PDA

View Full Version : Why the tennis still needs Roger Federer


Marius_Hancu
04-16-2011, 02:58 AM
To all of those saying that Federer should retire in order not to diminish his heritage:

Your historical perspective is nil. Your view is limited.

Think about Rod Laver, who may still be the GOAT ("Greatest Of All Time") based purely on his double calendar GS ("Grand Slam").

He achieved those in 1962 and 1969.

He still remained active until his late thirties, until the late 1970s.

Certainly he knew he would not equal his "prime" 1969, that his results to lesser opponents would be going to his disadvantage. He was certainly more intelligent, in tennis terms, than any of his doubters, to realize that.

E.g. his career head-to-head is 1-4 against Ilie Nastase, whose prime was 1972-1973 (winning the USO and the RG), who was 8 years his junior.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=N008

He was 39 when he was beaten last by Nastase.

His series with Stan Smith (also 8 years his junior), whose prime was 1972, is tied at 6-6 only because Laver continued to play into his thirties:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=S060

thus losing the last five of them.

Laver competed in such a way and his style of play was so unique that he made any of those duels worth watching, even when the final result was not to be in his favor because of his having lost a step to age, even though his competitors might have caught up to him in terms of speed, power or even mental edge at that very time.

Now, did he subsequently fare worse than Borg, who retired immediately he started to seriously lose, in terms of fame, because of staying in the game long past his prime?

No, those in the know know he didn't.

On the contrary, he's still at the top when GOAT discussions are around, for 50 years now, in the mix with Sampras and Federer.

Like Federer today, Laver in his thirties did a great service to the tennis community by continuing to present a great style of play, even if the results weren't favorable to him.

Thanks God for Federer. Otherwise it would be only the ugly, workmanlike, academies-sponsored game, the ugly game created by Borg-Agassi, against which the sparkling style of Nastase-McEnroe-Sampras-Federer lineage will be always pitted.

New generations of players need Federer just for the visual gratification and showcasing of a great style of play (yes: S-Volleying, even though less than Sampras; yes: 1HBH; yes: smaller-head raquets), just as yesteryear's generations needed Laver to stay around.

We need models and Federer is the best model against the uniformity that traps the current game. He's the model of great physical and mental talent, of great and easy shotmaking, against the great plodding.

We need him because he is the star that was and still is both extremely spectacular and light-moving and deadly efficient while at it.

mandy01
04-16-2011, 03:04 AM
This is correct.

dirtballer
04-16-2011, 03:22 AM
Roger is a good ambassador for the game. He takes time for interviews in several languages, he takes time for the fans, and he's well spoken. Remember when Rios and Hewitt would barely speak to the media? Actually, I think that all the top players now do a good job with the media and the fans.

Bartelby
04-16-2011, 03:42 AM
Life outside tennis is far more financially lucrative now than then, so there isn't quite the financial or psychological incentive to stay and prove oneself in the game. Indeed, playing past ones peak is probably frowned upon as tarnishing a legend, but I tend to agree this isn't so (or shouldn't be so).

Tennis sensation
04-16-2011, 03:55 AM
Tennis needs Federer so that Fedace can continue with his predictions. :)

cucio
04-16-2011, 04:02 AM
This thread is worthless without a sound track. Get the following link playing and then come back and re-read the OP in a loud a clear voice, as if it were a speech in front of a crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH87jt41xyA

dominikk1985
04-16-2011, 04:24 AM
Life outside tennis is far more financially lucrative now than then, so there isn't quite the financial or psychological incentive to stay and prove oneself in the game. Indeed, playing past ones peak is probably frowned upon as tarnishing a legend, but I tend to agree this isn't so (or shouldn't be so).

federer still makes a lot of money in tennis. outside tennis he wouldn't make much money. doesn't need it though, he already has enough of that:D.

I think fed is still good for tennis. he is still one of the best and aesthetically great to watch. every good player helps tennis.

I can't understand how anyone would want a top5 player to retire. the more top players there are, the better.

If he was no.20 I would say yes he should retire. but as long as he is in the top4 and reaches GS semifinals and finals he is a plus for tennis.

I like fed the least from the top3 but certainly anyone who says he is bad for tennis is an idiot.

Bartelby
04-16-2011, 04:29 AM
Surely you meant this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFREaIA1vdE

urban
04-16-2011, 04:36 AM
Agree with the statement. Let the player decide, when he thinks to be ready for retirement. An artist has much more time to explore his talent, than an athlete, who has only say 10 peak years. Its not easy to get a life after tennis, as we see in the cases of Boris Becker or Bjorn Borg, who fell into a deep hole after quitting tennis. Even now, Becker doesn't seem completely at ease with himself. And Sampras may today regret, that he didn't play another Wimbledon or two.
In the 70s older pro players stayed in tennis, because for the first time the financial rewards were really big during the tennis boom years.
Besides: The head to head stats on the ATP side are not complete: I have at least one Laver-Nastase match more at Wembley semifinal 1970, with Laver winning in two clear sets. There were in any case more matches, also between Laver and Smith, including some Hilton Head events and Etna World Cups.

Sentinel
04-16-2011, 09:03 AM
Great OP.
However, in the meantime the courts and balls are encouraging a grinding style of play more and more.

Cesc Fabregas
04-16-2011, 09:07 AM
I've wiped Federer completely from my memory. Is he the ugly Swiss guy with the crap backhand?

jaap deboeck
04-16-2011, 09:14 AM
The truly sad aspect of Federer's twilight is that this will likely signal the last time we'll see the one-handed backhand atop the ATP rankings. (Even more assured in the WTA with the retirements of Madmoiselles Henin et Mauresmo.)

