PDA

View Full Version : Another reason Fed is GOAT


ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:07 AM
21 slam finals. Forget the 5 losses to Nadal. What kind of sheer maniacal relentlessness does it take to make that many slam finals in 6+ years? It's insane.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 10:10 AM
I think this will be even more respected and appreciated once he's gone and all the greats of then will be making 2 Slam finals a year and having a great season you know.. There'll always be people who just want to hate and say it was just due to a weak era. I'll reminisce moments like today, enjoy the fact that it has become less predictable, but think back of how amazing it was that a guy could be so ridiculously consistent at Slams.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:13 AM
I think this will be even more respected and appreciated once he's gone and all the greats of then will be making 2 Slam finals a year and having a great season you know.. There'll always be people who just want to hate and say it was just due to a weak era. I'll reminisce moments like today, enjoy the fact that it has become less predictable, but think back of how amazing it was that a guy could be so ridiculously consistent at Slams.

Yes, one day when Fed's dominance is over we will look back wistfully.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 10:21 AM
You never know.. There will be more dominant players down the road.. Maybe even moreso than Fed because they will dominate their respective rivals as well unlike Fed could do to Nadal.

Records were meant to be broke and Im sure EVERY RECORD will eventually be broke.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:34 AM
GameSampras - good luck to the chap who thinks he can dominate the slams AND dominate every single last rival. Good luck indeed.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 10:36 AM
You never know.. There will be more dominant players down the road.. Maybe even moreso than Fed because they will dominate their respective rivals as well unlike Fed could do to Nadal.

Records were meant to be broke and Im sure EVERY RECORD will eventually be broke.

That's one of the silliest phrases I've heard. "Records were meant to be broken". No, they weren't. They just are. Some want them to be broken, others don't.

It seems statistically likely that eventually some great player in the future will eclipse Federer's records. It doesn't seem likely that will happen soon, given how rare a talent he is.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 10:38 AM
That's one of the silliest phrases I've heard. "Records were meant to be broken". No, they weren't. They just are. Some want them to be broken, others don't.

It seems statistically likely that eventually some great player in the future will eclipse Federer's records. It doesn't seem likely that will happen soon, given how rare a talent he is.



You have never heard that term? WOW..


Who would have thought someone would come along in only 7 years and overtake the 14 slams? You dont think 14-15 cant be eclipsed?


Listen.. All it takes is for a player to dominate his/her era. Every era usually, there is usually that breakout star that truly dominates. From laver to borg to Pete and now Roger. There will be more. You can bet on that. If not 5-10 years down the road, than 15-20 years.. But rest assured IT WILL HAPPEN. Thats just the nature of sports

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 10:41 AM
Who would have thought someone would come along in only 7 years and overtake the 14 slams? You dont think 14-15 cant be eclipsed?

Point taken, but you don't think he plans on stopping at 15 do you? I say 20+.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 10:45 AM
Point taken, but you don't think he plans on stopping at 15 do you? I say 20+.

I dunno if Fed will get 20.. It depends on alot of factors. But I see 17-18 as a reasonable possibility. But we'll see.. Still.. someone can come along and dominated the field AND their respective rival. Its not as difficult as people make it out to be..

If Laver got play the slams in his prime, he would have had a hell of a lot more than 11. Borg had 11 but retired when he was 25. Pete had 14, Roger 15 and counting.. There will be more who get that slam count up there. Like I mentioned its the nature of sports. Thats how legacies are created.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:06 AM
I dunno if Fed will get 20.. It depends on alot of factors. But I see 17-18 as a reasonable possibility. But we'll see.. Still.. someone can come along and dominated the field AND their respective rival. Its not as difficult as people make it out to be..

If Laver got play the slams in his prime, he would have had a hell of a lot more than 11. Borg had 11 but retired when he was 25. Pete had 14, Roger 15 and counting.. There will be more who get that slam count up there. Like I mentioned its the nature of sports. Thats how legacies are created.

Because of course dominating your era so comprehensively like Roge has done is "not as difficult as people make it out to be...". Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:10 AM
Because of course dominating your era so comprehensively like Roge has done is "not as difficult as people make it out to be...". Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

THe type of domination Roger has shown over the years is tough to duplicate no doubt..

But thats not to say it CANT BE DONE. Like I said all it takes is for a player to be head and shoulders above the rest of the guys in his era. And Roger is certainly this against everyone else besides Nadal.

And 14-15 can and will be surpassed again in the future and maybe even by quite a bit. Roger may grab more slams, maybe a few more I assume before he retires. But history has shown there will always be other dominant players in the future.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:11 AM
THe type of domination Roger has shown over the years is tough to duplicate no doubt..

