PDA

View Full Version : Federer's fraudulent GOAT claim


MuseFan
12-01-2009, 05:20 PM
Clown wins(defined) - against old broken down old men, slam newcomers, injured playes

2003 Wimbledon - clown win vs old Scud
2004 AO - good win against peak Safin
2004 Wimbledon - good win against peak Roddick
2004 US Open - good win against peak Hewitt
2005 Wimbledon - good win against peak Roddick
2005 US Open - clown win against broken down old man Agassi
2006 AO - clown win against newcomer Baggy
2006 Wimbledon - clown win against grass newcomer Nadal
2006 US Open - good win against peak Roddick
2007 AO - good win against peak Gonzo
2007 WImbledon - clown win against injured Nadal
2007 US Open - clown win against newcomer Djokovic
2008 US Open - clown win against newcomer Murray
2009 FO - good win against peak Soderling
2009 WImbledon - good win against Roddick

So only 7 legitimate slam wins for Rogelio. More proof of a "clown era". Thought I'd throw this as a bone for our resident trolls to chew on.

GustafsonFanatic
12-01-2009, 05:23 PM
"2004 AO - good win against peak Safin" ?

Safin was dead in the final.

Azzurri
12-01-2009, 05:24 PM
dude, only clown is you. this is a poor attempt to discredit Fed. ANY win in a major final is with a tough opponent. what...you think Baggy, Murray, (and any other "clown) did not have to win 6 matches just to ge there??? its not as if its a lottery. this is a huge thread FAIL.

FIFTEEN
12-01-2009, 05:25 PM
I be confuzed, This be serious topic??????

IvanAndreevich
12-01-2009, 05:26 PM
I be confuzed, This be serious topic??????

Deadly serious.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 05:28 PM
I'm pretty sure you could poke holes in the rest of Rogi's wins too. Whereas with Rafa's 6 wins he had to beat "RogerGOAT" all 6 times, woof!

FIFTEEN
12-01-2009, 05:29 PM
i thought you had to win 7 matches in a row to win a grand slam, not just one against a player other people say is worthy. because if they truly were then they would be playing, not on a plane ride home......just saying

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 05:30 PM
Trolling is lame... troll bating just as lame.
Epic FAIL, OP.

dlk
12-01-2009, 05:31 PM
i thought you had to win 7 matches in a row to win a grand slam, not just one against a player other people say is worthy. because if they truly were then they would be playing, not on a plane ride home......just saying

Touch'e:shock::twisted::shock:

jamesblakefan#1
12-01-2009, 05:40 PM
Hor-awful thread. Should be deleted immediately.

dh003i
12-01-2009, 05:45 PM
Yea, there are definitely some people here who'd agree with that kind of thing (I know you post in jest).

Why not take away all of Nadal's wins at the FO where he beat Federer in the final or had to beat Federer to get to the final? I mean, after all, this Federer guy is just a fraudulent GOAT candidate, the luckiest guy ever, and a guy for whom Nadal had an inherent matchup-advantage over. So that leaves only Nadal's wins over Federer at Wimbledon and the AO. But we should take those away too, since the only legitimate Wimbledon wins Federer where when he beat Roddick, but he has an "easy" matchup vs. Roddick, so they don't count either. And then his AO wins were all jokes too.

So we're really just talking about two very over-rated guys for the top 2 today. Heck, the entire field is over-rated. They'd lose to players in the 1800s.

dh003i
12-01-2009, 05:45 PM
I'm pretty sure you could poke holes in the rest of Rogi's wins too. Whereas with Rafa's 6 wins he had to beat "RogerGOAT" all 6 times, woof!

Yea, but RogerGOAT isn't really RogerGOAT, he's just Roger-the-lucky, so Nadal isn't the great Nadal, he's just lucky to play against Roger-the-lucky.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 05:48 PM
Yea, but RogerGOAT isn't really RogerGOAT, he's just Roger-the-lucky, so Nadal isn't the great Nadal, he's just lucky to play against Roger-the-lucky.

Wonderful circular reasoning that leads... nowhere. Unless of course you define objective criteria for GOAT-hood. No one has and no one will agree.

FIFTEEN
12-01-2009, 05:53 PM
I think the fans should just have a vote and pick who plays the final and when they are done playing the the winner is about to be crowned there should be another vote to see who the actual winner should be, because the fans are never wrong, we know who should win, how they should win and why they do and don't win. We are perfect and we are the true GOATs

President of Serve/Volley
12-01-2009, 06:01 PM
While I would debate that the early to mid 1990s were a tad stronger than today's time, but to say that Roger played crappy players in order to win is just silly... very very silly.

It could be that Roger Federer is just head and shoulders better than anyone.

Cantankersore
12-01-2009, 06:05 PM
MuseFan's claim to be an alright poster is fraudulent.

borg number one
12-01-2009, 06:07 PM
I think "fraudulent" is overstating things. Yet, I see what Musefan is touching on with this thread.

I also argue that overall Federer has not won much against very tough players to capture his Grand Slam titles. That weighs against him in my book, but I think he, along with Laver, Borg, and Sampras have arguments that can be made for being the Greatest Tennis Player Ever.

Each of those 4 candidates for that hypothetical title has pluses and minuses when you analyze it objectively and subjectively. You cannot be purely objective about it, as you are forced to compare players from different eras.

Just because Federer is the best during THIS time, does not automatically give him the undisputed claim as the greatest player ever precisely because, if you look at some of the players he beat in those GS finals, they were just not the caliber of say John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors (Borg's arch rivals that he faced often) and Sampras' primary rivals (younger Agassi, S. Edberg, and B. Becker in particular).

If Nadal somehow surpasses Federer during his career by winning 10 more GS titles by around 28-29, will people unquestionably conclude that he was the UNDISPUTED greatest player ever and WAY better than Federer? The answer is NO WAY. There would be a debate and one would have to make comparisons across tennis eras. That requires objective and subjective analysis.

Look above at 6 of Federer's 15 Grand Slam final wins and assess the real strength of his top competition. Six GS Final Wins occurred against:

-Roddick (who would/did fold easier than a lawn chair SO OFTEN against him)
-Baghdatis (when he was just coming onto the scene at that AO)
-Murray and Djokovic for 2 other final wins when they were very young and basically not mentally ready/tough AT ALL.

Meanwhile, his toughest competition has been from R. Nadal starting in earnest in 2007. Nadal has beaten him when Nadal really reached peak form at Wimbledon and the Australian Open (both being on fast surfaces, and not on his best surface tennis wise).

L. Hewitt, meanwhile, has never been the same ever since a major hip injury, and Safin has been so hot/cold. When he's off, he's REALLY OFF.

Federer did legitimately overcome Agassi, but Agassi was well off his peak form by the time he was well into his 30's.

Both P. Sampras and B. Borg faced tougher competition than Federer during the semifinal and final stages of Grand Slams.

Yet, Federer has amassed a larger GS count by now, which does weigh in his favor in the debate as to who is the greatest player ever.

kishnabe
12-01-2009, 06:17 PM
Federer is talented and has 15 grand slams even if the beats them against so called clowns. 50 years later no one would care if he did beat clowns, he has x ammount of slams.

nfor304
12-01-2009, 06:18 PM
Philippousis was 26 in 2003... How is that old?

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 06:24 PM
Federer is talented and has 15 grand slams even if the beats them against so called clowns. 50 years later no one would care if he did beat clowns, he has x ammount of slams.

50 years from now we'll all be dead shiznit.

Tennis_Monk
12-01-2009, 06:37 PM
This is a brilliant Thread-just what we needed.

Apparently "MuseFan" is one of the few guys who can actually determine what grandslams count and what dont.

May be ATP doesnt need players to play matches. Just ask one of these guys.

svijk
12-01-2009, 06:39 PM
Very subjective analysis OP...not a very bright thread.
Also all the name-calling shows that OP is defensive and juvenile

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 07:16 PM
Very subjective analysis OP...not a very bright thread.
Also all the name-calling shows that OP is defensive and juvenile

Hint, hint this is a joke thread. I'm mocking the haters.

CyBorg
12-01-2009, 07:19 PM
Wonderful circular reasoning that leads... nowhere. Unless of course you define objective criteria for GOAT-hood. No one has and no one will agree.

Wasn't he pointing out... your circular reasoning?

That being said, hilarious thread.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 07:35 PM
I'm just trying to keep the off-season light around here.

Datacipher
12-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Federer definitely faced a rather poor assortment of pretenders until Nadal arrived. Hard to believe I actually agree with Borg Fan Number One about something. Not much one can do about it though...while Federer's abject failure in overcoming Nadal does not say much for him...but in regards to facing the other sub-championship caliber competition, he isn't too blame, he can only face who is put in front of him. It isn't his fault if no true champions were around for much of his reign!

Datacipher
12-01-2009, 07:59 PM
Federer is talented and has 15 grand slams even if the beats them against so called clowns. 50 years later no one would care if he did beat clowns, he has x ammount of slams.