Yes, Gasquet and Almagro and Wawrinka and Haas and Blake et. al. have/had gorgeous one-handers, but these are not top 5 calibre players otherwise.

I always enjoy watching the stroke even as used only for slicing by many two-hand bashers like Roddick. A beautiful part of the game now largely destined for nostalgia.

sureshs
04-16-2011, 09:15 AM
Federer was not even the greatest in his own era (8-15 against Nadal) then how can he be the GOAT.

Notice how I used the past tense.

The end is near.

tenis1
04-16-2011, 09:19 AM
I agree that he should continue to play and he can be competitive (not on the very top though) for several more years, but I disagree that tennis needs him to do that. Ne needs too do that for himself if he still enjoys it and likes to compete, but the game will be just fine with or without him.

Winner_DownTheLine
04-16-2011, 09:23 AM
I agree with this post. I hate to see Fed retire, if he does I will cancel Tennis Channel coz I don't like watching wimpy two-handed boring tennis by nadal, djoko or murray.

Hitman
04-16-2011, 09:29 AM
Great OP!

As for the haters....Federer has 16 slams, how many do you have?

Devilito
04-16-2011, 09:40 AM
Federer was not even the greatest claycourter in his own era (8-15 against Nadal) then how can he be the GOAT.


fixed it for ya

Love all
04-16-2011, 10:49 AM
Bcoz he plays the most exquisite shots and I started follwing tennis after seeing his play.

Jchurch
04-16-2011, 01:13 PM
Federer was not even the greatest in his own era (8-15 against Nadal) then how can he be the GOAT.

Notice how I used the past tense.

The end is near.

How many real slams does Nadal have? That's right! ZERO! Possibly akin to another number you posses that reflects your intellect?

Manus Domini
04-16-2011, 01:14 PM
How many real slams does Nadal have? That's right! ZERO! Possibly akin to another number you posses that reflects your intellect?

real slams?

you mean the number of RG, AO, and WC he won against Fed?

Seriously, I may dislike Nadal but all these *******s are turning me away...

TheTruth
04-16-2011, 01:25 PM
Agree with the statement. Let the player decide, when he thinks to be ready for retirement. An artist has much more time to explore his talent, than an athlete, who has only say 10 peak years. Its not easy to get a life after tennis, as we see in the cases of Boris Becker or Bjorn Borg, who fell into a deep hole after quitting tennis. Even now, Becker doesn't seem completely at ease with himself. And Sampras may today regret, that he didn't play another Wimbledon or two.
In the 70s older pro players stayed in tennis, because for the first time the financial rewards were really big during the tennis boom years.
Besides: The head to head stats on the ATP side are not complete: I have at least one Laver-Nastase match more at Wembley semifinal 1970, with Laver winning in two clear sets. There were in any case more matches, also between Laver and Smith, including some Hilton Head events and Etna World Cups.

Great post.

He's only dropped down to #3 for a few weeks and people are already calling for his retirement.

TheTruth
04-16-2011, 01:28 PM
I agree that he should continue to play and he can be competitive (not on the very top though) for several more years, but I disagree that tennis needs him to do that. Ne needs too do that for himself if he still enjoys it and likes to compete, but the game will be just fine with or without him.

Pretty much my sentiments. If he wants to play, let him play. It doesn't change tennis for me in any respect.

sureshs
04-16-2011, 01:32 PM
How many real slams does Nadal have? That's right! ZERO! Possibly akin to another number you posses that reflects your intellect?

Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

Hood_Man
04-16-2011, 01:36 PM
I'd love to see him do a Jimmy Connors and keep going until he's 39, just so I can enjoy watching him for another ten years.

Now, I'm not sure I can even see him continuing as long as Agassi did, but as long as he's around I will root for him wherever he goes and whatever he wins, Grand Slam, 250 or exhibition.

The day he retires there will be a massive hole left in the tennis world. Christ, even last years Wimbledon final felt wrong without him.

tlm
04-16-2011, 01:44 PM
I will not miss the egomaniac 1 bit.

tennis_pro
04-16-2011, 01:46 PM
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

You forgot to add "NOT!" at the end

Winner_DownTheLine
04-16-2011, 01:51 PM
You forgot to add "NOT!" at the end

Cincy is the real slam!

Winner_DownTheLine
04-16-2011, 01:54 PM
I'd love to see him do a Jimmy Connors and keep going until he's 39, just so I can enjoy watching him for another ten years.

Now, I'm not sure I can even see him continuing as long as Agassi did, but as long as he's around I will root for him wherever he goes and whatever he wins, Grand Slam, 250 or exhibition.

The day he retires there will be a massive hole left in the tennis world. Christ, even last years Wimbledon final felt wrong without him.

Well said, I was a big Sampras fan and stopped watching tennis after he retired until I saw Fed win the US open in 04 and started following ATP again. I doubt there will ever be a player like Fed play on the ATP ever again.

Sid_Vicious
04-16-2011, 01:56 PM
For me pro tennis will never be the same without Federer.

sureshs
04-16-2011, 01:59 PM
I will not miss the egomaniac 1 bit.

After his recent loss, he went on and on about how thw wind affected him, how he still had a great week on clay, etc. Only the author of the article mentioned that "while crediting him for attacking play ..."

Fed still does not want to give credit to others.

niff
04-16-2011, 02:03 PM
After his recent loss, he went on and on about how thw wind affected him, how he still had a great week on clay, etc. Only the author of the article mentioned that "while crediting him for attacking play ..."