But thats not to say it CANT BE DONE. Like I said all it takes is for a player to be head and shoulders above the rest of the guys in his era. And Roger is certainly this against everyone else besides Nadal.

And 14-15 can and will be surpassed again in the future and maybe even by quite a bit. Roger may grab more slams, maybe a few more I assume before he retires. But history has shown there will always be other dominant players in the future.

History has shown nothing of the like of Roger Federer. He is redefining dominance to a level that no one will be able to match. It's like saying someone will come along and surpass Tiger Woods. Nonsense.

aphex
09-14-2009, 11:13 AM
THe type of domination Roger has shown over the years is tough to duplicate no doubt..

But thats not to say it CANT BE DONE. Like I said all it takes is for a player to be head and shoulders above the rest of the guys in his era. And Roger is certainly this against everyone else besides Nadal.

And 14-15 can and will be surpassed again in the future and maybe even by quite a bit. Roger may grab more slams, maybe a few more I assume before he retires. But history has shown there will always be other dominant players in the future.

gamesampras_you are a broken record...noone cares what you say. stfu.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:14 AM
History has shown nothing of the like of Roger Federer. He is redefining dominance to a level that no one will be able to match. It's like saying someone will come along and surpass Tiger Woods. Nonsense.



Why is not nonsense? One person sets the bar so high, its up to guys down the road in other eras to reach that or surpass it? You make it sound like 14-15 slams cannot be eclipsed or no one can be that dominant.. THAT IS NONSENSE.


And Roger has not shown, "complete" dominance, since there is a Nadal right there who stopped a bit of that. So lets say someone comes along who shows complete dominate dominance over the field including his main rival as well.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:16 AM
Why is not nonsense? One person sets the bar so high, its up to guys down the road in other eras to reach that or surpass it? You make it sound like 14-15 slams cannot be eclipsed or no one can be that dominant.. THAT IS NONSENSE.


And Roger has not shown, "complete" dominance, since there is a Nadal right there who stopped a bit of that. So lets say someone comes along who shows complete dominate dominance over the field including his main rival as well.

Can't happen in tennis. Always someone has a weakness in their game that some player will exploit. There has never been a tennis player in history without a single weakness.

icedevil0289
09-14-2009, 11:16 AM
Why is not nonsense? One person sets the bar so high, its up to guys down the road in other eras to reach that or surpass it? You make it sound like 14-15 slams cannot be eclipsed or no one can be that dominant.. THAT IS NONSENSE.


And Roger has not shown, "complete" dominance, since there is a Nadal right there who stopped a bit of that. So lets say someone comes along who shows complete dominate dominance over the field including his main rival as well.

I just want to say welcome back. :)

aphex
09-14-2009, 11:19 AM
I just want to say welcome back. :)

i just want to say welcome back.
and gtfbanned again.

yellowoctopus
09-14-2009, 11:30 AM
That's one of the silliest phrases I've heard. "Records were meant to be broken". No, they weren't. They just are. Some want them to be broken, others don't.

It seems statistically likely that eventually some great player in the future will eclipse Federer's records. It doesn't seem likely that will happen soon, given how rare a talent he is.

I agree that the phrase seems silly when one really thinks about it; this is probably why it is mostly used for inspirational purposes. Nevertheless it is still a valid statement.

I would also like to point out that if all goes well with Mr. Federer, he will most likely finishes his career with his name on numerous records. The accumulated number of records will probably make him the record that, contrary to the popular inspirational phrase mentioned earlier, will not be broken.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 11:35 AM
Listen.. All it takes is for a player to dominate his/her era. Every era usually, there is usually that breakout star that truly dominates. From laver to borg to Pete and now Roger. There will be more. You can bet on that. If not 5-10 years down the road, than 15-20 years.. But rest assured IT WILL HAPPEN. Thats just the nature of sports

I actually agree with you here GameSampras. Good analysis. I really think someday his 15 grandslam record will be broken. Someday someone will dominate more, or will last longer. It's not unbreakable. I do believe however that the 22 consecutive Slam Semis, or the 17 out of 18 finals, is pretty special and is less likely to be broken anytime soon. Especially since one little injury, or one bad day can ruin it when you are at 17 semis in a row.

icedevil0289
09-14-2009, 11:39 AM
i just want to say welcome back.
and gtfbanned again.

why? I agree that gamesampras sounds like a broken record, but he is entitled to his opinion and as long as he isn't offending anyone are calling anyone else names, I see no reason to ban him.

in fact if anyone is being rude and annoying here, I think it's you.









did I just stand up for gamesampras:shock: