PDA

View Full Version : Mats Wilander : Fed is not the GOAT


Pages : [1] 2

nothingfails
06-07-2009, 03:00 PM
on Eurosport just after the final with the regular show with Anabel Croft.
It really gets to me. All other greats -Mc Enroe, Sampras etc.- say he is now. Wilander said people should stop talking about who is the GOAT, that it is irrelevant, that Fed had never won the 4 slams same year. I thought it was pretty lame of him.

BigServer1
06-07-2009, 03:03 PM
Wilander is ****ed that Federer proved him wrong. Wilander has been on record for a while as being a relatively "anti-Fed" former pro. I believe Wilander was the guy that thought that Federer didn't have the balls to beat Nadal (which was a couple years ago, fwiw), couldn't win the French, etc.

While I agree that all the GOAT talk gets old, it sounds like sour grapes from Matsy to me.

ninman
06-07-2009, 03:06 PM
He also said that Federer needs to beat Nadal in a Grand Slam and over best of 5 sets. Hello? Did you watch Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007? How about Miami 2005, coming back from 2 sets to love and 4-1 down to win?

tintin
06-07-2009, 03:09 PM
Mats go back on the sauce you made more sense then:less bitter;angry and jealous .He proved your butt wrong.Now go back in the mountains of Idaho where you live and stay THERE until Wimbledon:roll:
Federer's now 14 slams on ALL surfaces >>>>Wilander's on whatever he won his 8!

Warriorroger
06-07-2009, 03:09 PM
Mats Wilander should count his lucky stars that Eurosports found him interesting enough to have his clueless face on tv every day. He has been on Federer's case for years now, and one of the reasons for the decline in Roger's mental state. Mats eat your heart out, Roger is back and even if never wins again, he is the greatest male player to many.

icedevil0289
06-07-2009, 03:10 PM
Well I have to agree with him. Roger is not GOAT. No one is.

malakas
06-07-2009, 03:12 PM
everyone is entitled to his opinion...but it sure sounds like sour grapes to me!

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 03:15 PM
So someone thinks he isnt and gets crucified? Seriously I like Federer and am happy for him, but some of you Fed worshippers are going overboard. Granted Wilander seems like a bit of a flake and idiot these days so I wouldnt put much value into his opinion no matter what it was, but this freak out over someone not bowing down at Federer's feat as the sure GOAT just because he won the French finally is overkill.

Giggs The Red Devil
06-07-2009, 03:15 PM
Mats Wilander should count his lucky stars that Eurosports found him interesting enough to have his clueless face on tv every day. He has been on Federer's case for years now, and one of the reasons for the decline in Roger's mental state. Mats eat your heart out, Roger is back and even if never wins again, he is the greatest male player to many.

Isn’t this a bit exaggerated?

ninman
06-07-2009, 03:17 PM
So someone thinks he isnt and gets crucified? Seriously I like Federer and am happy for him, but some of you Fed worshippers are going overboard. Granted Wilander seems like a bit of a flake and idiot these days so I wouldnt put much value into his opinion no matter what it was, but this freak out over someone not bowing down at Federer's feat as the sure GOAT just because he won the French finally is overkill.

It's not that, it's more his attitude, rather than saying congratulations to Federer, he has to come out with something really silly to try and make Federer's achievement less than what it is. He just sounds really bitter.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:17 PM
on Eurosport just after the final with the regular show with Anabel Croft.
It really gets to me. All other greats -Mc Enroe, Sampras etc.- say he is now. Wilander said people should stop talking about who is the GOAT, that it is irrelevant, that Fed had never won the 4 slams same year. I thought it was pretty lame of him.

Mats should stop taking coke.

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 03:18 PM
It's not that, it's more his attitude, rather than saying congratulations to Federer, he has to come out with something really silly to try and make Federer's achievement less than what it is. He just sounds really bitter.

Fair enough. Like I said I have found Wilander to come across as an idiot for awhile now. Hasnt he been in alot of drugs since his playing days have finished? I dont put much stock into his opinions, regardless what they are. Funny to see he coached Safin for a bit.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:21 PM
Oh, look. An analyst who doesn't agree that Fed is the greatest of all time. Let's attack his credibility!

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Why would anyone listen to Mats Wilander who was banned from tennis due to cocaine positive test during 1995 French Open? Mats, stop taking coke!

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/15/sports/wilander-and-novacek-are-banned.html

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Its nice to know there are some former players left who arent media puppets and joining the Fed cakewalk bandwagon

zagor
06-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Wilander is ****ed that Federer proved him wrong. Wilander has been on record for a while as being a relatively "anti-Fed" former pro. I believe Wilander was the guy that thought that Federer didn't have the balls to beat Nadal (which was a couple years ago, fwiw), couldn't win the French, etc.

While I agree that all the GOAT talk gets old, it sounds like sour grapes from Matsy to me.

No it's definitely not true Wilander is anti-Fed,quite the opposite actually,the guy is full of praises for him both as a player and as a person.Aside from the match with Soderling I bet he was rooting for Fed in each match.

His no balls comment(for which he apologized to Fed later)was because he was rooting for Fed to win the calendar Grand Slam and was very disappointed Fed lost 2006 FO final.It was said in affect and you have to admit that Fed could have done better in that match and showed a lot of nerves for a champion of his caliber.

Mats was rather trying to be diplomatic here and not hurt either past greats or Fed.He gave a sort of balanced opinion but make no mistake he very much enjoys Fed's game and roots for him almost all the time.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Mac has always been a bit of a bandwagon-jumper. He'll either qualify his statement or change his mind in a few weeks.

Wilander is correct: Fed is one of the GOATs.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Why would anyone listen to Mats Wilander who was banned from tennis due to cocaine positive test during 1995 French Open? Mats, stop taking coke!

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/15/sports/wilander-and-novacek-are-banned.html

Meanwhile, John McEnroe - super guy!

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:24 PM
Oh, look. An analyst who doesn't agree that Fed is the greatest of all time. Let's attack his credibility!

He does have credibility problem because he was banned from tennis due to positive cocaine test during 1995 French Open. He has been bitter ever since.

zagor
06-07-2009, 03:25 PM
Why would anyone listen to Mats Wilander who was banned from tennis due to cocaine positive test during 1995 French Open? Mats, stop taking coke!

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/15/sports/wilander-and-novacek-are-banned.html

Because the guy won 7 slams,he has every right to voice his opinion.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:25 PM
Its nice to know there are some former players left who arent media puppets and joining the Fed cakewalk bandwagon

A lot of folks are not on the bandwagon. Most are just being tight-lipped about it. Wilander just chose to be more vocal and now the ******* army is after him.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:25 PM
[QUOTE=CyBorg;3531976]Meanwhile, John McEnroe - super guy![/QUOTE}

Was McEnroe ever banned from tennis? If he were, he shouldn't be tennis analyst.

ninman
06-07-2009, 03:28 PM
Meanwhile, John McEnroe - super guy!

Was McEnroe ever banned from tennis? If he were, he shouldn't be tennis analyst.

I'm not sure about that but he was defaulted during the AO for abusing officials I believe, and held the record for the largest fine ever for a verbal obscenity. So that's another record that Federer needs to try and break!

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:29 PM
I'm not sure about that but he was defaulted during the AO for abusing officials I believe, and held the record for the largest fine ever for a verbal obscenity. So that's another record that Federer needs to try and break!

Default is not the same as banned.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:29 PM
He does have credibility problem because he was banned from tennis due to positive cocaine test during 1995 French Open. He has been bitter ever since.

I'll put this very simply: none of these analysts have any real credibility. Wilander and McEnroe included.

They are entertainers. I do like Wilander more - I believe he's intelligent, regardless of his faults.

But these guys are not historians. They simply work to sell the game.

A person doesn't become credible simply because what they say suits your point of view.

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 03:30 PM
Oh, look. An analyst who doesn't agree that Fed is the greatest of all time. Let's attack his credibility!

I am not sure if you were responding to me but I mentioned I thought it was stupid and fanatical to be reacting negatively JUST because someone felt Federer isnt suddenly the greatest ever just because he finally won the French. I also noted that I have found Wilander to be a flake for awhile now though anyway. The few times I see him interview he seems almost in a daze, and many of the public statements he mades to the press (not this one but other ones) have been downright stupid. I am not saying that based on his comment here which I actually think is totally fine, just my general feelings on the guy these days.

oy vey
06-07-2009, 03:30 PM
Roland Garros presser:

Q. You are probably not yet the best in history,but could this be a goal for you in the next years to come before the end ofyour career?

ROGER FEDERER: Look, I just tried to have the best possible career I can, and then I think it should be judged at the very end, you know. How well did I do? Good? Great? Very good? Or medium? (Laughter.) I don't know. It's for other people to decide.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:32 PM
I am not sure if you were responding to me but I mentioned I thought it was stupid and fanatical to be reacting negatively JUST because someone felt Federer isnt suddenly the greatest ever just because he finally won the French. I also noted that I have found Wilander to be a flake for awhile now though anyway. The few times I see him interview he seems almost in a daze, and many of the public statements he mades to the press (not this one but other ones) have been downright stupid. I am not saying that based on his comment here which I actually think is totally fine, just my general feelings on the guy these days.

Responding in general to the thread.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-07-2009, 03:35 PM
1. Wilander was very boring player. He never had got any talent to tennis. Long playing shots, wins by endurance, typical clay court player without charm such as Bruguera or similar. I coulnd't watch his single match till the end.

If he didn't appear on Eurosport or on TV the world never would remember that there was such a player.

Wilander with 7 slams and without Wimbledon is a mistake somehow written in the history of tennis.

Hence: his opinion means not so much.

2. Federer won 14 slams and now all 4. He is absolutely not simply ONE OF THE GREATEST, he is undoubtly the BEST among GREATEST players, shortly the greatest = GOAT.

3. Finally the man with 7 slams simply has not so much right to estimate Fed who won 14 by 28 years. And maybe will add some more to this list.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:37 PM
Thanks, Aykhan Mammadov. This was the expert opinion that truly settled the debate.

How can I purchase your book?

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:38 PM
I'll put this very simply: none of these analysts have any real credibility. Wilander and McEnroe included.

They are entertainers. I do like Wilander more - I believe he's intelligent, regardless of his faults.

But these guys are not historians. They simply work to sell the game.

A person doesn't become credible simply because what they say suits your point of view.

You don't know what my opinion is. You should before you ramble about whether his opinion suits my point of view or not. Did I say Federer is the GOAT? It's useless excercise because there is no standard, that is my opinion.

I criticized Wilander not because what he said, but because the way he said it. His criticism of Federer through the years, not just now, was unfair, and more personal than objective analysis. Mats Wilander was never objective analyst. McEnroe on the other hand, doesn't take it personally when talking about other players as analyst, Wilander does.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:38 PM
You don't know what my opinion is. You should before you ramble about whether his opinion suits my point of view or not. Did I say Federer is the GOAT? It's useless excercise because there is no standard, that is my opinion.

I criticized Wilander not because what he said, but because the way he said it. His criticism of Federer through the years, not just now, was unfair, and more personal than objective analysis. Mats Wilander was never objective analyst. McEnroe on the other hand, doesn't take it personally when talking about other players as analyst, Wilander does.

Were you watching Eurosport?

I really don't care what your opinion is. I'm simply saying that your attack on Wilander's credibility lacks substance and is a logical fallacy (attacking the person).

ninman
06-07-2009, 03:40 PM
You don't know what my opinion is. You should before you ramble about whether his opinion suits my point of view or not. Did I say Federer is the GOAT? It's useless excercise because there is no standard, that is my opinion.

I criticized Wilander not because what he said, but because the way he said it. His criticism of Federer through the years, not just now, was unfair, and more personal than objective analysis. Mats Wilander was never objective analyst. McEnroe on the other hand, doesn't take it personally when talking about other players as analyst, Wilander does.

Yeah, he can't just be happy for the guy, who achieved his dream to win all 4 major championships. He has to come out with some ridiculous comments like "he has to beat Nadal in a GS" or "He has to win all 4 in the same year" etc.

icedevil0289
06-07-2009, 03:42 PM
Yeah, he can't just be happy for the guy, who achieved his dream to win all 4 major championships. He has to come out with some ridiculous comments like "he has to beat Nadal in a GS" or "He has to win all 4 in the same year" etc.

He's entitled to his opinion. I definite appreciate his honesty.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 03:43 PM
Was McEnroe ever banned from tennis? If he were, he shouldn't be tennis analyst.

I don't think he was banned, but I do believe he was fined a bunch, more than his share--for behavior excellence.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:45 PM
I am not sure if you were responding to me but I mentioned I thought it was stupid and fanatical to be reacting negatively JUST because someone felt Federer isnt suddenly the greatest ever just because he finally won the French. I also noted that I have found Wilander to be a flake for awhile now though anyway. The few times I see him interview he seems almost in a daze, and many of the public statements he mades to the press (not this one but other ones) have been downright stupid. I am not saying that based on his comment here which I actually think is totally fine, just my general feelings on the guy these days.

I agree completely. I didn't follow Wilander when he was a player that much, thus no like or dislike of him. However, I watched and listenned to several of his interviews in recent years, it completely countered him being intelligent. He was flaky, got very personal when talking about several players, and used foul languages sometimes. I thought he was either just angry person, or he was under influence of substances.

thalivest
06-07-2009, 03:46 PM
Federer isnt the best ever quite yet. I think Wilander is a complete idiot and in fact a huge pothead these days (anytime you see him speak he looks like he was smoking some strong stuff in the back room), and I couldnt give a damn what he thinks, but despite that I think he is right anyway in this case. :)

ninman
06-07-2009, 03:47 PM
He's entitled to his opinion. I definite appreciate his honesty.

He is, but lets be honest he does just come across as really bitter, a bit like Borg really.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:49 PM
I don't think he was banned, but I do believe he was fined a bunch, more than his share--for behavior excellence.

He and his buddy Novecek were suspended. Both retired before the suspension occured.

Wilander and Novacek Are Banned
Published: Thursday, May 15, 1997

The former world No. 1 MATS WILANDER of Sweden and the Czech-born KAREL NOVACEK were suspended for three months after withdrawing appeals for failing drug tests, the International Tennis Federation announced yesterday.

Wilander and Novacek must return all prize money earned since May 1995 to the federation. Wilander will return $289,005, Novacek $185,765.