Fed still does not want to give credit to others.
Er no, he credited Jürgen's aggressiveness directly in his press conference many times.

sureshs
04-16-2011, 02:08 PM
Er no, he credited Jürgen's aggressiveness directly in his press conference many times.

Which means that his wins were in a weak era where players were not aggressive like Nadal or Djokovic.

niff
04-16-2011, 02:13 PM
Which means that his wins were in a weak era where players were not aggressive like Nadal or Djokovic.
Where do you come up with this ****, m'dear <3

fed_rulz
04-16-2011, 02:20 PM
I'd love to see him do a Jimmy Connors and keep going until he's 39, just so I can enjoy watching him for another ten years.

Now, I'm not sure I can even see him continuing as long as Agassi did, but as long as he's around I will root for him wherever he goes and whatever he wins, Grand Slam, 250 or exhibition.

The day he retires there will be a massive hole left in the tennis world. Christ, even last years Wimbledon final felt wrong without him.

Agreed 100%

fed_rulz
04-16-2011, 02:22 PM
real slams?

you mean the number of RG, AO, and WC he won against Fed?

Seriously, I may dislike Nadal but all these *******s are turning me away...

you must have missed the joke about cincy being the real slam (a claim made by none other than our own TW court jester ..)

eidolonshinobi
04-16-2011, 02:49 PM
I'm not a ******* or whatever, but I love watching the man play.

So damn effortless. At least before this year.

pound cat
04-16-2011, 03:42 PM
Meltzers comment about Federer in his interview after beating Fed is interesting


Are the players are losing a little bit of the respect against Federer?
JURGEN MELZER: I think you always have to respect Roger. This would be lack of respect from the players if you don't respect Roger. He's a great tennis player, what he has achieved in the past... He has played tennis on such a high level that for him being 3 in the world is a downgrade, which if you think about it, it's kind of stupid.
For me, he's the greatest player that has ever played that game. As I said, for him to lose matches, it's every time a tragic. There is a lot of players out there that would love to be in his shirt going out of that locker room and being on the court.

DragonBlaze
04-16-2011, 03:49 PM
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

Yea but Fed's got 4 Cincy's.

That's GOAT level right there.

billnepill
04-16-2011, 03:52 PM
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

No cincy, no goat. Sorry.

Haven't you heard that Cincy is the Real Slam?

rdis10093
04-16-2011, 04:24 PM
awesome op

JustBob
04-16-2011, 05:14 PM
I'll tell you why nobody ever asked for Laver to retire. That's because nobody gave a crap about that silly H2H stat which didn't even exist (officially) at that time. It's not a stat the ATP kept. It was only much later, mostly because of pressure from the media (the ones who need stuff to talk about before matches) that the ATP started keeping the H2H stats, said stats having no bearing whatsoever on results, rankings or anything else.

So for the last frigging time, H2H IS A MEANINGLESS STAT. Tennis is not boxing...

So I don't care if Federer plays until he's 70, his future results will have no impact whatsoever on his accomplishments.

BrooklynNY
04-16-2011, 05:37 PM
Head to Head always mattered, what are you talking about?

rommil
04-16-2011, 05:54 PM
Federer can stop playing now , I am content. I have seen the most graceful, intelligent, natural brand of tennis ever.

rommil
04-16-2011, 05:57 PM
I've wiped Federer completely from my memory. Is he the ugly Swiss guy with the crap backhand?

Remember the guy that if you added the total number of GS singles titles of all the other active ATP players it would only equal his? Yeah, that one.

xRain
04-16-2011, 06:05 PM
Federer was not even the greatest in his own era (8-15 against Nadal) then how can he be the GOAT.

Because calling someone the "GOAT" is down to one's own opinion and Federer can still be regarded as the GOAT to many people regardless of a head to head record.

places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

That is your own opinion, not something that everyone else should agree with.
Federer has also achieved things that Nadal hasn't.

Fedace
04-16-2011, 06:26 PM
I agree we need Federer. Federer vs Nadal is still the HOTTEST selling ticket in the world. Even in the states, this finals will draw good ratings on TV. Their contrast in styles is what gets people excited.
Nadal vs Djokovic isn't quite the same, at least not yet.

tacou
04-16-2011, 06:28 PM
I'll tell you why nobody ever asked for Laver to retire. That's because nobody gave a crap about that silly H2H stat which didn't even exist (officially) at that time. It's not a stat the ATP kept. It was only much later, mostly because of pressure from the media (the ones who need stuff to talk about before matches) that the ATP started keeping the H2H stats, said stats having no bearing whatsoever on results, rankings or anything else.

So for the last frigging time, H2H IS A MEANINGLESS STAT. Tennis is not boxing...

So I don't care if Federer plays until he's 70, his future results will have no impact whatsoever on his accomplishments.

how can head to head be meaningless in a one-on-one sport, like boxing and tennis? tennis is 100% about match ups and the h2h tellst that story every time, not just Nadal vs Fed. I love Andy Roddick but his game and his prime matched up awful with Roger, just check out the h2h. Roger also struggles against quick counter punchers, check out his h2h with Gilles Simon.
h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis

Jchurch
04-16-2011, 07:04 PM
real slams?

you mean the number of RG, AO, and WC he won against Fed?

Seriously, I may dislike Nadal but all these *******s are turning me away...