Quite true. History is forgiving this way...and in that sense, perhaps he deserves it, as he has no control over the lack of true challengers.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 08:01 PM
That is crazy logic. If you look at things like that then half of everybody's grand slam titles are 'clown wins'.

JoshDragon
12-01-2009, 08:03 PM
Clown wins(defined) - against old broken down old men, slam newcomers, injured playes

2003 Wimbledon - clown win vs old Scud
2004 AO - good win against peak Safin
2004 Wimbledon - good win against peak Roddick
2004 US Open - good win against peak Hewitt
2005 Wimbledon - good win against peak Roddick
2005 US Open - clown win against broken down old man Agassi
2006 AO - clown win against newcomer Baggy
2006 Wimbledon - clown win against grass newcomer Nadal
2006 US Open - good win against peak Roddick
2007 AO - good win against peak Gonzo
2007 WImbledon - clown win against injured Nadal
2007 US Open - clown win against newcomer Djokovic
2008 US Open - clown win against newcomer Murray
2009 FO - good win against peak Soderling
2009 WImbledon - good win against Roddick

So only 7 legitimate slam wins for Rogelio. More proof of a "clown era". Thought I'd throw this as a bone for our resident trolls to chew on.

How much crack did you smoke before writing this?!

1. Phillopposis wasn't old when he played Roger in 2003.
2. No disagreement.
3. No disagreement.
4. No disagreement.
5. No disagreement.
6. This is really the only bad win that Federer had. Andre, was old and past his prime when they played back in 2005.

7. Bhagdatis played a great tournament in 2006 he's not the same player today as he was back then.
8.Did you even watch the match?
9.No disagreement.
10.No disagreement.
11. How is it Roger's fault that Nadal injured himself half way through the match?
12. No, because Djokovic had already beaten Roger in the previous month at the US Open series, not to mention he won the AO just a few months later.
13. Murray played a great tournament up to the finals, that doesn't make it a clown win.
14.No disagreement.
15.No disagreement.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 08:14 PM
That is crazy logic. If you look at things like that then half of everybody's grand slam titles are 'clown wins'.

Nope. All of Rafa's wins are solid-gold. :):)

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 08:15 PM
How much crack did you smoke before writing this?!

At least 2 kilos worth dude... :twisted::twisted:

JoshDragon
12-01-2009, 08:19 PM
At least 2 kilos worth dude... :twisted::twisted:

Ok, just as long as admit to being high, I'll forgive you for coming up with a ridiculous thread.;)

Rhino
12-01-2009, 08:22 PM
Nope. All of Rafa's wins are solid-gold. :):)

Federer would've given all his prize money away to play Puerta for the Roland Garros title in '05!

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 08:27 PM
Federer would've given all his prize money away to play Puerta for the Roland Garros title in '05!

But Rafa beat Federina in the semis, woof!!!

Rhino
12-01-2009, 08:31 PM
But Rafa beat Federina in the semis, woof!!!

All the more reason for him to want to play Puerta in the final!

That's the stupid thing about this thread. The OP totally dismisses all the wins that Federer had to complete in all the other rounds of his 15 slam titles.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 08:35 PM
All the more reason for him to want to play Puerta in the final!

That's the stupid thing about this thread. The OP totally dismisses all the wins that Federer had to complete in all the other rounds of his 15 slam titles.

13-7, and 6-2 baby. Feddy's dead baby, Feddy's dead.

Agassifan
12-01-2009, 08:51 PM
I DID NOT KNOW THAT ROGER GOT AN AUTOMATIC BYE TO THE FINAL IN ALL OF THE FIFTEEN GRANDSLAMS HE WON. OH! SNAP

veroniquem
12-01-2009, 09:00 PM
You should try bigger letters, those are not flashy enough :-?

edmondsm
12-01-2009, 09:06 PM
Hater thread. You can put asterisks next to anything you want. Especially Sampras's and Laver's GOAT claims. Total, utter, fail.

Weird thing is, up until this I thought MuseFan was a Federer fan. This has troll written all over it.

the little dasher
12-01-2009, 09:22 PM
Wait a second. How can a win in a slam final be called a clown win? Its stands to reason a bloke has to be playing well to qualify for a final right? So Agassi, for example must have been in great form to get the 2005 US final. Otherwise you're telling people that everyone in the field was a clown or worse except for Fed.