Wilander and Novacek tested positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open. They denied allegations of drug use and said the federation's test procedures were flawed. They argued that their urine samples had been mishandled and that the federation failed to provide evidence on which the charges were based.

After a review of test results and laboratory documentation, they acknowledged the positive results although they said they were unaware of the presence of cocaine in their bodies and said the drug was unknowingly consumed.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-07-2009, 03:50 PM
Thanks, Aykhan Mammadov. This was the expert opinion that truly settled the debate.

How can I purchase your book?

Why do u need reading books ? Tennis is done on courts, not in books, not in interviews and not in opinions. Just don't believe opinions of different players, watch at least ten matches of Wilander and believe your eyes.

If u trust books then according Brad Gilberts "Winning Ugly" he played better than McEnroe.

icedevil0289
06-07-2009, 03:51 PM
He is, but lets be honest he does just come across as really bitter, a bit like Borg really.

Maybe. I don't know. Maybe he was just trying to offer some perspective amongst all the "Roger is goat, roger goat" hoopla.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:52 PM
Maybe. I don't know. Maybe he was just trying to offer some perspective amongst all the "Roger is goat, roger goat" hoopla.

Unacceptable. He has to suck Roger's royal you-know-what or else.

swedechris
06-07-2009, 03:52 PM
does he.. ? depends on ones perspective and eyes.. IMO he is quite honest and sometimes ironic/ sarcastic , which by some who want a babbling smiley cheerful commentator will feel out of sync with old Mats . the guy knows tennis , he is just a bit wrinkled up maybe thats whats the prob for some ..
One thing one could argue is that the open era was a prob for Emerson and Laver .. they were banned from playing the slams in their primes.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 03:55 PM
I really don't care what your opinion is. I'm simply saying that your attack on Wilander's credibility lacks substance and is a logical fallacy (attacking the person).

If you had watched or listened to Wilander's interviews in the last a few years like many people who are posting here had, you wouldn't think I "attacked" Wilander's credibility at all. It was the truth.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 03:56 PM
If you had watched or listened to Wilander's interviews in the last a few years like many people who are posting here had, you wouldn't think I "attacked" Wilander's credibility at all. It was the truth.

http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm

Defcon
06-07-2009, 03:59 PM
Mats should stick to coke. Or maybe he was high when he said this. Wouldn't be the first time.

Giggs The Red Devil
06-07-2009, 04:03 PM
Unacceptable. He has to suck Roger's royal you-know-what or else.

No. The problem is that he’s sucking Nadal’s and some others. And with no irony or self-conscious.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 04:05 PM
No. The problem is that he’s sucking Nadal’s and some others. And with no irony or self-conscious.

Wilander has always been a Federer fan from what I've read, seen and heard. He's just not a delusional fanboy.

shawn1122
06-07-2009, 04:07 PM
When Wilander says things like "Federer doesn't have the balls to..", it just makes it hard to take him seriously. His criticism is way to personal and not productive in any way. The guy seems like a royal ****** to me and I so badly wanted to give him the finger when I saw him at the Rogers Cup last year.

A guy with 7 grand slams telling Federer that he needs a calendar slam to be the best ever? Can't he show a little respect to a player that is clearly superior to him? It's starting to seem like Soderling is the classiest of the swedish players, which is funny because he is the one that has been bashed the most...

zagor
06-07-2009, 04:09 PM
Wilander has always been a Federer fan from what I've read, seen and heard. He's just not a delusional fanboy.

Yes,that's the same impression I always got as well."No balls" comment was due to Wilander being ****ed off at Fed losing a chance to win a calendar Grand Slam in 2006,he reacted emotionaly to Fed's loss because he rooted for him to win FO that year.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 04:10 PM
Wilander has always been a Federer fan from what I've read, seen and heard. He's just not a delusional fanboy.

I don't know where you got that idea. Wilander blasted Federer so many times. Federer blasted back without naming him. There are two persons Federer doesn't like, and he let everyone know: Mats Wilander and Novak Djokovic.

This is quote from Wilander about Federer:

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Yes,that's the same impression I always got as well."No balls" comment was due to Wilander being ****ed off at Fed losing a chance to win a calendar Grand Slam in 2006,he reacted emotionaly to Fed's loss because he rooted for him to win FO that year.

It's amusing just how easily we tend to form opinion about people based on soundbytes.

Most folks who are trashing Wilander in this thread didn't even hear what he said. Even what OP paraphrased, while most likely misrepresenting Wilander's position, seems entirely reasonable.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 04:12 PM
Yes,that's the same impression I always got as well."No balls" comment was due to Wilander being ****ed off at Fed losing a chance to win a calendar Grand Slam in 2006,he reacted emotionaly to Fed's loss because he rooted for him to win FO that year.

That's Wilander's spin in his apology to Federer.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 04:13 PM
I don't know where you got that idea. Wilander blasted Federer so many times. Federer blasted back without naming him. There are two persons Federer doesn't like, and he let everyone know: Mats Wilander and Novak Djokovic.

This is quote from Wilander about Federer:

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

zagor already explained this.

Steve132
06-07-2009, 04:13 PM
I'll put this very simply: none of these analysts have any real credibility. Wilander and McEnroe included.

They are entertainers. I do like Wilander more - I believe he's intelligent, regardless of his faults.

But these guys are not historians. They simply work to sell the game.

A person doesn't become credible simply because what they say suits your point of view.

As a matter of interest, who has "real credibility" in GOAT discussions?

epicsocks
06-07-2009, 04:13 PM
Yeah, a lot of the people on this board -- and, well, a lot of people in general -- need to get clear about what they mean when they consider GOAT.

Are we talking numbers and records?

Are we talking if X in his prime played X in his prime, who would win?

Are we talking quality and beauty of play?

Are we talking sportsmanship?

Something else?

Or some combination of any of these?

However you define it, there will always be others who define it differently.

In my mind, the title of GOAT proceeds from generation to generation, where the current GOAT stands on the shoulders of the GOATs that came before. Roger stands on the shoulders of many great players that came before him. The GOAT is more an idea that's shared among enthusiasts to remind them of what's possible in our sport.

Would Roger beat Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, Tilden? Of course. But he can never play them.

Tennis is different. The sport changes, and it changes because of the Greats.

I see all players as having a GOAT in them.

But, for me personally, no other player has ever taken my breath away like Roger, no other sportsman has brought me through such drama and suspense -- he is captivating, excellent, and if I were to choose just one tennis player's career to put in a time capsule and save for all time, if would have to be Roger's. He is the perfect ambassador for tennis.

Really, all of you guys need to come to terms with the whole idea of there being a greatest player. It'll drive you crazy and eventually you'll come to realize that what mattered all along wasn't the number of accomplishments or the head-to-head records... it was that one point, of that one match, where a great player made good on all your hopes and succeeded in all his or her glory.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 04:15 PM
As a matter of interest, who has "real credibility" in GOAT discussions?

If Gianni Clerici weighed in on this I would probably listen.

The work of real historians interests me.

However, real historians aren't interested in petty arguments. They're too busy writing interesting analytical work, rather than selling their souls for money as John McEnroe has long ago done.

AndrewD
06-07-2009, 04:51 PM
Wilander has always been a Federer fan from what I've read, seen and heard. He's just not a delusional fanboy.

Exactly!

Unlike McEnroe Wilander doesn't feel that the job of a commentator is to make outlandish comments that aren't grounded in harsh reality. He also doesn't feel it's his job to boost the image of today's game at the expense of history (or reality) isn't charged with boosting the image of today's game. Unlike Sampras his comments aren't driven by a fragile ego (eg: someone beating his 'record' of 14 majors must be the greatest of all time).

Harsh reality #1 is that if Federer were the greatest player of all time would have beaten Nadal in any one of the 2005, 2006 and 2007 French Open finals.

Harsh reality #2 is that if Federer were the greatest player of all time he would have win a calender year Grand Slam.

He didn't do the first and until he does the second he simply can't be the greatest of all time. Mats Wilander knows it and, to his credit, isn't afraid to say so. I'd also bet that, deep down, Roger Federer knows it as well.

Strobe Lights
06-07-2009, 05:02 PM
Yeah, he can't just be happy for the guy, who achieved his dream to win all 4 major championships. He has to come out with some ridiculous comments like "he has to beat Nadal in a GS" or "He has to win all 4 in the same year" etc.
Why are they ridiculous comments? Nadal has defeated Federer in their last two Major finals on Federer's favourite surfaces and has yet to win a Grand Slam. Wilander was asked if winning RG made Federer the best ever and he said we should probably stop talking about it as it is so hard comparing across generations, but that those are two things that Federer could do to perhaps be definitely the greatest.

For all the people acting like Mats dislikes Federer, that simply isn't true. Even just today, he was praising him left and right, talking about how it was amazing the things he could do, and finished his talking about the GOAT subject by saying he was definitely, for him, the most entertaining and stylish player ever.

Why do some Fed fans get so ****y when even one person doesn't think he is THE greatest of all time? Why are they unsatisfied with people thinking he is ONE of the greatest? It is ridiculous. I'm a massive Fed fan btw.

Mick
06-07-2009, 05:14 PM
a negative for being the greatest player of all time is that whoever manages to beat federer (from today going forward) can say, i beat the greatest player of all time and that would be a true statement :)

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 05:15 PM
a negative for being the greatest player of all time is that whoever manages to beat federer (from today going forward) can say, i beat the greatest player of all time and that would be a true statement :)

Also a ready-made excuse for Andy Roddick.

"I lost those Wimbledons, because I was playing the greatest player of all time."

drake
06-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Is Roger one of the best to ever play? Absolutely. Is Roger the best of the greatest that have ever played? From what I have seen (and I've watched them all, including Laver, Borg and Sampras) Yes he is, however, there is no such thing as GOAT unless today is the end of the world. To me, Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen, up till today.

egn
06-07-2009, 05:51 PM
Mats is very well entitled to his opinion, he is sour about it fine yes he does not usually go about it the best way but hey he is all entitled to say what he wants. Besides we all know Wilander is a Lavertard =]

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 06:02 PM
Mats is very well entitled to his opinion, he is sour about it fine yes he does not usually go about it the best way but hey he is all entitled to say what he wants. Besides we all know Wilander is a Lavertard =]

Bless this man! We need more Lavertards. ;)

Mick
06-07-2009, 06:06 PM
Is Roger one of the best to ever play? Absolutely. Is Roger the best of the greatest that have ever played? From what I have seen (and I've watched them all, including Laver, Borg and Sampras) Yes he is, however, there is no such thing as GOAT unless today is the end of the world. To me, Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen, up till today.

i think it depends on the style of play that you like to watch.

federer's record is mighty impressive and certainly qualifies him as the best of the greatest that have ever played.

however, his style of play does not impress me as much those in contention who won their matches from the net like laver, sampras, etc.

to me, it is more difficult to play that "old school" style of play.

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 06:11 PM
Why do people take the words of former greats and consider them to be important?

Wilander was a good player but him saying Fed is not GOAT is just one man's opinion and his opinion is just as valuable, if not less valuable, than the fans of tennis who ultimately decide whether Fed is the GOAT or not.

And Borg's a d0uche... that's just extra..

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 06:12 PM
Mats is very well entitled to his opinion, he is sour about it fine yes he does not usually go about it the best way but hey he is all entitled to say what he wants. Besides we all know Wilander is a Lavertard =]

Laver's clearly a Budgetard!

Sorry, too obscure! (Any casual tennis fan must be scratching their head going *wtf???*)

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:16 PM
I have a lot of respect for Federer even though i hate him.... you can make a case for him being GOAT, but you can also clearly make a case for Laver's 2 GS >> Federer's Career slam.... also add Laver's pro wins, and his size to the equation and its a solid argument

ninman
06-07-2009, 06:20 PM
I think possibly the greatest in Open era tennis? I certainly think he's one of the most, if not the most consistent player in history. But who cares who had the best career. The fact is Federer is an amazing player and I just love to watch him play.

TheTruth
06-07-2009, 06:22 PM
I'll put this very simply: none of these analysts have any real credibility. Wilander and McEnroe included.

They are entertainers. I do like Wilander more - I believe he's intelligent, regardless of his faults.

But these guys are not historians. They simply work to sell the game.

A person doesn't become credible simply because what they say suits your point of view.

Agreed.....

TheTruth
06-07-2009, 06:28 PM
I don't know where you got that idea. Wilander blasted Federer so many times. Federer blasted back without naming him. There are two persons Federer doesn't like, and he let everyone know: Mats Wilander and Novak Djokovic.

This is quote from Wilander about Federer:

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

I've always gotten that impression too. The only time I heard him say complimentary things about Federer was after he received public backlash. Now that that's died down, it seems he's back to his original premise.

I agree with Mats!

TheTruth
06-07-2009, 06:31 PM
Exactly!

Unlike McEnroe Wilander doesn't feel that the job of a commentator is to make outlandish comments that aren't grounded in harsh reality. He also doesn't feel it's his job to boost the image of today's game at the expense of history (or reality) isn't charged with boosting the image of today's game. Unlike Sampras his comments aren't driven by a fragile ego (eg: someone beating his 'record' of 14 majors must be the greatest of all time).

Harsh reality #1 is that if Federer were the greatest player of all time would have beaten Nadal in any one of the 2005, 2006 and 2007 French Open finals.

Harsh reality #2 is that if Federer were the greatest player of all time he would have win a calender year Grand Slam.

He didn't do the first and until he does the second he simply can't be the greatest of all time. Mats Wilander knows it and, to his credit, isn't afraid to say so. I'd also bet that, deep down, Roger Federer knows it as well.

I think it's great that Mats will not bow down to pressure. Your harsh realities are absolutely spot on!

icedevil0289
06-07-2009, 06:50 PM
I think it's great that Mats will not bow down to pressure. Your harsh realities are absolutely spot on!

Pressure? You think that all the people who are saying roger is the GOAT are succumbing to pressure? Maybe they truly believe it. Or maybe they are bandwagonners/gloryhunters who will be dismissing roger the next he loses a big match.

Anyways, no such thing as GOAT, but if there was, imo roger is pretty damn close. Allez Roger http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/rocker2.gif

prosealster
06-07-2009, 07:27 PM
i think mats is entitled to voice his opinion...just as we all r....

henryshli
06-07-2009, 07:31 PM
Its nice to know there are some former players left who arent media puppets and joining the Fed cakewalk bandwagon

Yes including Sampras. Maybe you should change your picture.

Lendl and Federer Fan
06-07-2009, 07:32 PM
on Eurosport just after the final with the regular show with Anabel Croft.
It really gets to me. All other greats -Mc Enroe, Sampras etc.- say he is now. Wilander said people should stop talking about who is the GOAT, that it is irrelevant, that Fed had never won the 4 slams same year. I thought it was pretty lame of him.


I just lose some respect for Matt Wilander. :twisted:

egn
06-07-2009, 07:35 PM
Bless this man! We need more Lavertards. ;)

Amen to that.

Laver's clearly a Budgetard!

Sorry, too obscure! (Any casual tennis fan must be scratching their head going *wtf???*)

Loll

DE19702
06-07-2009, 07:57 PM
Bobby Fisher probably the greatest chess player of all time only won 50% of his matches. When you compare the consistent record of Federer to everyone else its almost unbelievable. You can always say someone should be better, but at a certain point it becomes outlandish and then you have to ask yourself why a person would say that and the conclusion I reach is that its personal. Who knows what may or may not have transpired between them.

NamRanger
06-07-2009, 09:16 PM
Federer isn't the GOAT yet, but the FO certainly puts him in the top 3. Only Laver and Borg IMO have any kind of argument of being placed above Federer.



However, Federer's career is not done yet. He could simply go on a tear and destroy everyone from now until he turns 31-32, then retire with possibly the strongest case as the GOAT.

sunny_cali
06-07-2009, 10:06 PM
Bobby Fisher probably the greatest chess player of all time only won 50% of his matches. When you compare the consistent record of Federer to everyone else its almost unbelievable. You can always say someone should be better, but at a certain point it becomes outlandish and then you have to ask yourself why a person would say that and the conclusion I reach is that its personal. Who knows what may or may not have transpired between them.

Off-topic, but IMHO kasparov is the greatest chess-player of all time :-)

And I tend to largely agree with Wilander -- Federer is possibly the greatest player today (or maybe one of the two greatest :-). There are simply too many variables in comparing players across generations. It makes for good coffee-table discussions, but ultimately its just opinions, with no real way of proving one point or another.

I don't get all the Wilander-hate being expressed in these threads. He has a right to his opinion - I don't see why he would have sour grapes about anything.

Mick
06-07-2009, 10:23 PM
I don't get all the Wilander-hate being expressed in these threads. He has a right to his opinion - I don't see why he would have sour grapes about anything.

Some people can't handle hearing opinions different than their own.
Miss California also got into trouble by stating her opinion about a certain thing :)

crazylevity
06-07-2009, 10:28 PM
As big a Federer fan as I am, I don't think Federer is the GOAT either. He said so himself, to McEnroe, and I quote: "Am I the greatest of all time? No, I don't think so, no one really knows."

joeri888
06-07-2009, 10:32 PM
Don't be too harsh on Mats. I like him as a commentator and he really expected Federer to win it. I agree you can't end the debate about GOAT now or something. Give the guy a break anyway, the no. 1 player of his team just lost a Grandslam final.

Fed Kennedy
06-07-2009, 10:36 PM
he's actually dissing nadal by saying that fed doesnt have the balls to beat him. it's not about feds balls! its about nadal being great

Dgpsx7
06-07-2009, 10:44 PM
saying it is irrelevant is one thing and possibly true but saying that he cannot be goat because he did not win all 4 in one year sounds like a desperate excuse that someone would make. He should have left that part out, it makes him sound like a hater.

InvisibleSoul
06-08-2009, 12:16 AM
Harsh reality #1 is that if Federer were the greatest player of all time would have beaten Nadal in any one of the 2005, 2006 and 2007 French Open finals.

Harsh reality #2 is that if Federer were the greatest player of all time he would have win a calender year Grand Slam.

He didn't do the first and until he does the second he simply can't be the greatest of all time. Mats Wilander knows it and, to his credit, isn't afraid to say so. I'd also bet that, deep down, Roger Federer knows it as well.
Says who?

Regarding #1, how is that true? There are so many things wrong with that statement, I'm not even sure where to begin. The biggest thing is even if Federer has a losing record against Nadal, it doesn't matter, because the determination of who is the greatest player is his results against EVERYONE, not against any one single player.

Even if Nadal is 5-0 against Federer, if Nadal is 20-25 against everyone else and Federer is 45-0 against everyone else, guess what, Federer is still the better player overall.

Regarding #2, why does a player have to achieve a Calendar Slam (a short term achievement) in the determination of who is the greatest of all time (a long term designation)? It makes no sense.

So what if one guy wins a Calendar Slam, but for whatever reason those were the only slams the guy ever managed to win, but another guy wins 21 grand slams, including AO, Wimbledon and USO seven times consecutively each. Is the guy who won the Calendar Slam a better player than the guy who won 21 grand slams? Obviously not.

bruce38
06-08-2009, 12:23 AM
Says who?

Regarding #1, how is that true? There are so many things wrong with that statement, I'm not even sure where to begin. The biggest thing is even if Federer has a losing record against Nadal, it doesn't matter, because the determination of who is the greatest player is his results against EVERYONE, not against any one single player.

Even if Nadal is 5-0 against Federer, if Nadal is 20-25 against everyone else and Federer is 45-0 against everyone else, guess what, Federer is still the better player overall.

Regarding #2, why does a player have to achieve a Calendar Slam (a short term achievement) in the determination of who is the greatest of all time (a long term designation)? It makes no sense.

So what if one guy wins a Calendar Slam, but for whatever reason those were the only slams the guy ever managed to win, but another guy wins 21 grand slams, including AO, Wimbledon and USO seven times consecutively each. Is the guy who won the Calendar Slam a better player than the guy who won 21 grand slams? Obviously not.

I agree. Calender slam is simply made up BS. It really says nothing about GOAT. Total number of slams is most important.

madmanfool
06-08-2009, 12:49 AM
I do believe Wilander is a bit dumb, to be honest. I don't believe he is very intelligent. Sounds a bit harsh, I know.
I also can't stand how he always talks to the interviewer like it's a child or something.
I don't rate his opinion very highly, regardless what it is.

ClubHoUno
06-08-2009, 01:06 AM
I like Mats Wilander on Eurosport - he has always talked positive about Fed, but he just wants Fed to win and play great at the same time.

He's not a Fed hater at all - he's just honest and in my view correct - Fed is one of the best for sure, but it's not plossible to compare tennis legends over different eras.

My top 5 GOAT:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjørn Borg
5. Mats Wilander J/K :lol:

volleynets
06-08-2009, 01:43 AM
Its nice to know there are some former players left who arent media puppets and joining the Fed cakewalk bandwagon

You are a traitor to Pete!

Leublu tennis
06-08-2009, 03:13 AM
So someone thinks he isnt and gets crucified? Seriously I like Federer and am happy for him, but some of you Fed worshippers are going overboard. Granted Wilander seems like a bit of a flake and idiot these days so I wouldnt put much value into his opinion no matter what it was, but this freak out over someone not bowing down at Federer's feat as the sure GOAT just because he won the French finally is overkill.Thats why I will be happy when Federer finally quits and all the fedfans will start raving about their new goat.

joeri888
06-08-2009, 03:16 AM
I think the GOAT-debate is way overrated. I'm really happy of what Federer achieved, but not because he's now officially better than Sampras or something. I like him to chase records and take records like his 15th slam and stuff like that, but I don't really care for the GOAT debate too much and don't understand almost everyone seems to do

TheMagicianOfPrecision
06-08-2009, 03:22 AM
on Eurosport just after the final with the regular show with Anabel Croft.
It really gets to me. All other greats -Mc Enroe, Sampras etc.- say he is now. Wilander said people should stop talking about who is the GOAT, that it is irrelevant, that Fed had never won the 4 slams same year. I thought it was pretty lame of him.
Wilander is a big Federer-hater,he always writes him down in Swedish tennis-magazines etc

Dutch-Guy
06-08-2009, 06:07 AM
Why are some of you jumping on Mats for voicing his opinion,to which he's entitled? Freedom of speech anyone?

jjl
06-08-2009, 06:11 AM
First off, i think Fed is the GOAT. That being said, i'd like to see him beat Nadal in one or two slam finals in the future, that would remove any remaining doubt. He does seem to have a bit of a complex when it comes to Nadal, i'd like to see him overcome it.

JennyS
06-08-2009, 06:15 AM
He also said that Federer needs to beat Nadal in a Grand Slam and over best of 5 sets. Hello? Did you watch Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007? How about Miami 2005, coming back from 2 sets to love and 4-1 down to win?

Why do people conveniently forget this? I think his 2007 Wimbledon finals win over Nadal was one of the most impressive and important wins of his career.

Phil
06-08-2009, 06:32 AM
...I believe Wilander was the guy that thought that Federer didn't have the balls to beat Nadal (which was a couple years ago, fwiw), couldn't win the French, etc.
Well, DOES HE have the balls to beat Nadal? I think Wilander was correct here.

Congrats to Roger for a great tournament and for passing yet another milestone, but really, with all the hardware the Fed owns, he is STILL Rafa's prison punk.

Stinkdyr
06-08-2009, 06:47 AM
Mats is like Clinton, he didn't inhale!

Kobble
06-08-2009, 10:00 AM
Mats will get the last laugh when Nadal becomes the GOAT

tahiti
06-08-2009, 10:26 AM
Tested for cocaine doesn't mean it was coke. I don't believe Hingis ever took coke but some kind of supplement that perhaps had traces.

Back to Mats comment. I think he gives a valuable unbiased opinion. The very fact that All is in the acronym is nonsense anyway because time is infinite and who knows who comes along in the future. Besides every generation, era, equipment, competitors, surfaces, tournament schedules and *twists* in the game of who gets knocked out determine many different factors.

FiveO
06-08-2009, 01:15 PM
Tested for cocaine doesn't mean it was coke. I don't believe Hingis ever took coke but some kind of supplement that perhaps had traces.

Red Bull?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900849,00.html

5

tahiti
06-08-2009, 01:19 PM
Red Bull?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900849,00.html

5

Thanks for the article, very interesting!

FiveO
06-08-2009, 01:32 PM
As far as positive cocaine tests go, I can't help but think how decimated tennis would have been had the sprung a "pop quiz" on the pro ranks in the '80's. Me thinks more than half of the draws back then would not have been "prepared". Different times.

5

kiki
01-14-2011, 12:39 PM
Bless this man! We need more Lavertards. ;)

Wilander was always a smart guy, and he´s proved that again.

nikdom
01-14-2011, 12:54 PM
Wilander was always a smart guy, and he´s proved that again.

Wilander is a jealous hater and he's proved it again and again

Sid_Vicious
01-14-2011, 12:55 PM
Wilander is a jealous hater and he's proved it again and again
When Nadal starts declining, you can rest assured that Wilander will crap all over him too.

nikdom
01-14-2011, 01:01 PM
When Nadal starts declining, you can rest assured that Wilander will crap all over him too.


Retired professionals should say something good if they can or shut up. Spewing hate makes them look bad, makes the current generation look bad and reflects poorly on the sport.

Its not like man his regressed from Wilander's time into an ape. The athletic demands, spotlight and skill required have only become more stringent. So his whining, complaining and hate only reflect his jealously and nothing more.

dh003i
01-14-2011, 01:37 PM
No it's definitely not true Wilander is anti-Fed,quite the opposite actually,the guy is full of praises for him both as a player and as a person.Aside from the match with Soderling I bet he was rooting for Fed in each match.

His no balls comment(for which he apologized to Fed later)was because he was rooting for Fed to win the calendar Grand Slam and was very disappointed Fed lost 2006 FO final.It was said in affect and you have to admit that Fed could have done better in that match and showed a lot of nerves for a champion of his caliber.

Mats was rather trying to be diplomatic here and not hurt either past greats or Fed.He gave a sort of balanced opinion but make no mistake he very much enjoys Fed's game and roots for him almost all the time.

I agree with this. Mats was obviously disappointed Federer didn't win the FO in 2006.

Its all fine and well to not think Federer is the greatest. If Nadal wins the upcoming AO, he'd certainly put himself in the discussion, imo.

I happen to think Federer is the greatest, and 16 GS is enough of an argument for me. Granted, it'd be an even better argument if he got to 20.

bluetrain4
01-14-2011, 01:59 PM
I have no problem with Wilander having a different opinion than other former pros and commentators. It adds something to the debate (and it certainly is a valid debate). But, I get the feeling he says what he says simply to be contrarian and get attention, rather than because he's really fully believing in what he says. If Nadal gets into serious GOAT talk (which he could fairly soon), and everyone was on the Nadal bandwagon, I'd bet Mats would go the other way.

kishnabe
01-14-2011, 03:35 PM
I have no problem with Wilander having a different opinion than other former pros and commentators. It adds something to the debate (and it certainly is a valid debate). But, I get the feeling he says what he says simply to be contrarian and get attention, rather than because he's really fully believing in what he says. If Nadal gets into serious GOAT talk (which he could fairly soon), and everyone was on the Nadal bandwagon, I'd bet Mats would go the other way.

If Nadal becomes GOAT...Murrats Willander would pull the Murray way!

nadal_slam_king
01-14-2011, 03:46 PM
He also said that Federer needs to beat Nadal in a Grand Slam and over best of 5 sets. Hello? Did you watch Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007? How about Miami 2005, coming back from 2 sets to love and 4-1 down to win?

LOL, Wimbledon 2006 and 2007? Rafa had only played 4 matches on grass before 2006. It's a joke that he even managed to make the Final :lol:

Six.One.Tour.90FAN
01-14-2011, 03:49 PM
on Eurosport just after the final with the regular show with Anabel Croft.
It really gets to me. All other greats -Mc Enroe, Sampras etc.- say he is now. Wilander said people should stop talking about who is the GOAT, that it is irrelevant, that Fed had never won the 4 slams same year. I thought it was pretty lame of him.

Hardly up there with the company of sampras, borg, Mcenroe

90

Knightmace
01-14-2011, 04:25 PM
**** off Wilander

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 05:30 PM
Of course he's not but we already knew that.

cc0509
01-14-2011, 05:35 PM
Of course he's not but we already knew that.

Federer has 16 slams; Nadal has 9. Is there something I am not understanding about mathematics here?