That was a dig at SUREHS. You might have heard of his now famous "Cincinnati the real slam" thread.

cc0509
04-16-2011, 07:29 PM
how can head to head be meaningless in a one-on-one sport, like boxing and tennis? tennis is 100% about match ups and the h2h tellst that story every time, not just Nadal vs Fed. I love Andy Roddick but his game and his prime matched up awful with Roger, just check out the h2h. Roger also struggles against quick counter punchers, check out his h2h with Gilles Simon.
h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis

So does that mean Simon is better than Federer and Davydenko is better than Nadal? Based on what you just said above that the H2H is the most important stat, that would be true, correct? I am sorry, but that makes no sense.

You have to look at the totality of many things to figure out who the best player is. H2H is just one stat in a mountain of stats. To simplify the career of a tennis player based on the H2H only or as the most important thing is ridiculous when there are so many other records and achievements that need to be looked at.

Devilito
04-16-2011, 07:30 PM
h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis

Player A beats player B all the time. Player C beats player A all the time. Player B beats player C all the time. Who is the better player? That’s why H2H is meaningless.

cc0509
04-16-2011, 07:34 PM
Remember the guy that if you added the total number of GS singles titles of all the other active ATP players it would only equal his? Yeah, that one.

Extreme *******s like to discount the slam total in favor of the H2H. It gives them a false sense of security. Let them have their little fantasies! We know the truth. :)

tacou
04-16-2011, 07:34 PM
So does that mean Simon is better than Federer and Davydenko is better than Nadal? Based on what you just said above that the H2H is the most important stat, that would be true, correct? I am sorry, but that makes no sense.


I agree it makes no sense which is why I never said that, nor claimed that Simon is better than Federer.

Tennis is one person vs. one person. When two people get together 10-20times, distinct patterns are created. The h2h for Nadal Fed, Nadal Djoko, Fed Hewitt, Fed Nalbandian, etc. says so much about how the players match up and how they have evolved over the course of their career.

To respond to the conclusion you came to, for the most part I would say that yes, h2h does indeed indicate which player is better, since in competitive sports more wins=BETTER, however as for the case of Fed/Simon the sample is too small to make any conclusions.

corners
04-16-2011, 07:35 PM
To all of those saying that Federer should retire in order not to diminish his heritage:

Your historical perspective is nil. Your view is limited.

Think about Rod Laver, who may still be the GOAT ("Greatest Of All Time") based purely on his double calendar GS ("Grand Slam").

He achieved those in 1962 and 1969.

He still remained active until his late thirties, until the late 1970s.

Certainly he knew he would not equal his "prime" 1969, that his results to lesser opponents would be going to his disadvantage. He was certainly more intelligent, in tennis terms, than any of his doubters, to realize that.

E.g. his career head-to-head is 1-4 against Ilie Nastase, whose prime was 1972-1973 (winning the USO and the RG), who was 8 years his junior.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=N008

He was 39 when he was beaten last by Nastase.

His series with Stan Smith (also 8 years his junior), whose prime was 1972, is tied at 6-6 only because Laver continued to play into his thirties:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=S060

thus losing the last five of them.

Laver competed in such a way and his style of play was so unique that he made any of those duels worth watching, even when the final result was not to be in his favor because of his having lost a step to age, even though his competitors might have caught up to him in terms of speed, power or even mental edge at that very time.

Now, did he subsequently fare worse than Borg, who retired immediately he started to seriously lose, in terms of fame, because of staying in the game long past his prime?

No, those in the know know he didn't.

On the contrary, he's still at the top when GOAT discussions are around, for 50 years now, in the mix with Sampras and Federer.

Like Federer today, Laver in his thirties did a great service to the tennis community by continuing to present a great style of play, even if the results weren't favorable to him.

Thanks God for Federer. Otherwise it would be only the ugly, workmanlike, academies-sponsored game, the ugly game created by Borg-Agassi, against which the sparkling style of Nastase-McEnroe-Sampras-Federer lineage will be always pitted.

New generations of players need Federer just for the visual gratification and showcasing of a great style of play (yes: S-Volleying, even though less than Sampras; yes: 1HBH; yes: smaller-head raquets), just as yesteryear's generations needed Laver to stay around.

We need models and Federer is the best model against the uniformity that traps the current game. He's the model of great physical and mental talent, of great and easy shotmaking, against the great plodding.

We need him because he is the star that was and still is both extremely spectacular and light-moving and deadly efficient while at it.

Well said. Many suffer from Federer fatigue, but they will miss him when he goes. The comparison to Laver is excellent, but I think Laver played longer than he might have because he could still use the money late in his career. Fed doesn't need cash so his exit from the game will be purely for personal reasons - I doubt he'll stick around as long.

But if Agassi could win slams in his 30s, Roger can too, although some more fast courts on tour would help.

tacou
04-16-2011, 07:35 PM
Player A beats player B all the time. Player C beats player A all the time. Player B beats player C all the time. Who is the better player? That’s why H2H is meaningless.

how is that meaningless? 3people do not play a match, only 2.

Sentinel
04-16-2011, 07:39 PM
fixed it for ya
He and Fedace maybe the same person :confused::shock:

cc0509
04-16-2011, 07:55 PM
I agree it makes no sense which is why I never said that, nor claimed that Simon is better than Federer.

Tennis is one person vs. one person. When two people get together 10-20times, distinct patterns are created. The h2h for Nadal Fed, Nadal Djoko, Fed Hewitt, Fed Nalbandian, etc. says so much about how the players match up and how they have evolved over the course of their career.

To respond to the conclusion you came to, for the most part I would say that yes, h2h does indeed indicate which player is better, since in competitive sports more wins=BETTER, however as for the case of Fed/Simon the sample is too small to make any conclusions.