Plainly no tennis field is so weak that it could be that bad. Agassi overcame a classy field to get to the final so Fed's win over him can't be discounted. In fact I can see that field included Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Henman, Gasquet, Stepanek, Ferrer, Robredo, Ferrero, Gonzales, Lopes, Moya, Haas, Berdych, Blake. Even Murray, Baghdatis, Vesdasco and Johansson were there. Not bad for a supposed broken down old man to get past.

You could say as much abt other players anyway. Most agree that the 80s was a strong era in tennis. Yet Chris Lewis got into a final at Wimbledon in 1983. Getting past a field including Connors, Wilander, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Edberg, Sandy Mayer, Tanner, Cash and Brad Gilbert before losing to J Mac.

Just bcos Lewis surprisingly got to the final doesn't mean Mac's win was a clown win when the field was so good. Same goes for Fed's win in 2005.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 09:23 PM
DOnt' you realize now, all slam champs are clowns... :-)

nfor304
12-01-2009, 09:32 PM
Almost all of Federers wins would have been against Rafa if Rafa had not failed to make the finals

veroniquem
12-01-2009, 09:50 PM
Almost all of Federers wins would have been against Rafa if Rafa had not failed to make the finals
I see it as the exact opposite. Fed would have won fewer slams on hard if the guy across the net had been Rafa every time. Wonder if Fed would have cried at the USO as well :-?

volleynets
12-01-2009, 10:09 PM
50 years from now we'll all be dead shiznit.

haha old fart. Not all of us.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 10:09 PM
I see it as the exact opposite. Fed would have won fewer slams on hard if the guy across the net had been Rafa every time. Wonder if Fed would have cried at the USO as well :-?

Haha - let's see Rafa make a US Open final. This year was his worst loss ever to Potro.

BreakPoint
12-01-2009, 10:10 PM
Oh yeah, so easy for Federer to have won seven straight best of 5 set matches for no less than 15 times. What luck! So lucky for Federer to have made the last 18 of 19 Slam finals and 22 straight semifinals. What incredible luck! Luck is the only explanation!

Heck, it would be easier to win the $100 million Lotto every single week for 10 straight years. :roll:

BreakPoint
12-01-2009, 10:13 PM
I see it as the exact opposite. Fed would have won fewer slams on hard if the guy across the net had been Rafa every time. Wonder if Fed would have cried at the USO as well :-?
Not nearly as much as Nadal cried after getting his butt spanked at the WTF. He couldn't even win a single set in 3 matches. How pitiful. How utterly embarrassing. How can he possibly call himself the 2nd best tennis player in the world with a straight face? :oops:

nfor304
12-01-2009, 10:21 PM
I see it as the exact opposite. Fed would have won fewer slams on hard if the guy across the net had been Rafa every time. Wonder if Fed would have cried at the USO as well :-?

My point is that Rafa was in almost all of those draws. Its not his fault he didnt end up facing him the final.

namelessone
12-02-2009, 02:21 AM
Not nearly as much as Nadal cried after getting his butt spanked at the WTF. He couldn't even win a single set in 3 matches. How pitiful. How utterly embarrassing. How can he possibly call himself the 2nd best tennis player in the world with a straight face? :oops:

Well,Nadal didn't cry,that's your version but then again you believe that Nadal skipped wimbledon just for ***** and giggles. And Nadal doesn't call himself the 2nd best tennis player,the atp does:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

Despite underperforming at 1 slam,missing another slam,staying 2 and a half months out of the game due to two injuries(tendinitis problem + muscle tear in the abdomen),he still ends the year as the nr.2 and even had a off-shot at the nr.1 in WTF. How pitiful the ATP is if they can't surpass a guy who basically has gone missing at 2 slams and has performed poorly in the last 6 months.

Despite being badly beaten time and time again on HC in the last few years,Rafa,if I am not mistaken,has the most HC points this year,or he is at least in the top 3. Again,how embarrasing for the HC giants like Fed(no HC slams this year though he did make 2 finals),Djoker(good HC masters showing but not even a HC GS final for him),Murray(no comment necessary).

Please stop these Fedal wars,they are repetitive and utterly boring. And this last part is adressed to the Nadal fans as well.

TheFifthSet
12-02-2009, 02:39 AM
Hor-awful thread. Should be deleted immediately.

lol, I immediately remembered http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdsEekRE4pA

Agassifan
12-02-2009, 02:41 AM
this thread is more fail than sureshs

TheFifthSet
12-02-2009, 02:45 AM
this thread is more fail than sureshs

Sureshs thread's aren't fail. His intention is to get a rise out of you guys and you fall for it. He's not serious. The guy is a very intelligent troll, but a troll nonetheless.