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 05:50 PM
Who said anything about Nadal?
My opinion is that it's not just about the slams but if you count the pro majors during the amateur era, Laver has more slams than Fed. He's also done 2 calendar grand slams. Pancho Gonzalez won the pro USO 8 times. Don budge won 6 slams in a row. People talk about "goat" without knowing anything about the pre open era.
+ I don't see how Fed could be best of all time when he can't be best of his own time.
(Nadal has 9 at 24. You want to know how many slams Fed had at 24? Less. How many Nadal will have at 29? I don't know but probably more than 9...)

dh003i
01-14-2011, 05:54 PM
Who said anything about Nadal?
My opinion is that it's not just about the slams but if you count the pro majors during the amateur era, Laver has more than Fed. He's also done 2 calendar grand slams.
+ I don't see how Fed coubt be best of all time when he can't be best of his own time.
(Nadal has 9 at 24. You want to know how many slams Fed had at 24? Less. How many Nadal will have at 29? I don't know but probably more than 9...)

and probably less than 16. Anyone who says Federer hasn't been the best player all those years he was number 1 and won 2 or 3 slams a year is nuts.

There is absolutely no doubt that Federer is the best player of the last decade.

Sid_Vicious
01-14-2011, 05:54 PM
Who said anything about Nadal?
My opinion is that it's not just about the slams but if you count the pro majors during the amateur era, Laver has more slams than Fed. He's also done 2 calendar grand slams. Pancho Gonzalez won the pro USO 8 times. Don budge won 6 slams in a row. People talk about "goat" without knowing anything about the pre open era.
+ I don't see how Fed coubt be best of all time when he can't be best of his own time.
(Nadal has 9 at 24. You want to know how many slams Fed had at 24? Less. How many Nadal will have at 29? I don't know but probably more than 9...)
Jeez, Veroniquem. By reading your posts, one could get the idea that you think Federer is just some insignificant footnote in the history of tennis. :)

No biggie though. I respect your opinion.

dlk
01-14-2011, 05:55 PM
Getting the popcorn ready:)

cc0509
01-14-2011, 05:57 PM
Who said anything about Nadal?
My opinion is that it's not just about the slams but if you count the pro majors during the amateur era, Laver has more than Fed. He's also done 2 calendar grand slams.
+ I don't see how Fed coubt be best of all time when he can't be best of his own time.
(Nadal has 9 at 24. You want to know how many slams Fed had at 24? Less. How many Nadal will have at 29? I don't know but probably more than 9...)

Personally I think the whole concept of GOAT is actually silly. I think it is difficult to compare different eras due to the obvious reasons--i.e. technology, surfaces, etc. etc.

Re the greatest of his own time, I would disagree with you about Federer. I think he has proven that he is the greatest of his own time for many reasons.
Can Nadal (I know you did not bring him up, but I will) surpass Federer as the greatest of his own time? It is possible, but right now the way it stands he has not done it "yet." Remains to be seen still imo. I like both Federer and Nadal by the way (I know that is an unpopular position but I like both for different reasons.)

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 05:59 PM
Of course he's not but we already knew that.

Who said anything about Nadal?
My opinion is that it's not just about the slams but if you count the pro majors during the amateur era, Laver has more slams than Fed. He's also done 2 calendar grand slams. Pancho Gonzalez won the pro USO 8 times. Don budge won 6 slams in a row. People talk about "goat" without knowing anything about the pre open era.
+ I don't see how Fed could be best of all time when he can't be best of his own time.
(Nadal has 9 at 24. You want to know how many slams Fed had at 24? Less. How many Nadal will have at 29? I don't know but probably more than 9...)

Resultwise, Federer has become the GOAT for sure. Think about it: 4 AO finals (3 wins), 4 RG finals (1 win), 5 consecutive Wimbledon wins and 5 consecutive USO wins. That's 14 slams on 3 different surfaces. Throw in 15 master shields and he's not even 28 yet (he's likely to win more). He also has an Olympic gold medal (even if it's only for doubles). He has the record for consecutive weeks at #1 and the way things are shaping up before Wimby, it's not impossible he will add more weeks at #1 to get the absolute record later.
I really don't know who could beat a resume like that, IMO noone.
As far as style and character are concerned though (the "champion aura" if you wish), he would be far down the list for me, Agassi had panache, Sampras had class, Nadal has passion (to quote only the recent guys), Federer is a sore loser who is cold and inexpressive on the court, haughty and narcissistic off it. To me very uninspiring for a sports personality

Interesting.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:00 PM
and probably less than 16. Anyone who says Federer hasn't been the best player all those years he was number 1 and won 2 or 3 slams a year is nuts.

There is absolutely no doubt that Federer is the best player of the last decade.
There is plenty of doubt especially if Rafa makes the grand slam. He's already won several slams on each surface and has the master record, he has a big edge over Fed in slam encounters and final encounters. Less than 16 for sure? Why? It's 5 years before Rafa hits Fed's age. That's less than 2 slams a year average. It's extremely doable.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:03 PM
Interesting.
Yep sorry, I actually meant best of open era but since everyone uses "goat" I got carried away (still you can tell from the other players I mentioned that I meant open era) But since then Nadal has shown he can challenge Fed's records, since I wrote that post Rafa has got the master record and the 3 slams in a row + going for grand slam now. Adding best player of all time on clay, things are getting interesting.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:04 PM
Yep sorry, I actually meant best of open era but since everyone uses "goat" I got carried away... But since then Nadal has shown, he can challenge Fed's records, since I wrote that post Rafa got the master record and the 3 slams in a row + going for grand slam now. Adding best player of all time on clay, things are getting interesting.

So what? Federer is still ahead of Nadal in most records. Let the backtracking begin.

cc0509
01-14-2011, 06:05 PM
veroniquem;5321166]There is plenty of doubt especially if Rafa makes the grand slam. He's already won several slams on each surface and has the master record, he has a big edge over Fed in slam encounters and final encounters. Less than 16 for sure? Why? It's 5 years before Rafa hits Fed's age. That's less than 2 slams a year average. It's extremely doable.[/


I agree with you that it is doable for Nadal but until it is "done" and he either equals or surpasses Federer's 16 slam count, it is only speculation.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:09 PM
Personally I think the whole concept of GOAT is actually silly. I think it is difficult to compare different eras due to the obvious reasons--i.e. technology, surfaces, etc. etc.

Re the greatest of his own time, I would disagree with you about Federer. I think he has proven that he is the greatest of his own time for many reasons.
Can Nadal (I know you did not bring him up, but I will) surpass Federer as the greatest of his own time? It is possible, but right now the way it stands he has not done it "yet." Remains to be seen still imo. I like both Federer and Nadal by the way (I know that is an unpopular position but I like both for different reasons.)
I think there are a bunch of goats. Great achievements complete one another, they don't cancel one another but if somebody comes and claims that there is 1 player and just 1 for both open era and pre open era, it's gonna always be aguable who it is because as you said, things have changed a lot.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:13 PM
So what? Federer is still ahead of Nadal in most records. Let the backtracking begin.
Nadal is 24. The records he has for his age are really amazing. If he does the grand slam, he will have done something much more impressive than Fed has ever done (or anyone else in open era). In all sincerity, at the time I wrote the post you quoted, I didn't believe Nadal would ever be in a position to do the grand slam, the career slam yes but the grand slam, I never thought I would see it in my lifetime (and I probably won't if Rafa doesn't pull it off this time). This is huge really, the biggest achievement in tennis surely and never done on the 3 surfaces.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:17 PM
Nadal is 24. The records he has for his age are really amazing. If he does the grand slam, he will have done something much more impressive than Fed has ever done (or anyone else in open era). In all sincerity, at the time I wrote the post you quoted, I didn't believe Nadal would ever be in a position to do the grand slam, the career slam yes but the grand slam, I never thought I would see it in my lifetime (and I probably won't if Rafa doesn't pull it off this time). This is huge really, the biggest achievement in tennis surely and never done on the 3 surfaces.

Chang at 17 was ahead of Nadal. So what? Nadal will never play the way Fed is playing at 29. All of your statements are based on IFs. The only reliable and credible post you ever made was when you called Fed the GOAT, because it was actually based on facts rather than stupid speculation.

dlk
01-14-2011, 06:19 PM
Chang at 17 was ahead of Nadal. So what? Nadal will never play the way Fed is playing at 29. All of your statements are based on IFs. The only reliable and credible post you ever made was when you called Fed the GOAT, because it was actually based on facts rather than stupid speculation.

Good point about Chang. We'll see if Nadal can continue this pace, if so, lookout.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:21 PM
I agree with you that it is doable for Nadal but until it is "done" and he either equals or surpasses Federer's 16 slam count, it is only speculation.
It is not speculation that he has already surpassed Fed at same age (by far) and that he's dominating Fed in their rivalry (against each other). It's also not arguable IMO that Rafa is more dominant on his best surface than Fed is on his best one. (And as I said, Rafa already has the record in masters. Actually Rafa has a better winning % than Fed in both slams and masters).

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:23 PM
Nadal is 24. The records he has for his age are really amazing. If he does the grand slam, he will have done something much more impressive than Fed has ever done (or anyone else in open era). In all sincerity, at the time I wrote the post you quoted, I didn't believe Nadal would ever be in a position to do the grand slam, the career slam yes but the grand slam, I never thought I would see it in my lifetime (and I probably won't if Rafa doesn't pull it off this time). This is huge really, the biggest achievement in tennis surely and never done on the 3 surfaces.

p.s. the following are facts in case you didn't know:

Think about it: 4 AO finals (3 wins), 4 RG finals (1 win), 5 consecutive Wimbledon wins and 5 consecutive USO wins. That's 14 slams on 3 different surfaces. Throw in 15 master shields

Notice not one "IF" in there!

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:23 PM
It is not speculation that he has already surpassed Fed at same age (by far) and that he's dominating Fed in their rivalry (against each other). It's also not arguable IMO that Rafa is more dominant on his best surface than Fed is on his best one. (And as I said, Rafa already has the record in masters. Actually Rafa has a better winning % than Fed in both slams and masters).

Passing someone at the same age is not passing someone absolutely. Chang passed Nadal at a same age.

OddJack
01-14-2011, 06:24 PM
Wilander is an *** hole

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:25 PM
Chang at 17 was ahead of Nadal. So what? Nadal will never play the way Fed is playing at 29. All of your statements are based on IFs. The only reliable and credible post you ever made was when you called Fed the GOAT, because it was actually based on facts rather than stupid speculation.
The Chang analogy is completely stupid since Chang has only won that 1 slam and has never been a top player at any time. There are plenty of players who have won 1 isolated slam at any age but we're comparing top players here. Rafa has been a top player for the last 6 years. It's not like basing stats on 1 isolated event.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:26 PM
p.s. the following are facts in case you didn't know:



Notice not one "IF" in there!
I wrote that a long time ago, this was true at the time when I wrote it, since then a lot has happened.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:31 PM
The Chang analogy is completely stupid since Chang has only won that 1 slam and has never been a top player at any time. There are plenty of players who have won 1 isolated slam at any age but we're comparing top players here. Rafa has been a top player for the last 6 years. It's not like basing stats on 1 isolated event.

What you don't seem to get is that the fact that Chang only won 1 slam was apparent ONLY after his career was over. It was not apparent at the time, which is where Nadal is now.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:32 PM
I wrote that a long time ago, this was true at the time when I wrote it, since then a lot has happened.

LIke what? That Federer is still ahead in most all of those categories?

cc0509
01-14-2011, 06:33 PM
It is not speculation that he has already surpassed Fed at same age (by far) and that he's dominating Fed in their rivalry (against each other). It's also not arguable IMO that Rafa is more dominant on his best surface than Fed is on his best one. (And as I said, Rafa already has the record in masters. Actually Rafa has a better winning % than Fed in both slams and masters).

It is true that he may have passed Federer on the age comparison issue, but, for me, it is ultimately the slam count that I see as the decisive factor.
Re the domination on the best surface issue, I am not sure I agree with you there. I have not given it much thought though. Have to think about that one further.

HunterST
01-14-2011, 06:39 PM
There is plenty of doubt especially if Rafa makes the grand slam. He's already won several slams on each surface and has the master record, he has a big edge over Fed in slam encounters and final encounters. Less than 16 for sure? Why? It's 5 years before Rafa hits Fed's age. That's less than 2 slams a year average. It's extremely doable.

Uhhh it's 2011, what rafa does post 2010 doesn't count toward the previous decade.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:43 PM
Why decade? I meant in general, records for open era.

samurai13
01-14-2011, 06:45 PM
Mats Wilander is awesome... end of story

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:49 PM
It is true that he may have passed Federer on the age comparison issue, but, for me, it is ultimately the slam count that I see as the decisive factor.
Re the domination on the best surface issue, I am not sure I agree with you there. I have not given it much thought though. Have to think about that one further.
He "may have passed"? Check your stats. He passed in every category by a landslide (except for # weeks at #1)
Nadal has a higher overall winning %, higher winning % in slams, masters and outdoor surfaces NOW. At same age, there wouldn't even be a discussion.
The RG/W/USO in a row blew my mind. I saw a lot of players trying to do that one. To me, anything Fed did pales in comparison. Who would have thought Rafa would be the first 1 to do the 3 consecutive slams on 3 surfaces?
There are records that are more impressive than others, to me that is 1 of them and all 4 would be even more incredible. And for all the slams he won Fed still has just 1 on clay. Rafa has now 5 on clay, 2 on grass and 2 on hard. And it seems that he's still progressing on hard.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 06:51 PM
IF Rafa doesn't win any more slams he will lag very far behind Fed in GOAT status.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 06:58 PM
Very far, no. There aren't that many players who got more than 8 slams in open era. Borg got 11 and Sampras got 14. That's about it. So that wouldn't be very far especially with all the other stats and records Rafa has.

Eternally_damned
01-14-2011, 07:05 PM
Very far, no. There aren't that many players who got more than 8 slams in open era. Borg got 11 and Sampras got 14. That's about it. So that wouldn't be very far especially with all the other stats and records Rafa has.

Not very far no, but lag he would. No doubt about that. In fact if he gets stuck at 9 he would lag also behind Borg and Sampras.

HunterST
01-14-2011, 07:07 PM
and probably less than 16. Anyone who says Federer hasn't been the best player all those years he was number 1 and won 2 or 3 slams a year is nuts.