Oh, in the case of the Federer and Simon H2H you are putting your own qualifier on the stat by saying their sample is too small. That does not make sense. If you are going to say the H2H is one of the most important stats you can't then go and say that the H2H does not count if there are not enough matches. Either the H2H is important or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

With respect to a H2H where players have played on numerous occasions the match ups take place over different conditions over time--i.e. in tennis there are different surfaces that are played on for example. You can't just blindly look at the total H2H figure without looking at these conditions and what they mean.

What is more important is not one or two match ups that a player may have had where they are in an unfavorable H2H but ALL the other match ups they have had in their career with many other players where the H2H is in their favor. You have to look at the whole picture. You can't just isolate certain variables to suit your cause. In addition to that, there are so many other stats that are important to look at when looking at a player's career--i.e. slam count, other major tournaments won, weeks at number 1, consecutive wins, consecutive appearances in finals, etc. etc. etc.

When you think of a player, let's say Hewitt for example, the first thing you think about when you think about his career is not his H2H record with other players. Who would even know that off the top of his/her head? You think about how many slams did he win? Most people would be able to tell you that fairly quickly if they follow tennis at all. Then there are several other things that one would think about to assess his overall career. H2H is not even in the top 10 of the first things somebody is going to discuss. It just isn't.

tacou
04-16-2011, 08:18 PM
Oh, in the case of the Federer and Simon H2H you are putting your own qualifier on the stat by saying their sample is too small. That does not make sense. If you are going to say the H2H is one of the most important stats you can't then go and say that the H2H does not count if there are not enough matches. Either the H2H is important or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

With respect to a H2H where players have played on numerous occasions the match ups take place over different conditions over time--i.e. in tennis there are different surfaces that are played on for example. You can't just blindly look at the total H2H figure without looking at these conditions and what they mean.

What is more important is not one or two match ups that a player may have had where they are in an unfavorable H2H but ALL the other match ups they have had in their career with many other players where the H2H is in their favor. You have to look at the whole picture. You can't just isolate certain variables to suit your cause. In addition to that, there are so many other stats that are important to look at when looking at a player's career--i.e. slam count, other major tournaments won, weeks at number 1, consecutive wins, consecutive appearances in finals, etc. etc. etc.

When you think of a player, let's say Hewitt for example, the first thing you think about when you think about his career is not his H2H record with other players. Who would even know that off the top of his/her head? You think about how many slams did he win? Most people would be able to tell you that fairly quickly if they follow tennis at all. Then there are several other things that one would think about to assess his overall career. H2H is not even in the top 10 of the first things somebody is going to discuss. It just isn't.

Stats/numbers are perfectly suited to qualifiers/outliers. I do not think a 2-1 h2h is a telling stat, but h2h over all is a very illuminating stat.

people don't know off the top of their head what % of BP a given converts on, but that does not make it a trivial stat.

Slam Count/Weeks at #1 obviously define a career more than h2h, but I don't view either as a statistic. those are accolades.

If you talking about Federer/GOAT and whatever go ahead with that, I for one do not think his h2h with Nadal has much baring on his career overall. However the fact is Nadal wins most of their matches, as defined by h2h, and Nadal is a terrible matchup for Federer, as is reflected in h2h.

JustBob
04-16-2011, 10:06 PM
how can head to head be meaningless in a one-on-one sport, like boxing and tennis? tennis is 100% about match ups and the h2h tellst that story every time, not just Nadal vs Fed. I love Andy Roddick but his game and his prime matched up awful with Roger, just check out the h2h. Roger also struggles against quick counter punchers, check out his h2h with Gilles Simon.
h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis

No it's not, it's meaningless in terms of rankings and accomplishments. In fact, your post simply contributes to making my point. H2H is only useful for commentators to discuss matchup/style issues and to make predictions, and to people on the internet who are mostly fanboys for one player or another, and use H2H as a "when all else failed" non-argument.

And of course H2H is important in boxing, the reason why and the difference with tennis should be rather obvious.

Bobby Jr
04-16-2011, 11:06 PM
how can head to head be meaningless in a one-on-one sport, like boxing and tennis? tennis is 100% about match ups and the h2h...

....h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis
The h2h is, at best, a 4th rate criteria by which to rate a tennis player's position in the bigger scheme of things.

When people talk historically about great players they talk about Laver's calendar slam, Sampras' 14 slams.... somehow the criteria changes when we get to Federer and the h2h has prominence? No way.

You say tennis is a one-on-one sport like boxing but it is not. It is an individual sport where the goal is to win a (finite) event through a series of wins against others - bettering the results of all those competing. Boxing by contrast is entirely one-off events with an added entirely ambiguous criteria by which you earn the right to fight those above you and a sport which is also divided into multiple associations which all-but ignore each other.

No-one other than a person using a conveniently self-serving line of debate considers a player's h2h to be of higher importance in overall greatness stakes than slam wins (and their make-up) or time spent/consecutive weeks at the number one ranking.

OR... you are right - and therefore have just argued that somehow Paul Haarhuis and Richard Krajicek should be considered in the same neighbourhood of greatness as Pete Sampras.

The h2h means virtually nothing because it can't be used to compare people from different eras - while slams and rankings can.

Bobby Jr
04-16-2011, 11:19 PM
A good reason tennis still needs Federer can be seen in the support he gets in his matches. The first major tournament he doesn't appear at will show markedly lower interest in attendance and media coverage. Neither Nadal or Djokovic has anything like the appeal of Federer outside of dedicated tennis fans.

He literally is this tennis generation's Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods and nothing Nadal or other current top players achieve will likely change that. They simply don't have the broader appeal or the fortune to come along in a time when they could have a similarly mesmerising effect on the tour/public/media for so long.

tacou
04-16-2011, 11:45 PM
When people talk historically about great players they talk about Laver's calendar slam, Sampras' 14 slams.... somehow the criteria changes when we get to Federer and the h2h has prominence? No way.

