player is the best of history ??? Hahahahahaha

Pathetic...

Some of you want that roger is the greatest of the history, but you forget that he is not the greatest of the period 2000-2010...

Stop your trolling. You want us to forget about all of his awesome records because of 7-13 against Nadal. This is insanity and I'm done with you.

Rippy
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
What you said is so stupid :)

We don't speak about one match... It's not because Gilles Simon has defeated one time Roger Federer that Gilles is better than Roger...

We are speaking about 20 matchs...

We don't say that Nadal is the best of the era because he beats Roger...
It's just that Roger isn't the greatest of his time (because Rafa is better)

And you want that we believe that a player who is not the greatest of his era... you really want that we believe that this player is the best of history ??? Hahahahahaha

Pathetic...

Some of you want that roger is the greatest of the history, but you forget that he is not the greatest of the period 2000-2010...

Tennis success is measured against the field, not one player.

Federer has won 15 slams, Nadal has won 6.

Remind me why Nadal is better?

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:25 AM
Nadal is better at time wasting and butt picking then Federer!

davaimyskina
09-14-2009, 11:29 AM
Tennis success is measured against the field, not one player.

Federer has won 15 slams, Nadal has won 6.

Remind me why Nadal is better?

Compare the number of tournaments won (masters, Gran Slam or what you want) when Roger was as old as Rafa...

And you will find the answer... :)

Could you tell us how many Gran Slam Roger had won when he was 23 ???

However, who tell that the greatest tennis player is the one who win the biggest number of Gran slam ? Nobody...

Roger could win 25 gran slam titles if he wants...
The truth is that when he played Nadal, he lost 13 times of 20...

I don't know how you can tell that Federer is better than Rafa when he is losing 2 matchs of 3 (and on clay, grass or Hard...)

LPShanet
09-14-2009, 11:33 AM
Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

Incorrect. Pretty much every GOAT candidate had a losing record to at least one player of an overlapping era. It's very common. I don't disagree that it would help Fed's case to improve his record versus Nadal, though.