There is absolutely no doubt that Federer is the best player of the last decade.

There is plenty of doubt especially if Rafa makes the grand slam. He's already won several slams on each surface and has the master record, he has a big edge over Fed in slam encounters and final encounters. Less than 16 for sure? Why? It's 5 years before Rafa hits Fed's age. That's less than 2 slams a year average. It's extremely doable.


Why decade? I meant in general, records for open era.

Why decade? Because that's what the discussion was about! He said "there's no doubt Federer was the best player of the last decade" and YOU said "there's plenty of doubt."

Look alive!

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 07:08 PM
Unlikely he will get stuck at 9 but you can always hope :)
Actually, Fed hasn't retired either and he could go higher than 16. Those 2 are a work in progress but there seems to be more margin left for Rafa than for Fed...
I didn't pay attention to "decade", of his time would seem more logical.

cc0509
01-14-2011, 07:11 PM
He "may have passed"? Check your stats. He passed in every category by a landslide (except for # weeks at #1)
The RG/W/USO in a row blew my mind. I saw a lot of players trying to do that one. To me, anything Fed did pales in comparison. Who would have thought Rafa would be the first 1 to do the 3 consecutive slams on 3 surfaces?
There are records that are more impressive than others, to that is 1 of them and all 4 would be even more incredible. And for all the slams he won Fed still has just 1 on clay. Rafa has now 5 on clay, 2 on grass and 2 on hard. And it seems that he's still progressing on hard.

I agree that 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces is a great feat.
But, in my mind, and I guess this is all a matter of personal opinion, it is the final slam count that matters most. The fact that Roger has only one on clay is not a big deal to me. He has won all the slams and he has the most slams at this point in time. When people look back at the history the first thing they look at to assess a player is the Grand Slam total. Yes, of course they look at a million other things, but I believe it is the slam count that is first and foremost in determining the best players. That is just the way it is.

Re your comment that "anything Fed did pales in comparison", I totally disagree with that. Federer has done and continues to do some phenomenal things and to me, Federer is the more talented player in terms of his arsenal of shots. I think Federer is naturally a more talented player. Obviously Federer and Nadal have entirely different styles of play and watching Federer and his incredible footwork to me is like watching grace in motion.

How it will all end up with the final tallies between Roger and Rafa, who knows. Maybe Rafa will surpass every single record that Roger has? But for me, Roger is still the best player NOW.

veroniquem
01-14-2011, 07:21 PM
If Fed is grace, Rafa is energy. One is not superior to the other. If you want to give the edge to Fed in arsenal of shots, go ahead. I'd give the mental and athletic edge to Nadal and I would also give him efficiency in the way he uses his own arsenal. Winning matches is not about pure technique, there are other factors as well. Total # of slams only in conjunction with other factors. Before Fed, Sampras had total # of slams but he had only 3 out of the 4. I would consider a guy with 10 slams and all 4 above Sampras and grand slam adds a lot of value. To me, it's everything together. If Nadal wins an amount of slams that is close (but not superior) with a grand slam and titles spread over all surfaces, I will definitely place him above Fed. Total # is not everything, one has to look at the big picture. (And that's not even mentioning all the stuff outside the slams).

AhmedD
01-14-2011, 07:29 PM
You seem to be forgetting more than half of Nadal's grandslams have come from the French. 6 on clay, 2 on grass, 2 on hard. While Fed has 9 on hard, 6 on grass, and 1 on clay. Federer has also dominated 3 different grandslams

4 Australian Open
1 Roland Garros
6 Wimbledons
5 Us Opens

If Nadal does hold all 4 at the same time, kudos for him, that's a great achievement, something Federer hasn't done yet. But, in my honest opinion, I don't think Federer will stop winning grandslams just, and he's still got some years on tour. Injuries haven't been much of a problem for him, and seems to know how to handle them pretty well and is conscious about his age. People write of Federer too quick, he's still capable of challenging Nadal, and Nadal is still capable of challenging him as well.

Also, people say that if Nadal is 100 % fit, he's in virtually unbeatable, but if he isn't, he is very beatable when facing top players. What happens when he starts to get older and hit fitness begins to deteriorate ? According to what's being said, it should make sense that Nadal will become very beatable at some point, since his style put alot of strain on his body. I've seen the guy play, and I've Federer play, and from my own experience, Federer can generate more power and pace and it looks like he's barely hitting the ball. But Nadal looks like he's putting every single ounce of his energy into each shot, and can generate much pace and power, it was close to what Federer can generate, but still lacking a bit in someway, but I believe the amount of spin and weight of the ball compensate for this.

Anyway, all I'm trying saying is, at this point it's uncertain, we'll just have to see how it goes for players. People shouldn't be jumping to conclusion writing of Federer because he is still capable of winning a slam at this point in his career and extending his slam record. I also don't think that people should take it for granted that Nadal is just going to go all out beast and dominate for the rest of his career.

My final point, is that the difference this year is that alot of other players are hungry for one of those slams, Murray works really hard during the off-season. Soderling looks very in-form, and God knows how Djoko is gonna do. The field is open, I also feel Delpo will be coming out of the shadows soon when get's some matches under his belt.

Any way, theres my 2 cents.

Wilander Fan
01-14-2011, 07:55 PM
1. Wilander was very boring player. He never had got any talent to tennis. Long playing shots, wins by endurance, typical clay court player without charm such as Bruguera or similar. I coulnd't watch his single match till the end.

If he didn't appear on Eurosport or on TV the world never would remember that there was such a player.

Wilander with 7 slams and without Wimbledon is a mistake somehow written in the history of tennis.

Hence: his opinion means not so much.

2. Federer won 14 slams and now all 4. He is absolutely not simply ONE OF THE GREATEST, he is undoubtly the BEST among GREATEST players, shortly the greatest = GOAT.

3. Finally the man with 7 slams simply has not so much right to estimate Fed who won 14 by 28 years. And maybe will add some more to this list.

I must step in here. Nobody wins 7 slams by mistake. He also did this in one of the most competitive eras ever. As far as his playing style, the only 3 tennis players I have seen move around the court with such elegant footwork are Graf, Federer, and Wilander. He was only the 2nd man in the open era to win 3 slams in a year and was only stopped from a CGS due to the slick grass. It is MUCH easier to win a CGS now because the surfaces have been homogenized to a large degree. He played a very measured game and tried to maneuver players over a series of 3 or 4 shots into a position where he could put away an easy volley but you could see he could hit the winner when he had to. I would put peak Wilander up against any of the top GOAT contenders on clay and HC. His footword was just amazing. Underated serve and volley as well.

I also agree that Federer is the GOAT but the bigger issue here is that the vast majority of people basically only watch one or two matches a year...maybe the final of the US Open and Wimbledon. The audience knows the basic rules of the game and little about the players. Even if Fed and Nadal are playing, most viewers will only know a little about them..basic things like they are all time greats etc. If the final happens to be anyone else..Djoker, Murray, Soderling, Llodra..Lacko, most people will have no idea who these players are unless they represent their home country.

Therefore, guys like Wilander and McEnroe and Shriver, and all the rest have two jobs. Troll hard to build up expectations before the match. I think this is fine and enjoyable in fact. The other job is commenting on the match and this part is really terrible. You can tell that they are pandering down to the lowest common denominator of fans to build interest. "He has the game's biggest forehand" or "His serve is 130mph".."What a get!". Its all very elementary but I can see why they are doing it.

Take this in contrast with broadcast of American NFL football where they assume the view has been reading pages about the upcoming game for a week. There are 1 hour pregame shows and matchup shows as well as 24hr radio call in shows talking about nothing but the game. Its assumed the viewer knows the entire starting rosters as well as the backups, which players are good and which are weaknesses, the tactics they will empoy, the physical status of players...So, when the game starts, the commentators make no attempt to explain the complicated rules of the game or the odd scoring or any basics whatsoever. They immediately get into the formations and how one lineman left his coverage to spring a trap block that allowed 5 a yd gain and this was possible because the linebackers were playing in zones in reaction to the offense showing a 3 receiver set. When they do talk about a player, they talk about how he effects the match. My favorite example was when Deion Sanders went to play corner back for the San Francisco 49ers and instantly turned a bad secondary to a good one. The commentators explained why. They did not even bother mentioning his great speed, They demonstrated how he was effectively playing his receiver so tightly that the rest of the defense could play a tight zone since he was getting no safety help up top or linebacker help below. The result was the other receiver wound up being double covered with a linebacker while 2 safeties were playing in a very tight 2 deep zone. And it went on like this.

Anyway, tennis commentator is very dumbed down and that is my biggest gripe. Now tennis is not at strategic as NFL football but there is alot more going on that "What a great forehand". As a casual observer, many big forehand winners are the result of pulling a guy off court slightly with previous shots or pushing him back with a series of heavy penetrating shots to allow an opening for a cross court angle. In addition, it seems players will concede winners to certain areas in order to better defend another. For example, in WTF, the commentators were talking about how Federer doesnt move as well to his FH since people were able to hit winners but the fact was Federer was leaving his FH open to defend his backhand side and have more chances to hit aggressively off the bh. This made perfect sense against Nadal since Nadal doesnt seem aware Federer has a forehand side and almost literally hits everything to Fed's backhand. Why not leave the forehand court open to anticipate backhands? You can play closer to the baseline and really anchor yourself to rip the ball. Not once did the announcers mention Federer's change in his court positioning which allowed the big backhand and just exclaimed he suddenly developed a stunning backhand.

Wilander Fan
01-14-2011, 08:19 PM
You seem to be forgetting more than half of Nadal's grandslams have come from the French. 6 on clay, 2 on grass, 2 on hard. While Fed has 9 on hard, 6 on grass, and 1 on clay. Federer has also dominated 3 different grandslams

4 Australian Open
1 Roland Garros
6 Wimbledons
5 Us Opens

If Nadal does hold all 4 at the same time, kudos for him, that's a great achievement, something Federer hasn't done yet. But, in my honest opinion, I don't think Federer will stop winning grandslams just, and he's still got some years on tour. Injuries haven't been much of a problem for him, and seems to know how to handle them pretty well and is conscious about his age. People write of Federer too quick, he's still capable of challenging Nadal, and Nadal is still capable of challenging him as well.

Also, people say that if Nadal is 100 % fit, he's in virtually unbeatable, but if he isn't, he is very beatable when facing top players. What happens when he starts to get older and hit fitness begins to deteriorate ? According to what's being said, it should make sense that Nadal will become very beatable at some point, since his style put alot of strain on his body. I've seen the guy play, and I've Federer play, and from my own experience, Federer can generate more power and pace and it looks like he's barely hitting the ball. But Nadal looks like he's putting every single ounce of his energy into each shot, and can generate much pace and power, it was close to what Federer can generate, but still lacking a bit in someway, but I believe the amount of spin and weight of the ball compensate for this.

Anyway, all I'm trying saying is, at this point it's uncertain, we'll just have to see how it goes for players. People shouldn't be jumping to conclusion writing of Federer because he is still capable of winning a slam at this point in his career and extending his slam record. I also don't think that people should take it for granted that Nadal is just going to go all out beast and dominate for the rest of his career.

My final point, is that the difference this year is that alot of other players are hungry for one of those slams, Murray works really hard during the off-season. Soderling looks very in-form, and God knows how Djoko is gonna do. The field is open, I also feel Delpo will be coming out of the shadows soon when get's some matches under his belt.

Any way, theres my 2 cents.

Nadal is a different player than he was 1 year ago. He seems to understand he was relying too much on speed and has become something of a backcourt basher. You dont see him chase down balls nearly as much but he is driving his strokes much harder than he once did. Its a lower percentage percentage that helps on HCs. I wonder if it will affect his clay play though.

Clay courters tend to play a long time (probably because they play mostly on clay) but their level drops suddenly and dramatically in their mid 20s for some reason...probably has to do with losing some quickness on the first step and nagging little injuries building up. Drastic examples are Borg and Wilander but look also at JCF, DFerrer, Keurten, Brugeura...all these guys just lost a level suddenly after their best years and continued on for years later grinding away into their 30 with rankings in the 20s and 30s.

Like I said, Nadal is already trying to take short cuts. Lets see how much he has left in the tank at AO.

Sid_Vicious
01-14-2011, 08:39 PM
misbehavior of post-retirement Roger trolling. Most annoying player. Sucks Wilander.

Talker
01-14-2011, 09:07 PM
One thing not considered was that Fed is shooting for 5+ titles at 3 slams.
That's quite an accomplishment, though it doesn't get talked about much it is much greater than 4 slams in a row, no one has ever done it.

HunterST
01-14-2011, 09:31 PM
One thing not considered was that Fed is shooting for 5+ titles at 3 slams.
That's quite an accomplishment, though it doesn't get talked about much it is much greater than 4 slams in a row, no one has ever done it.

That's a great point. While others have achieved 4 slams in a row and even the CYGS, no one has ever achieved 5 titles in 3 different majors.

No offense to Rafa I think he's done a great job of improving on the other surfaces and becoming a force at every tournament. However, people who say that Rafa will exceed Federer because the Spaniard is more well rounded are completely delusional. Look at how much different Nadal's career would be if you eliminated clay tournaments. Federer has a much more well rounded record regarding the ability to play on different surfaces.

BukShy
01-14-2011, 10:25 PM
Roger Federer is the greatest. No sh1t talk, numbers own them all.

JustBob
01-14-2011, 11:13 PM
It's 5 years before Rafa hits Fed's age. That's less than 2 slams a year average. It's extremely doable.

You're assuming that Rafa will age as well as Fed. That's highly unlikely for reasons that are rather obvious. I'd be very surprised if Rafa is still winning slams by the time he reaches 27-28, and that's if he's still playing and his body has not totally gone to pieces.

Talker
01-15-2011, 12:38 AM
You're assuming that Rafa will age as well as Fed. That's highly unlikely for reasons that are rather obvious. I'd be very surprised if Rafa is still winning slams by the time he reaches 27-28, and that's if he's still playing and his body has not totally gone to pieces.

It seems like he'll burn out or his body will breakdown. but we have no real evidence that this will be true. The medicine and procedures we have now are pretty good and may prolong his career. Look how well the regimen worked on his knees, no word of any problems for a long time now even with the 3 slams he won.

On the other hand he may never win a slam again.

kiki
01-15-2011, 01:00 AM
The discussion of GOAT is never to end up until the last day of mandkind comes.it is a toy to play with but won´t get us any far.