BTW, Musefan is FedFan_2009.

Omega_7000
12-02-2009, 03:56 AM
I DID NOT KNOW THAT ROGER GOT AN AUTOMATIC BYE TO THE FINAL IN ALL OF THE FIFTEEN GRANDSLAMS HE WON. OH! SNAP

You should try bigger letters, those are not flashy enough :-?

You mean like this?

I DID NOT KNOW THAT ROGER GOT AN AUTOMATIC BYE TO THE FINAL IN ALL OF THE FIFTEEN GRANDSLAMS HE WON. OH! SNAP

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 04:04 AM
dude, only clown is you. this is a poor attempt to discredit Fed. ANY win in a major final is with a tough opponent. what...you think Baggy, Murray, (and any other "clown) did not have to win 6 matches just to ge there??? its not as if its a lottery. this is a huge thread FAIL.

Good post. Why even create a thread like this? One can only play the one on the other side of the court, GS or not.

To the OP- The only clown around here-Is YOU.

Cyan
12-02-2009, 04:30 AM
Federer is the luckiest sportsman ever. Even luckier than Michael Schumacher.... People claim Schumi won 7 WDCs because he raced in a weak era but that was nothing compared with the super weak era in which Fed won most of his slams. Add to that clown/bozo era that Fed's biggest nemesis is super injury prone and voila you have a player winning 15 slams.

svijk
12-02-2009, 04:51 AM
The biggest sign of a fail thread is when half the posts belong to the OP !!

Agassifan
12-02-2009, 05:28 AM
Some *******s just cannot sleep properly with the numbers 22 and 15 popping up everywhere. A distinct lack of self confidence creates these loser threads. And to top it all off, their hero is in really bad shape. What else can they do?

Agassifan
12-02-2009, 05:38 AM
I still wonder about the low levels of self esteem.

namelessone
12-02-2009, 05:40 AM
Some *******s just cannot sleep properly with the numbers 22 and 15 popping up everywhere. A distinct lack of self confidence creates these loser threads. And to top it all off, their hero is in really bad shape. What else can they do?

The OP is anything but a Nadal fan from what I've seen from him.

Agassifan
12-02-2009, 05:45 AM
The OP is anything but a Nadal fan from what I've seen from him.

if the OP is sarcastic, then I am just referring to those poor *******s in this thread.

P_Agony
12-02-2009, 06:56 AM
"Federer's fraudulent GOAT claim" = clown thread.

edmondsm
12-02-2009, 07:11 AM
DOnt' you realize now, all slam champs are clowns... :-)

So the thread was blatant trolling on your part?

Eviscerator
12-02-2009, 08:53 AM
Thought I'd throw this as a bone for our resident trolls to chew on.

You know what they say about throwing stones in glass houses, right?

jamesblakefan#1
12-02-2009, 09:05 AM
lol, I immediately remembered http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdsEekRE4pA

Thanks for putting this up...hor-awful --->WIN.

MuseFan
12-02-2009, 11:48 AM
Really you people have to have more humor!

Chadwixx
12-02-2009, 11:52 AM
How could someone make a grand slam final and not be playing good? You realize they have to win 6 previous matches right?

MuseFan
12-02-2009, 11:55 AM
How could someone make a grand slam final and not be playing good? You realize they have to win 6 previous matches right?

Clown era, doh! IT's easy as pie to make GS finals these days due getting 3-4 qualifiers in the first 4 rounds.

Rhino
12-02-2009, 12:11 PM
Clown era, doh! IT's easy as pie to make GS finals these days due getting 3-4 qualifiers in the first 4 rounds.

This is true. I initially thought about becoming a grand slam tennis champion, but I realised i needed more of a challenge.

ksbh
12-02-2009, 12:46 PM
Thats true but you, Muse, have got to learn to be funny!

Really you people have to have more humor!

TheChosenOne
12-02-2009, 10:07 PM
I will agree. Fed has hardly massed his slams against players of high quality like a Lendl, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Mac, Connors etc. But at the end of the day you can only beat who is put in front of you. Sampras had some finals wins against clowns like Pioline in 2 wimbeldons I believe. Laver had some subpar opponents at times. But I understand what the OP is saying in which Federer amassed quite a bit of the slams against not some of the greatest players in history. I dont believe with or without Fed around players like Roddick, Hewitt etc would have all time great resumes either. They dont stack up with others talent wise.

But again.. You can only beat who is front of you