Federer is, no doubt , a candidate for GOAT, but not the only one since he has been the most dominant player over a decade.A dull one, yes, but still, being the player that defines an era makes him one of the best ever.Nadal is on his way too, and he certainly is going to be another candidate.

After saying this, I think that the GOAT debate is a wrong one.The real one is which era or which styles of play did we like more or are we more attached into.We tend to forget that tennis is nothing else, from our fans position, than a mere entertaining.Thats the way I look, to me the goat debate shoud redirection into

"When did you have more fan watching tennis" or "Which players were or are more entertaining ".We´ll never reach an agreement, other than mathematics, about who´s the GOAT and who is not, since it is plainly impossible to compare eras and, more over compare players that never played at their time.

F.I, Federer and Sampras never played during Sampras peak and Laver and Borg just happen the same.Still, we should discuss if the we enjoy more the time Laver and Borg met or the time Sampras and Fed met .It is just one example.

Hey¡ tennis is nothing else than a fun matter for tennis watchers.

kiki
01-15-2011, 01:13 AM
Yep sorry, I actually meant best of open era but since everyone uses "goat" I got carried away (still you can tell from the other players I mentioned that I meant open era) But since then Nadal has shown he can challenge Fed's records, since I wrote that post Rafa has got the master record and the 3 slams in a row + going for grand slam now. Adding best player of all time on clay, things are getting interesting.

Nadal is 24 right now, if he wins RG in 2011, he will have 6 FO at 25.¿Right?.Borg retired at 25, having won 6 FO.At most, as mathematics tell the story, Nadal will share with Borg the honour of the GOAT on clay.But won´t have that honour just for himself.

On grass, Federer is still one W title short of Sampras.Sampras won his last W title in 2001, aged 31.Federer is 29, so he must win the next 2 W titles to surpass Pete as the GOAT on grass, according to mathematics.If he just wins one, he can be, at most, considered one of the 2 GOAT.If he fails to win one more W, Pete remains the GOAT.

And still, that would be unrelevant since Laver and Rosewall were banned during their best years from GS action.Laver spent 5 years ( 1963-1967) as a pro.I cannot imagine that he wouldn´t have won, AT LEAST, 2 out of 5 Wimbledon titles during that slot.But, of course, I can´t prove that.

Rosewall was banned from GS 11 years ( 1957-1968).He has 2 FO..¿Was it possible for him to win 4 more titles out of 11 possible titles at Paris?.Again, even if I cannot prove it, it seems a very real possibility.

kiki
01-15-2011, 01:20 AM
Nadal is 24. The records he has for his age are really amazing. If he does the grand slam, he will have done something much more impressive than Fed has ever done (or anyone else in open era). In all sincerity, at the time I wrote the post you quoted, I didn't believe Nadal would ever be in a position to do the grand slam, the career slam yes but the grand slam, I never thought I would see it in my lifetime (and I probably won't if Rafa doesn't pull it off this time). This is huge really, the biggest achievement in tennis surely and never done on the 3 surfaces.

Laver won the GS in 1969.That is, in the open era.And the cast of great players he had to beat IMO cannot be compared to the cast Nadal or Federer have to beat.

Some of Laver rivals:
Roche (1 GS and various Finals )
Newcombe ( 7 GS)
Ashe ( 3 GS)
Rosewall ( 8 GS)
Emerson ( 12 GS, but in the amateur ranks, still a great achievement)
Smith ( 2 GS)
Gimeno ( 1 GS, 1 Final)
Stolle ( 2 GS, 3 Finals)
Santana ( 4 GS)
Drisdale
Okker

Other than Djokovic,Hewitt or Roddick, ¿how many GS did win the guys Fed or Nadal have beaten?.Even more, ¿how many finals have reached other players than Fed and Nadal?

As I said, the level of play cannot be compared.

kiki
01-15-2011, 01:23 AM
The Chang analogy is completely stupid since Chang has only won that 1 slam and has never been a top player at any time. There are plenty of players who have won 1 isolated slam at any age but we're comparing top players here. Rafa has been a top player for the last 6 years. It's not like basing stats on 1 isolated event.

yes, Chang is no point of reference whatever contest you are in.may be for the shortest player to ever win a GS but nothing else.

kevoT
01-15-2011, 01:23 AM
KevoT: Matts Wilander proving he's more of a d.ou.che than ever before.

Sharpshooter
01-15-2011, 04:38 AM
That's a great point. While others have achieved 4 slams in a row and even the CYGS, no one has ever achieved 5 titles in 3 different majors.

No offense to Rafa I think he's done a great job of improving on the other surfaces and becoming a force at every tournament. However, people who say that Rafa will exceed Federer because the Spaniard is more well rounded are completely delusional. Look at how much different Nadal's career would be if you eliminated clay tournaments. Federer has a much more well rounded record regarding the ability to play on different surfaces.

Why don't you look at Fed's career if you eliminate Hard Courts?

mandy01
01-15-2011, 04:39 AM
Why don't you look at Fed's career if you eliminate Hard Courts?Doesn't matter.He still has fairly balanced and consistent results across all surfaces.6 Wimbledon titles(7 finals),5 in Halle(6(?) finals) and while he may not have won a whole lot on clay the only person to consistently beat him there was Nadal.

Sharpshooter
01-15-2011, 06:08 AM
Doesn't matter.He still has fairly balanced and consistent results across all surfaces.6 Wimbledon titles(7 finals),5 in Halle(6(?) finals) and while he may not have won a whole lot on clay the only person to consistently beat him there was Nadal.

yeah, he'll only have 9 majors missing, no biggie...

billnepill
01-15-2011, 06:53 AM
yeah, he'll only have 9 majors missing, no biggie...

not a valid reasoning, because then we will have to assume that the other 2 hard court slams would be replaced by grass and/or clay slams. Whereas clay would mean that Nadal would be the favorite, it doesn't necessarily mean Nadal would have won everytime on three claycourt slams.

If those hardcourt slams were played on grass, we know who would be the favorite most of the times.

If you apply same line of reasoning to Nadal, you will see his career so far has been far more dependent on his success on clay and if it wasn't for his claycourt accomplishments, he wouldn't be the same player as we know him today.

Talker
01-15-2011, 06:59 AM
Laver won the GS in 1969.That is, in the open era.And the cast of great players he had to beat IMO cannot be compared to the cast Nadal or Federer have to beat.

Some of Laver rivals:
Roche (1 GS and various Finals )
Newcombe ( 7 GS)
Ashe ( 3 GS)
Rosewall ( 8 GS)
Emerson ( 12 GS, but in the amateur ranks, still a great achievement)
Smith ( 2 GS)
Gimeno ( 1 GS, 1 Final)
Stolle ( 2 GS, 3 Finals)
Santana ( 4 GS)
Drisdale
Okker

Other than Djokovic,Hewitt or Roddick, ¿how many GS did win the guys Fed or Nadal have beaten?.Even more, ¿how many finals have reached other players than Fed and Nadal?

As I said, the level of play cannot be compared.

After Fed is finished racking up slams his rivals will add to their total.
Fed is being penalized for being much better than his generation because of this. That's why this argument can not work.

luvly
01-15-2011, 07:05 AM
not a valid reasoning, because then we will have to assume that the other 2 hard court slams would be replaced by grass and/or clay slams. Whereas clay would mean that Nadal would be the favorite, it doesn't necessarily mean Nadal would have won everytime on three claycourt slams.

If those hardcourt slams were played on grass, we know who would be the favorite most of the times.

If you apply same line of reasoning to Nadal, you will see his career so far has been far more dependent on his success on clay and if it wasn't for his claycourt accomplishment, he wouldn't be the same player as we know him today.

if you replaced hard courts as the dominate surface players would become stronger on whatever the dominate surface is

federer has the better resume across all surfaces...i mean even on grass nadal only has 3 titles (IIRC) he just lacks the balance the federer has in terms of titles and consistency off of clay

billnepill
01-15-2011, 07:24 AM
if you replaced hard courts as the dominate surface players would become stronger on whatever the dominate surface is

federer has the better resume across all surfaces...i mean even on grass nadal only has 3 titles (IIRC) he just lacks the balance the federer has in terms of titles and consistency off of clay

agree.

Nadal is evolving so much, winning now on all surfaces and playing the best tennis there is at the moment. If it wasn't for Federer, no one would want him to prove his superiority all the time, on different surfaces, proving he can do things Fed couldn't.

But it is what it is. If Nadal wants to be up there with Federer, he should live up to Fed's standards. There is still a long way to go.

Eternally_damned
01-15-2011, 08:46 AM
Unlikely he will get stuck at 9 but you can always hope :)
Actually, Fed hasn't retired either and he could go higher than 16. Those 2 are a work in progress but there seems to be more margin left for Rafa than for Fed...
I didn't pay attention to "decade", of his time would seem more logical.

I agree unlikely. But will he overtake Roger? Also unlikely.

TMF
01-15-2011, 09:08 AM
Why don't you look at Fed's career if you eliminate Hard Courts?

If you take away clay from rafa and outdoor hc from Fed, that leaves grass and indoor. Still, Rafa looks totally inferior. He would have 4 slams(include 2 finalists), 4 MS. Roger has 7 slams(include 4 finalists), 5 WTF, 6 MS. No question Roger is more rounded.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 09:15 AM
Why don't you look at Fed's career if you eliminate Hard Courts?


Let's take away everything but clay. Wow Nadal sure won that one. Oh you got us all!

Now back to reality? Why don't you take away clays from Nadal. 4 Slams left and a few masters. I think your trolling just backfired on you.

kiki
01-15-2011, 04:36 PM
After Fed is finished racking up slams his rivals will add to their total.
Fed is being penalized for being much better than his generation because of this. That's why this argument can not work.

Using your argument, then Laver is also penalised for being much better than his generation, otherwise he would not be able to win a true Gran Slam in the open era as he did.But, look at the records the players he beat .Their records certainly look quite to much better than the rest of the cast Federer is facing now.

Manus Domini
01-15-2011, 04:47 PM
Laver won the GS in 1969.That is, in the open era.And the cast of great players he had to beat IMO cannot be compared to the cast Nadal or Federer have to beat.

Some of Laver rivals:
Roche (1 GS and various Finals )
Newcombe ( 7 GS)
Ashe ( 3 GS)
Rosewall ( 8 GS)
Emerson ( 12 GS, but in the amateur ranks, still a great achievement)
Smith ( 2 GS)
Gimeno ( 1 GS, 1 Final)
Stolle ( 2 GS, 3 Finals)
Santana ( 4 GS)
Drisdale
Okker

Other than Djokovic,Hewitt or Roddick, ¿how many GS did win the guys Fed or Nadal have beaten?.Even more, ¿how many finals have reached other players than Fed and Nadal?

As I said, the level of play cannot be compared.

Don't forget early years there were also Hoad. Plus Pancho Gonzalez even through the early 70s. And he was still competing with Borg and Connors near the end of his career.

And if you are competing against Pancho, you are amazingly good. I'd say with modern tech he'd be unbeatable.

The-Champ
01-15-2011, 04:58 PM
Hej, Det är jag som är Mats. Federer kommer aldrig att bli GOAT.

kiki
01-15-2011, 05:01 PM
Don't forget early years there were also Hoad. Plus Pancho Gonzalez even through the early 70s. And he was still competing with Borg and Connors near the end of his career.

And if you are competing against Pancho, you are amazingly good. I'd say with modern tech he'd be unbeatable.

I was just talking about the 1969 real Gran Slam won by Laver.Of course, Hoad,Kramer and Gonzales were just as good some years before that, at the end of the 50´s and the beginning of the 60´s ( and Kramer even at the end of the 40´s).I also consider them at the very top level, but I do not think they played Rod during the 1969 Gran Slam tour, did they?

rejul
01-15-2011, 05:05 PM
Federer kommer aldrig att bli GOAT, but maybe gold single medal and 2-5 GS H2H reverse then what!:lol:

Talker
01-15-2011, 05:08 PM
Using your argument, then Laver is also penalised for being much better than his generation, otherwise he would not be able to win a true Gran Slam in the open era as he did.But, look at the records the players he beat .Their records certainly look quite to much better than the rest of the cast Federer is facing now.

For a bunch of players having very good records there has to be players having very bad records. This argument doesn't work does it?

John is taller than Jim(Lavers ERA)
Ted is taller than Joe(Fed's ERA)

Is John taller than Ted? You can't say.

kiki
01-15-2011, 05:26 PM
For a bunch of players having very good records there has to be players having very bad records. This argument doesn't work does it?

John is taller than Jim(Lavers ERA)
Ted is taller than Joe(Fed's ERA)

Is John taller than Ted? You can't say.

It is very obvious that Laver 1969 was gotten in front of a very tough crop of top players.Laver did achieve the greatest feat ever on tennis history, this is a non debatable fact.AND HE DID with guys that were or would be Gran Slam champions, and quite a bunch of those guys, not just 2.3.

Maths and figures say that and also say that Federer´s wins were against a number considerable inferior of Gran Slam winners.This is not subjective.What is subjective is that you prefer Federer and I prefer Laver.But figures are figures, please do not try to diminish what is, by itself, the greatest achievement in tennis history, at least during one year.

Talker
01-15-2011, 05:39 PM
It is very obvious that Laver 1969 was gotten in front of a very tough crop of top players.Laver did achieve the greatest feat ever on tennis history, this is a non debatable fact.AND HE DID with guys that were or would be Gran Slam champions, and quite a bunch of those guys, not just 2.3.

Maths and figures say that and also say that Federer´s wins were against a number considerable inferior of Gran Slam winners.This is not subjective.What is subjective is that you prefer Federer and I prefer Laver.But figures are figures, please do not try to diminish what is, by itself, the greatest achievement in tennis history, at least during one year.

I don't consider that ERA to be strong at all.
Lavers ERA didn't have enough money to support a deep field. Many players would drive to different tournaments and end up being tired. Many played too many tournaments to make ends meet financially, they were not properly rested.
All but the top players could afford proper training and rest up for major events. The others were busy trying to get by because tennis didn't have the money flowing like today, they were at a disavantage.
The sport wasn't global like today, more players and deeper fields.
If a player didn't have money back then he had to make it quickly or just give up the dream and get a job. Some players take time to develop but that ERA was missing the slow to develop players, this causes the field to be weaker.

Sorry, but I don't respect those records as much as records today for these reasons.
I do respect the players back then though and still think Laver was a great player as he could only do the best he could under the circumstances.

drakulie
01-15-2011, 05:50 PM
It is very obvious that Laver 1969 was gotten in front of a very tough crop of top players.Laver did achieve the greatest feat ever on tennis history, this is a non debatable fact.

On two surfaces.

Bud
01-15-2011, 05:58 PM
You seem to be forgetting more than half of Nadal's grandslams have come from the French. 6 on clay, 2 on grass, 2 on hard. While Fed has 9 on hard, 6 on grass, and 1 on clay. Federer has also dominated 3 different grandslams

Yeah, and more than half of Federer's have come on HC (9 of 16 or 56.3%)... there are also twice as many HC slams giving him twice a year to win on his favorite and best surface.

Rafa has won 5 of 9 slams (55.6%) on his best surface, clay

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 06:05 PM
Yeah, and more than half of Federer's have come on HC (9 of 16 or 56%)... there are also twice as many HC slams giving him twice a year to win on his favorite and best surface.

Rafa has won 5 of 9 slams (55%) on his best surface, clay

Not Federer's fault that he can defend non clay slams :). And reach multiple finals on a surface that is by far his least formidable.

Yes half of the grand slams are on hard court. This is not by Federer's or any other player's doing

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 06:06 PM
On two surfaces.

Shhhhhhhhhhh.... being rationale doesn't work with *****.

Manus Domini
01-15-2011, 07:03 PM
I was just talking about the 1969 real Gran Slam won by Laver.Of course, Hoad,Kramer and Gonzales were just as good some years before that, at the end of the 50´s and the beginning of the 60´s ( and Kramer even at the end of the 40´s).I also consider them at the very top level, but I do not think they played Rod during the 1969 Gran Slam tour, did they?

I dunno. I thought you were talking of career lol

Manus Domini
01-15-2011, 07:10 PM
I don't consider that ERA to be strong at all.
Lavers ERA didn't have enough money to support a deep field. Many players would drive to different tournaments and end up being tired. Many played too many tournaments to make ends meet financially, they were not properly rested.
All but the top players could afford proper training and rest up for major events. The others were busy trying to get by because tennis didn't have the money flowing like today, they were at a disavantage.
The sport wasn't global like today, more players and deeper fields.
If a player didn't have money back then he had to make it quickly or just give up the dream and get a job. Some players take time to develop but that ERA was missing the slow to develop players, this causes the field to be weaker.

Sorry, but I don't respect those records as much as records today for these reasons.
I do respect the players back then though and still think Laver was a great player as he could only do the best he could under the circumstances.

These guys were hitting as powerfully as now in serves. Tell me 130+ mph serve with a wooden racket with one foot on the ground and good placement doesn't take more talent than one nowadays...

Talker
01-15-2011, 08:36 PM
These guys were hitting as powerfully as now in serves. Tell me 130+ mph serve with a wooden racket with one foot on the ground and good placement doesn't take more talent than one nowadays...

I know some will have other opinions, that's OK.

And I can't say that I'm right either, it's just how I see it.

I don't disregard all that the past greats have done either, I just think the bar is higher now. Seems the reasons I gave should be valid but it's open to endless debate.

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 09:05 PM
Shhhhhhhhhhh.... being rationale doesn't work with *****.
Dont you mean on 'Lards'?

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 09:57 PM
Not Federer's fault that he can defend non clay slams :). And reach multiple finals on a surface that is by far his least formidable.

Yes half of the grand slams are on hard court. This is not by Federer's or any other player's doing
Nadal has a better winning % in slams despite half the slams being on hard court.

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 10:18 PM
Nadal has a better winning % in slams despite half the slams being on hard court.
Federer grand slam W-L record---- 208-30=87.39%
Nadal grand slam W-L record------120-17=87.59%

0.20% differential.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:21 PM
Nadal has a better winning % in slams despite half the slams being on hard court.

16 > 9

Rogerlovebesthonestsupersexyhumanephilanthropic class.

Let's see what it looks like when Nadal starts to get bumped earlier as he gets older.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:22 PM
Dont you mean on 'Lards'?

I actually meant to write *****, but I am just so use to associating **** and posters on this board.

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:23 PM
Federer grand slam W-L record---- 208-30=87.39%
Nadal grand slam W-L record------120-17=87.59%

0.20% differential.
Still, Nadal's is higher and yet half of the slams are on hard :oops:

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:26 PM
Nadal has a better winning % in slams despite half the slams being on hard court.

Ha ha ha............ Roger has more finals appearances in Slams and Master. 10 billion VAMOSES.

Honestly. You pick the tiniest thing possible, and trump it up as though it is the most conclusive statistic you could find.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:26 PM
Still, Nadal's is higher and yet half of the slams are on hard :oops:

Where is your "OH BUT NADAL IS SO MUCH YOUNGER ARGUMENT"....?

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:27 PM
16 > 9

Rogerlovebesthonestsupersexyhumanephilanthropic class.

Let's see what it looks like when Nadal starts to get bumped earlier as he gets older.
Yeah let's. In the meantime we saw what Fed was able to achieve by 25.

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Still, Nadal's is higher and yet half of the slams are on hard :oops:
I dont understand what the implication of that emoticon was, but you can make many arguments in this case. In particular, it is impressive that Federer's W-L record is even that high now considering that at the end of 2003, his W-L record at the slams was 39-17, which is 69.64%. His grand slam performances since that time have been outrageously good. It is amazing how much it has improved.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:30 PM
Yeah let's. In the meantime we saw what Fed was able to achieve by 25.

Wait............ You are comparing a 24 year old to a 29 year old? That makes a lot of sense.

We saw that Becker was able to achieve more than Nadal at 17. Man if Becker didn't slow down..... HE WOULD HAVE HAD 20 slams with 12 in a row. Using your logic is great.

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Ha ha ha............ Roger has more finals appearances in Slams and Master. 10 billion VAMOSES.

Honestly. You pick the tiniest thing possible, and trump it up as though it is the most conclusive statistic you could find.
Winning % is not a detail.
Masters: Nadal: 83.0
Fed: 76.7

Not even close.

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 10:33 PM
Amazing stuff. Since 2004 when Fed first got the number 1 ranking. Federer's W-L at slams- 169- 13= 92.85%.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:34 PM
I dont understand what the implication of that emoticon was, but you can make many arguments in this case. In particular, it is impressive that Federer's W-L record is even that high now considering that at the end of 2003, his W-L record at the slams was 39-17, which is 69.64%. His grand slam performances since that time have been outrageously good. It is amazing how much it has improved.

No matter how good a point you can make, and this is a VERY good point....... no **** will listen.

It really is amazing that in 7 years he has lost only 13 times in a slam. Amazing.

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:35 PM
Wait............ You are comparing a 24 year old to a 29 year old? That makes a lot of sense.

We saw that Becker was able to achieve more than Nadal at 17. Man if Becker didn't slow down..... HE WOULD HAVE HAD 20 slams with 12 in a row. Using your logic is great.
My logic is not that Nadal will have more slams than Fed at 29 (nobody can know that). My logic is that Nadal in his midtwenties is better than Fed was at same age.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:36 PM
Winning % is not a detail.
Masters: Nadal: 83.0
Fed: 76.7

Not even close.

No here is the REAL details. Federer has 16 slams and Nadal has 9. The only time it is better to have 9 versus 16 is when you are counting the number of parking tickets you have. Also....... if you look at Nadal's Masters Shields/Appearances vs Federer's, it just strengthens the argument that Nadal came up lame by not being able to face Federer on his best surface.

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:38 PM
Amazing stuff. Since 2004 when Fed first got the number 1 ranking. Federer's W-L at slams- 169- 13= 92.85%.
Sure but the winning % is careerwise. Actually 1 of the reasons why Fed's peak years were so high is because he didn't do too much for years before that, so minimal wearout. If he had been a very successful young player, he would probably have achieved less in his mid-twenties but all in all his peak years haven't compensated for his mediocre years since Nadal still has the better winning % overall (Nadal's stats were never as high but they were never as low either, so overall they're better.)

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:43 PM
No here is the REAL details. Federer has 16 slams and Nadal has 9. The only time it is better to have 9 versus 16 is when you are counting the number of parking tickets you have. Also....... if you look at Nadal's Masters Shields/Appearances vs Federer's, it just strengthens the argument that Nadal came up lame by not being able to face Federer on his best surface.
Fed didn't have 16 at 24. He had less than 9. We'll see how many Nadal will have in 5 years. But he has more slam titles and a much better winning % than Fed had at same age (not even mentioning the golden career slam, 3 consecutive slams in 1 season, 2 RG-W back to back (1 including Queens), several slams on every surface, holding 3 slams on 3 surfaces at once twice, when will Fed will have done all that? Next year?)

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:43 PM
My logic is not that Nadal will have more slams than Fed at 29 (nobody can know that). My logic is that Nadal in his midtwenties is better than Fed was at same age.

My logic is if Becker didn't slow down then he would have been the best ever. While you might be comparing them at the same age, you are clearly projecting that Nadal is better at this age and will continue to become better than Federer. I don't see Nadal putting on any dominating performances outside of RG. Do you see him putting on something like Federer did at the 07 AO? Do you see him doing what he did to Hewitt at the 04 USO. Nadal should have already done better than Federer at the USO right? If you are so eager to compare and contrast them, why don't you analyze more than just who is declared as the champion. Do you honestly believe Nadal would beat a prime Fed on the courts of SW-19, Flushing Meadows, or down in Melbourne?

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:45 PM
Fed didn't have 16 at 24. He had less than 9. We'll see how many Nadal will have in 5 years. But he has more slam titles and a much better winning % than Fed had at same age (not even mentioning the golden career slam, 3 consecutive slams in 1 season, 2 RG-W back to back (1 including Queens), several slams on eevery surface, holding 3 slams on 3 surfaces twice, when will Fed will have doen all that? Next year?)

6 Wimb(5 in a row)
5 USO in a row
4 AO(Tied for most in open era)
1 FO(And 3 runner up plates)



I am finished with you.

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:49 PM
My logic is if Becker didn't slow down then he would have been the best ever. While you might be comparing them at the same age, you are clearly projecting that Nadal is better at this age and will continue to become better than Federer. I don't see Nadal putting on any dominating performances outside of RG. Do you see him putting on something like Federer did at the 07 AO? Do you see him doing what he did to Hewitt at the 04 USO. Nadal should have already done better than Federer at the USO right? If you are so eager to compare and contrast them, why don't you analyze more than just who is declared as the champion. Do you honestly believe Nadal would beat a prime Fed on the courts of SW-19, Flushing Meadows, or down in Melbourne?
He's already done it in Melbourne and in Wimbledon. Of course he could do it at USO but it doesn't matter.
Nadal is 7 slams behind Fed. He doesn't need to dominate the tour frantically for the next 5 years to catch up on Fed. He doesn't even need to win 2 slams a year to catch up on Fed and it's actually Fed, despite the age difference, who needs to catch up on Rafa in masters.

veroniquem
01-15-2011, 10:51 PM
6 Wimb(5 in a row)
5 USO in a row
4 AO(Tied for most in open era)
1 FO(And 3 runner up plates)



I am finished with you.
Fine but Nadal is not finished and he already has several slams on hard, clay and grass which Fed hasn't done. He has plenty of time to do the rest.

kevoT
01-15-2011, 10:59 PM
Hej, Det är jag som är Mats. Federer kommer aldrig att bli GOAT.

Svartsjuk?
Ljug inte, du vet att Federer är GOAT :twisted:

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 11:00 PM
Sure but the winning % is careerwise. Actually 1 of the reasons why Fed's peak years were so high is because he didn't do too much for years before that, so minimal wearout. If he had been a very successfoul young player, he would probably have achieved less in his mid-twenties but all in all his peak years haven't compensated for his mediocre years since Nadal still has the better winning % overall (Nadal's stats were never as high but they were never as low either, so overall they're better.)

Yes, that is true. However, such statistics need to be put into perspective. It would be highly ignorant to suppose that the career slam win-l record indicates that the Federer of 2001 was winning 87% of his grand slam matches. Player's change throughout their careers.

As for your second point, I am not sure if that is the case. Federer played full schedules even when he wasn't the force of nature he is now. Many players can play at a high level for many years. Sampras won his first major when he was 19 and he continued to achieve good results until he was around 30.

cc0509
01-15-2011, 11:28 PM
No here is the REAL details. Federer has 16 slams and Nadal has 9. The only time it is better to have 9 versus 16 is when you are counting the number of parking tickets you have

THAT is all that really counts. At the end of the day, while all of the other statistics and wins of other tournaments are important, it is the slam count that people really look at when they are looking at the history of a player.

16>9. End of story.

kevoT
01-15-2011, 11:31 PM
Sure but the winning % is careerwise. Actually 1 of the reasons why Fed's peak years were so high is because he didn't do too much for years before that, so minimal wearout. If he had been a very successful young player, he would probably have achieved less in his mid-twenties but all in all his peak years haven't compensated for his mediocre years since Nadal still has the better winning % overall (Nadal's stats were never as high but they were never as low either, so overall they're better.)

Or maybe it's just the way he anticipates where the ball will go, well? This sort of play reduces the wear and tear on the body, which is why I try to anticipate as well as Fed; being as light on the feet as him too.

cc0509
01-15-2011, 11:32 PM
He's already done it in Melbourne and in Wimbledon. Of course he could do it at USO but it doesn't matter.
Nadal is 7 slams behind Fed. He doesn't need to dominate the tour frantically for the next 5 years to catch up on Fed. He doesn't even need to win 2 slams a year to catch up on Fed and it's actually Fed, despite the age difference, who needs to catch up on Rafa in masters.

You are assuming Nadal can easily catch up to Fed's slam count. I don't think it is as easy as you are making it sound, especially since Nadal is known to be injury prone. Maybe he can catch up to Fed's slam count, but until then Fed is for all intensive purposes the better player.

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 11:36 PM
You are assuming Nadal can easily catch up to Fed's slam count. I don't think it is as easy as you are making it sound, especially since Nadal is known to be injury prone. Maybe he can catch up to Fed's slam count, but until then Fed is for all intensive purposes the better player.

Sorry, but I loled big time. :lol:

Sharpshooter
01-15-2011, 11:37 PM
Let's take away everything but clay. Wow Nadal sure won that one. Oh you got us all!

Now back to reality? Why don't you take away clays from Nadal. 4 Slams left and a few masters. I think your trolling just backfired on you.

If you decide to just magically take clay away from Rafa's career, then you can take HC away from Fed.

If 2 slams were clay and one grass and only one HC, I think we'd all have to agree that Rafa's major count would be higher than Fed's, but that's not the case now is it? Well, neither is a non existent clay surface, so stop talking crap about taking a whole surface away from somebody. You can't just magically take a surface away to pump up your boyfriend's tyres.

cc0509
01-15-2011, 11:38 PM
Sorry, but I loled big time. :lol:

Sorry what exactly are you laughing at?

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 11:39 PM
no point....


on another note, why did anyone bump this thread? It is almost 1.5 years old.

MichaelNadal
01-15-2011, 11:51 PM
Sorry what exactly are you laughing at?

It's supposed to be "for all intents and purposes"

Pioneer
01-15-2011, 11:57 PM
You are the true classic ******.


Roger is the true classic greatest. Roger Love.

Sid_Vicious
01-15-2011, 11:58 PM
You are the true classic ******.
He provides great entertainment values. Heck, I have went on Nadal highlight videos before and have seen his comments being in the highest rated box. He provides the Nadal fans with lulz as well.

cc0509
01-15-2011, 11:59 PM
It's supposed to be "for all intents and purposes"

Yes, you are right! It is late and I am tired and I typed quickly. Usually don't make those type of grammatical errors and hate reading grammatical or spelling errors of other people. Oh well. Even "I" can make mistakes. Who would have thought? :)

Sid_Vicious
01-16-2011, 12:01 AM
Yes, you are right! It is late and I am tired and I typed quickly. Usually don't make those type of grammatical errors and hate reading grammatical or spelling errors of other people. Oh well. Even "I" can make mistakes. Who would have thought? :)
You are a good sport, cc0509. I shouldn't have even brought it up. You are great writer. Far better than I am for sure.

cc0509
01-16-2011, 12:01 AM
no point....


on another note, why did anyone bump this thread? It is almost 1.5 years old.

Oh relax! What do YOU do for a living? Are you a professional person? I am and will go head to head with you any day.

cc0509
01-16-2011, 12:06 AM
You are a good sport, cc0509. I shouldn't have even brought it up. You are great writer. Far better than I am for sure.

You can bring up anything. I am not above making mistakes. I "know" it is "for all intents and purposes" and have written it a million times. I am on stupid pills tonight. What can I tell you?

Wilander Fan
01-16-2011, 12:06 AM
These guys were hitting as powerfully as now in serves. Tell me 130+ mph serve with a wooden racket with one foot on the ground and good placement doesn't take more talent than one nowadays...

Yes..but its was low percentage. Trying to blast 130 mph serves back then was a bit clownish. Getting 50% FSP was considered good back then at 100-110 mph. Its not abnormal to see guys serving close to 70% now at over 120mph average.

Sid_Vicious
01-16-2011, 12:07 AM
You can bring up anything. I am not above making mistakes. I "know" it is "for all intents and purposes" and have written it a million times. I am on stupid pills tonight. What can I tell you?
Will Simon beat Federer in round 2?

Wilander Fan
01-16-2011, 12:17 AM
Lets be clear, the CGS is not even close to the achievement it was 20-40 years ago. The surfaces were truly different. The grass at Wimby was actually fast and bounced low and HCs were known to be faster as well. At the same time, RG was slow as molasses. Ive heard even the balls were smaller and less fluffy.

Now, you can generally play the same on all surfaces. I dont think this has necessarily helped Fed since he only has one RG but its certainly helped Nadal who really is a one dimensional player.

MichaelNadal
01-16-2011, 12:25 AM
Lets be clear, the CGS is not even close to the achievement it was 20-40 years ago. The surfaces were truly different. The grass at Wimby was actually fast and bounced low and HCs were known to be faster as well. At the same time, RG was slow as molasses. Ive heard even the balls were smaller and less fluffy.

Now, you can generally play the same on all surfaces. I dont think this has necessarily helped Fed since he only has one RG but its certainly helped Nadal who really is a one dimensional player.

http://michaeljacksonanimatedgifs.com/images/others/mjgifs32.gif

kiki
01-16-2011, 02:28 AM
I don't consider that ERA to be strong at all.
Lavers ERA didn't have enough money to support a deep field. Many players would drive to different tournaments and end up being tired. Many played too many tournaments to make ends meet financially, they were not properly rested.
All but the top players could afford proper training and rest up for major events. The others were busy trying to get by because tennis didn't have the money flowing like today, they were at a disavantage.
The sport wasn't global like today, more players and deeper fields.
If a player didn't have money back then he had to make it quickly or just give up the dream and get a job. Some players take time to develop but that ERA was missing the slow to develop players, this causes the field to be weaker.

Sorry, but I don't respect those records as much as records today for these reasons.
I do respect the players back then though and still think Laver was a great player as he could only do the best he could under the circumstances.

It is a completely biassed info.If that is your opinion, it is Ok.My opinion is today´s era is the weakest at the top.It is the opposite than Laver´s era.Today you have a big body and a small head, then, you had a big head but a smaller body.This is the most I could agree with you.

kiki
01-16-2011, 02:30 AM
On two surfaces.

Nobody else has repeated.And he did it twice.And with real champions in front of him ( Should I say real men?).

Federer´s time is running away if he wants to be put in the same line as Laver for the greatest achievement ever made in that sport.

kiki
01-16-2011, 02:36 AM
I dunno. I thought you were talking of career lol

wait a minute¡¡.I looked upon 1969 Laver and he still played Gonzales, the 41 years old Gonzales who had beaten over 5 sets and 7 hours a much younger Charly Pasarell at W.In fact, Laver beat Pancho at the SA Open, which was the biggest event outside the 4 Gran Slams.I do not know if he played Hoad in ´69.I think Hoad was already done by that time ( very unfortunately).

Hoad was the opposite to Pancho; lasted very few years at the top because of injuries.He was called a cycloon since he was devastating when he appeared but faded away very soon because of back injuries that were literally killing his health.

drakulie
01-16-2011, 07:05 AM
Nobody else has repeated.And he did it twice.And with real champions in front of him .

Get real. When laver won his first calendar slam in 1962 he did it against an amateur field. Pros weren't allowed to play.

Manus Domini
01-16-2011, 07:12 AM
Get real. When laver won his first calendar slam in 1962 he did it against an amateur field. Pros weren't allowed to play.

his second was against some of the best players to ever live...

Yes..but its was low percentage. Trying to blast 130 mph serves back then was a bit clownish. Getting 50% FSP was considered good back then at 100-110 mph. Its not abnormal to see guys serving close to 70% now at over 120mph average.

True, but nowadays they can jump into the ball, can't they?

drakulie
01-16-2011, 07:18 AM
his second was against some of the best players to ever live

I'm not disputing that. But fact remains it was on two surfaces.

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 07:25 AM
Really, I have no idea why Rosewall isn't in the conversation for the GOAT. He won more Slams than Laver (Slams + Slam equivalents that is) 22 compared to 19, had a great record against Laver in Slam (and Pro Slam) finals, something like 6-4, had a reasonably good h2h against Rod (won something like 45 % of total matches) and literally dominated him on clay comparably to Nadal/Federer. Moreover, he won 3 out of 3 Pro Slams in 1963 and was undefeated in Pro Slams in 1960-mid 1964. He should be in the discussion AT LEAST yet Laver gets all the applause.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:41 AM
I give Mats a lot of credit for giving his opinion. This is the exact reason why most pro's will just say how the game and players are better today,,no matter what they truly believe. there is no goat. era's have changed too much since Tilden, Gonzo, Laver, Borg, Mac, Sampras and Fed's. String technology, fitness and court conditions are far different than the 80's. By the way, mat's opinion is MUCH MORE CREDIBLE THAN ANYONE ON THIS FORUM. I love how people use that excuse when a pro states Fed or Nadal is best ever.."we'll he should know better than us because he was a pro, his opinion matters more"...but when that "opinion" is not with the norm, he gets lambasted for being a idiot. sorry, but mats opinion is as valid as anyone else who played pro tennis. he is an all timer, unlike us who can barely hold a 10 stroke rally.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:45 AM
I'm not disputing that. But fact remains it was on two surfaces.

that is exactly why I give Agass's career slam on 4 surfaces more credit. Think of Borg if the 4 slams were on 2 surfaces and he played the AO..he would have 20 majors. not trying to disrespect Laver (because so many of the pro's like Mac and Pete say he was the best player until Fed) but winning on 2 surfaces make me wonder what he would have done if he played the AO and USO on hardcourt.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:50 AM
Nobody else has repeated.And he did it twice.And with real champions in front of him ( Should I say real men?).

Federer´s time is running away if he wants to be put in the same line as Laver for the greatest achievement ever made in that sport.

while I agree the 2 grand slams is a great achievement and may never be duplicated, it was done on 2 surfaces. but to say that is the reason why Fed would still not be the greatest achieved player is nonsense.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:51 AM
http://michaeljacksonanimatedgifs.com/images/others/mjgifs32.gif

Nadal is a power baseline player. just wondering what other "dimension" he has?

jack_kramer
01-16-2011, 07:57 AM
GOAT cannot be a mentally weak player in a weak era.

Mats knows what he's talking about.

ksbh
01-16-2011, 08:03 AM
Poor 'giant nose' ... 2-5 in grand slam finals on all surfaces against the guy with no other dimension! Just makes your favorite player's case even weaker, Herr Azzuri, so you might want to think twice before making such remarks about the Spaniard!

And need I mention ... the guy plays clay court style baseline tennis on grass! Having seen the greatest grass court player that ever stepped on Wimbledon's grass in the 90s, you should know that is a real shame! GOAT? I've laughed hard enough already!

:)

Nadal is a power baseline player. just wondering what other "dimension" he has?

samurai13
01-16-2011, 08:04 AM
GOAT cannot be a mentally weak player in a weak era.

Mats knows what he's talking about.

You know what ur talking about brother

kiki
01-16-2011, 08:30 AM
I'm not disputing that. But fact remains it was on two surfaces.

Whatever reason federtards give is always trying to diminish that great feat.If we all talked the same language, we could all accept that Federer has the record of GS won ( 16) and Laver is the only man to have won a Gran Salm in the open era (1969).

Yes, Laver did it in 2 surfaces while Federer has won his GS split into 3 surfaces.But Laver was banned any chance to win the GS when he was at his peak, between 1963 and 1968.

Facts are facts.The rest is subjective, and anyone can have as valid reasons as any other.However, experience, criteria and the fact to see tennis pro throughout many of its stages should also count.IMHO,course.

kiki
01-16-2011, 08:34 AM
Really, I have no idea why Rosewall isn't in the conversation for the GOAT. He won more Slams than Laver (Slams + Slam equivalents that is) 22 compared to 19, had a great record against Laver in Slam (and Pro Slam) finals, something like 6-4, had a reasonably good h2h against Rod (won something like 45 % of total matches) and literally dominated him on clay comparably to Nadal/Federer. Moreover, he won 3 out of 3 Pro Slams in 1963 and was undefeated in Pro Slams in 1960-mid 1964. He should be in the discussion AT LEAST yet Laver gets all the applause.

He certainly deserves to be named in the same sentence when we discuss the names of the greatest.But he did not dominate Laver as much on clay as Nadal dominates Federer.If I recall properly, both share a win over the other in FO finals (Rosewall won in 3 sets in 68 and Laver won in 3 sets next year).But of course, such as stated by Laver himself, Ken was the player that gave him most trouble to beat, and only a top form Laver beat Rosewall.it´s not me who says it, but Laver himself.

kiki
01-16-2011, 08:36 AM
I give Mats a lot of credit for giving his opinion. This is the exact reason why most pro's will just say how the game and players are better today,,no matter what they truly believe. there is no goat. era's have changed too much since Tilden, Gonzo, Laver, Borg, Mac, Sampras and Fed's. String technology, fitness and court conditions are far different than the 80's. By the way, mat's opinion is MUCH MORE CREDIBLE THAN ANYONE ON THIS FORUM. I love how people use that excuse when a pro states Fed or Nadal is best ever.."we'll he should know better than us because he was a pro, his opinion matters more"...but when that "opinion" is not with the norm, he gets lambasted for being a idiot. sorry, but mats opinion is as valid as anyone else who played pro tennis. he is an all timer, unlike us who can barely hold a 10 stroke rally.

Well said.At least his opinion is as good as Mac´s opinion when he praises Federer as GOAT.

kiki
01-16-2011, 08:38 AM
that is exactly why I give Agass's career slam on 4 surfaces more credit. Think of Borg if the 4 slams were on 2 surfaces and he played the AO..he would have 20 majors. not trying to disrespect Laver (because so many of the pro's like Mac and Pete say he was the best player until Fed) but winning on 2 surfaces make me wonder what he would have done if he played the AO and USO on hardcourt.

Easy, he´d have won that just as he had won on clay, grass and many indoors (Pro Championships).In fact, in 69 he won the SA Open, considered unofficially the 5 th Gran Slam and probably the oldest hard court tournament in the world.And the field in Johannesbourg that year included all the players that challenged him at the other venues.Including Gonzales,Emerson and Rosewall.

kiki
01-16-2011, 08:41 AM
GOAT cannot be a mentally weak player in a weak era.

Mats knows what he's talking about.

Fed is tougher than it may seem.It is just that he does not need to be a gladiator, like former greats, because - and here I fully agree with you- the rest of the tour is full of menthal weaks ( and he gets beaten by the only one who is not, Nadal).

¿What would happen to Roger if he had to play menthally strong guys? If one has to go by his record vs Nadal,....

kiki
01-16-2011, 08:48 AM
Lets be clear, the CGS is not even close to the achievement it was 20-40 years ago. The surfaces were truly different. The grass at Wimby was actually fast and bounced low and HCs were known to be faster as well. At the same time, RG was slow as molasses. Ive heard even the balls were smaller and less fluffy.

Now, you can generally play the same on all surfaces. I dont think this has necessarily helped Fed since he only has one RG but its certainly helped Nadal who really is a one dimensional player.

It´s really like that, weather liked or not.