No-one other than a person using a conveniently self-serving line of debate considers a player's h2h to be of higher importance in overall greatness stakes than slam wins (and their make-up) or time spent/consecutive weeks at the number one ranking.



I never said anything about h2h being more important than slam/ranking. I also mentioned nothing about comparing eras, nor did I single out Federer's h2h with anyone as having any effect on his legacy.

the GOAT discussion is endless/unanswerable (though I think Fed has the clearest claim to it) but the arguement that head-to-head isn't a useful stat doesn't work for me, and there really hasn't been sensible opposition to it.

if you were to place money on tomorrow's final, none of this (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=F401) would play into your decision?

angiebaby
04-17-2011, 12:08 AM
I'd love to see him do a Jimmy Connors and keep going until he's 39, just so I can enjoy watching him for another ten years.

Now, I'm not sure I can even see him continuing as long as Agassi did, but as long as he's around I will root for him wherever he goes and whatever he wins, Grand Slam, 250 or exhibition.

The day he retires there will be a massive hole left in the tennis world. Christ, even last years Wimbledon final felt wrong without him.

It didn't for me.

There was tennis before Federer and there will be tennis after him. One man isn't the be all and end all of the sport.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 04:25 AM
H2h is important whether people want it to be, or not. Statisticians aren't paid to keep up with a meaningless statistics. There isn't a reputable tennis site that doesn't list the h2h as a valuable stat. It's important for many reasons and to deny its important is unrealistic.

People still talk about, and are aware of the Sampras/Agassi, Chris/Martina, other significant h2h's in tennis history.

If Federer leaves it will leave a void for his fans, but I doubt it will negatively affect the entire state of tennis. There are still sellout crowds at the finals that he hasn't contested.

Anyone who has been watching tennis for a while understands that all sport is ever changing. As good as Michael Jordan was, the sport didn't change when he left. It hasn't changed for anyone and it won't change for Federer either.

Gorecki
04-17-2011, 04:48 AM
For *******s.

based on your post i'll assume apparently not for Peders like you

mandy01
04-17-2011, 04:49 AM
A good reason tennis still needs Federer can be seen in the support he gets in his matches. The first major tournament he doesn't appear at will show markedly lower interest in attendance and media coverage. Neither Nadal or Djokovic has anything like the appeal of Federer outside of dedicated tennis fans.

He literally is this tennis generation's Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods and nothing Nadal or other current top players achieve will likely change that. They simply don't have the broader appeal or the fortune to come along in a time when they could have a similarly mesmerising effect on the tour/public/media for so long.Well yeah I mean I do think it'll take a little bit of time for a lot of people to get used to his absence.I doubt all the people who used to buy finals tickets in the hope that they'd get to watch him play or specifically made sure to go to tournaments just to see him will suddenly switch over to someone else.It takes time for such a change to come about.

mandy01
04-17-2011, 04:51 AM
based on your post i'll assume apparently not for Peders like you
Unfortunately when I wrote that post to which underhand replied I was being possessed by dipitouz :evil: :shock:

Gorecki
04-17-2011, 04:53 AM
Unfortunately when I wrote that post to which underhand replied I was being possessed by dipitouz :evil: :shock:

hence the reason why Underdork replied...:)

kevoT
04-17-2011, 05:28 AM
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

But Fed has went through to more finals on clay courts that Nadal has on hard courts in their total h2h. It just shows that Fed is/was a better all-around player.

Bobby Jr
04-17-2011, 06:00 AM
I never said anything about h2h being more important than slam/ranking. I also mentioned nothing about comparing eras, nor did I single out Federer's h2h with anyone as having any effect on his legacy.

.....if you were to place money on tomorrow's final, none of this (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=F401) would play into your decision?
My reply was in terms of goatness, not a betting agency making odds etc.

For sure, it is holistically - but a distant 4th (at best) to slam wins, weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 - and maybe others when rating a player's position in tennis history. I'd even put career winning % ahead of h2h with any specific peer why? - because it's a stat which show a player relative to everyone else. A stat such as a h2h is only relative to one person and therefore almost irrelevant unless you're only comparing them for trending reasons (making betting odds etc).

The implication of your h2h comment is as obvious as any other time people drag it out in these discussions. It was about his losing h2h with some of his peers. In reality, the better comparison in terms of GOATness is slam wins: Federer 16, Nadal/Djokovic/Delpotro/Roddick/Hewitt combined 15. So Federer is higher up the food chain historically (up to this point) than all of their careers combined. :lol: (yes, spurious logic use alert)

As for using a h2h to place money on a single match - already covered two paragraphs up. It's just not important in the overall scheme of things when you're talking about potential greats/GOATs.

Hitman
04-17-2011, 10:00 AM
My reply was in terms of goatness, not a betting agency making odds etc.

For sure, it is holistically - but a distant 4th (at best) to slam wins, weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 - and maybe others when rating a player's position in tennis history. I'd even put career winning % ahead of h2h with any specific peer why? - because it's a stat which show a player relative to everyone else. A stat such as a h2h is only relative to one person and therefore almost irrelevant unless you're only comparing them for trending reasons (making betting odds etc).

The implication of your h2h comment is as obvious as any other time people drag it out in these discussions. It was about his losing h2h with some of his peers. In reality, the better comparison in terms of GOATness is slam wins: Federer 16, Nadal/Djokovic/Delpotro/Roddick/Hewitt combined 15. So Federer is higher up the food chain historically (up to this point) than all of their careers combined. :lol: (yes, spurious logic use alert)

As for using a h2h to place money on a single match - already covered two paragraphs up. It's just not important in the overall scheme of things when you're talking about potential greats/GOATs.

Whoa!!! That is just awesome! :)

There will never be another player like this guy! Tennis will sorely miss him when he is gone. imo, the most talented player to ever pick up a racquet, and with 16 slams under his belt, and still staying in contention, he is truly one of a kind.

Overall, great post!!!!

Sartorius
04-17-2011, 11:20 AM
H2h is important whether people want it to be, or not. Statisticians aren't paid to keep up with a meaningless statistics. There isn't a reputable tennis site that doesn't list the h2h as a valuable stat. It's important for many reasons and to deny its important is unrealistic.

In the context of how the h2h argument is being used against Federer (judging his career accomplishments), it's importance shivers considerably.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 11:54 AM
H2h is important whether people want it to be, or not. Statisticians aren't paid to keep up with a meaningless statistics. There isn't a reputable tennis site that doesn't list the h2h as a valuable stat. It's important for many reasons and to deny its important is unrealistic.

People still talk about, and are aware of the Sampras/Agassi, Chris/Martina, other significant h2h's in tennis history.

Nobody said the h2h is not important, it is just not THE most important thing in judging the overall greatness of a player. It pales in comparison to looking at everything as a whole, meaning all of the player's records and achievements. It is just ONE statistic, that is it. If it is so important than I guess you probably think that Davydenko is a better player than Nadal right?:wink:

Buckethead
04-17-2011, 05:26 PM
Certainly when He retires tennis will lose a lot. I have said before, when Fed retires the art of tennis will go away and with that much of the audience.
I don't seat around and watch Nadal Vs Ferrer, Nadal VS Djokovic anymore, these match ups don't bring anything to me anymore, I just got tired of these guys, too ugly game for me to see.
If I don't really have anything to do I'll watch otherwise anything will do it for me, unless it is major final where i make an effort to see it.
If Fed plays an ATP 250 i watch, if Sampras play an EXO i watch, but some of these guys can't bring anything special to the table but the baseline defensive ugly tennis.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 05:32 PM
In the context of how the h2h argument is being used against Federer (judging his career accomplishments), it's importance shivers considerably.

I don't know how history will record it, but even in today's articles they make much mention of it. I don't think the h2h means Nadal is greater than Fed (we won't know that until their careers are over), but I also don't think the
h2h is a meaningless stat either.

Even today people know Krajicek had a winning h2h against Pete, so obviously it's something people pay attention to.

What's interesting about Fed and Nadal's h2h imo, is the fact that they're so distanced in age.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-17-2011, 08:29 PM
I don't know how history will record it, but even in today's articles they make much mention of it. I don't think the h2h means Nadal is greater than Fed (we won't know that until their careers are over), but I also don't think the
h2h is a meaningless stat either.

Even today people know Krajicek had a winning h2h against Pete, so obviously it's something people pay attention to.

What's interesting about Fed and Nadal's h2h imo, is the fact that they're so distanced in age.

I agree the h2h is overated by*********s, it's aknock against fed, but hardly
ahuge one. I dont know if h2h is meaningless..but GOATis.just too difficult
to compare generatons esecially equi changes.

it'sfunny *******s will say variety willbe lost when fed goes..when about a decadeago..we lost the last half-decent serve-volleyer onthe tour.
the last decade.both fed and nadal hae benefitted fromthis.

Ray Mercer
04-17-2011, 08:59 PM
Federer is the only guy in tennis who I will watch play in the early rounds. He is great to watch regardless of wh he plays because you are guaranteed some great winners. You couldn't pay me to watch an early round Nadal match which is full of grinding and moonballing. Of all the former world number 1's I think Nadal may have the ugliest and least entertaining game to watch. Highly effective but ugly.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 08:59 PM
I agree the h2h is overated by*********s, it's aknock against fed, but hardly
ahuge one. I dont know if h2h is meaningless..but GOATis.just too difficult
to compare generatons esecially equi changes.

it'sfunny *******s will say variety willbe lost when fed goes..when about a decadeago..we lost the last half-decent serve-volleyer onthe tour.
the last decade.both fed and nadal hae benefitted fromthis.

I think the h2h is what it is, and nothing more. I don't know why people get so touchy about Fed vs. Nadal anyway.

They're not the only two tennis players that ever existed. When they're gone, they're gone. Anyone who's watched tennis over the years should know that.

I just hate people throwing out that ridiculous 16>9 thingy, and then getting mad when someone counters with h2h.

Everyone should just appreciate their player. I do. I love watching Nadal play more than any player I've ever seen. To each his own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Ray Mercer
04-17-2011, 09:07 PM
I think the h2h is what it is, and nothing more. I don't know why people get so touchy about Fed vs. Nadal anyway.

They're not the only two tennis players that ever existed. When they're gone, they're gone. Anyone who's watched tennis over the years should know that.

I just hate people throwing out that ridiculous 16>9 thingy, and then getting mad when someone counters with h2h.

Everyone should just appreciate their player. I do. I love watching Nadal play more than any player I've ever seen. To each his own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

How do find moonballing and repetitive topspin entertaining though? I mean with Federer you're getting sick drop shots, inside out forehand winners, serve and volley, one handed backhand flick passes, tweeners, lobs etc. With Nadal you're basically getting one stroke with the odd great winner on the run. Not trying to be a dick but just asking an honest question? Is it Federer's personality you don't care for?

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 09:19 PM
How do find moonballing and repetitive topspin entertaining though? I mean with Federer you're getting sick drop shots, inside out forehand winners, serve and volley, one handed backhand flick passes, tweeners, lobs etc. With Nadal you're basically getting one stroke with the odd great winner on the run. Not trying to be a dick but just asking an honest question? Is it Federer's personality you despise?

I like Nadal's passion as opposed to Federer's stoicism.

I think Nadal makes more fabulous gets than Federer.

The shots you named I see Nadal do too, lobs, flicks, overhead bh smashes, inside out, sick little dropshots, 360's, and that hitting the ball when it's behind him is to die for. Not to mention kissing volleys over the net like he did against Ferrer today.

I don't think Federer is original at all. I've seen it all before. There's no difference between Federer, Sampras, Haas, Malisse, and a ton of other guys who play that way.

Please, don't say between 2004-2007, because I saw him then and before he became TMF. Initially I was going to root for him because I thought he played like Sampras, but after reading his interviews he turned me off big time. Then Nadal came along and I chose Nadal to be a fan of, because never have I seen anyway play like him, and I don't think anyone can.

I prefer watching Djokovic, Murray, Haas, Ferrero, and a host of other players more, because how I perceive them makes a big difference to me.

And to answer your question honestly. I cannot stand his personality, so there's really nothing for me to like.

Although, as he's getting older and realizing his mortality, he has been more bearable, but when he was on top I couldn't believe many of the things he said.

Not to take anything away from him, he is a great player, it's just a case of been there, done that for me.

TTMR
04-17-2011, 09:31 PM
Certainly when He retires tennis will lose a lot. I have said before, when Fed retires the art of tennis will go away and with that much of the audience.
I don't seat around and watch Nadal Vs Ferrer, Nadal VS Djokovic anymore, these match ups don't bring anything to me anymore, I just got tired of these guys, too ugly game for me to see.
If I don't really have anything to do I'll watch otherwise anything will do it for me, unless it is major final where i make an effort to see it.
If Fed plays an ATP 250 i watch, if Sampras play an EXO i watch, but some of these guys can't bring anything special to the table but the baseline defensive ugly tennis.

While I would love to see Federer stick around and hopefully be competitive for another five years, I really don't understand the notion that somehow his game is 'prettier' or more aesthetically pleasing than anyone else's? Is it really all about the one-handed backhand? It surely cannot be aggressiveness, as there are players equally aggressive or more aggressive than Federer.

I realize that's always going to be subjective, but it's a recurrent point I see on TW that seems to be taken as gospel, and I just wonder why.

TTMR
04-17-2011, 10:23 PM
How do find moonballing and repetitive topspin entertaining though? I mean with Federer you're getting sick drop shots, inside out forehand winners, serve and volley, one handed backhand flick passes, tweeners, lobs etc. With Nadal you're basically getting one stroke with the odd great winner on the run. Not trying to be a dick but just asking an honest question? Is it Federer's personality you don't care for?

From what I recall, Federer didn't begin doing drop shots until the last two or three years once he stopped being able to overpower almost every opponent.

And frankly, if you want 'sick' drop shots, refer to Murray, Djokovic or Melzer. Those guys can hit them far more frequently and effectively than Federer.

I am pretty sure Nadal and every other player on tour hits inside out forehand winners several times a match. I'll grant Federer the backhand passes and the tweeners. However, Federer isn't really known for his great defense and lobbing skills. I'm not saying he isn't great at those things, but there are other guys who certainly stand out more defensively.

DragonBlaze
04-17-2011, 10:57 PM
From what I recall, Federer didn't begin doing drop shots until the last two or three years once he stopped being able to overpower almost every opponent.

And frankly, if you want 'sick' drop shots, refer to Murray, Djokovic or Melzer. Those guys can hit them far more frequently and effectively than Federer.

I am pretty sure Nadal and every other player on tour hits inside out forehand winners several times a match. I'll grant Federer the backhand passes and the tweeners. However, Federer isn't really known for his great defense and lobbing skills. I'm not saying he isn't great at those things, but there are other guys who certainly stand out more defensively.

????

Obviously now he isn't but back then that was one of his greatest assets. Only Nadal could top him in that department (and you could argue about grass and HC)

Sid_Vicious
04-17-2011, 11:03 PM
????

Obviously now he isn't but back then that was one of his greatest assets. Only Nadal could top him in that department (and you could argue about grass and HC)
Federer has(had?) to cover the court as good as anybody out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgFB2T_zdtA&feature=player_detailpage#t=389s

Buckethead
04-18-2011, 05:16 AM
While I would love to see Federer stick around and hopefully be competitive for another five years, I really don't understand the notion that somehow his game is 'prettier' or more aesthetically pleasing than anyone else's? Is it really all about the one-handed backhand? It surely cannot be aggressiveness, as there are players equally aggressive or more aggressive than Federer.

I realize that's always going to be subjective, but it's a recurrent point I see on TW that seems to be taken as gospel, and I just wonder why.
Many things make Federer's game prettier than everybody else. He can do it all(Can Nadal and Djokovic serve and volley??), the way He moves, very light on his feet, aggressive, doesn't waste time, goes for it, and don;t rely on people's UE to win, He makes his wins, on his racket, unlike Nadal, Djoker, Murray, He owns his destiny, He created shots and made some shots his signature shots such as the knifing slice, FH drop shot and He does all of that with a classic one handed with a mid size racket, He is polite, doesn't even look at his box when playing.... I could go on and on, but , it isn't worth it.
From what I recall, Federer didn't begin doing drop shots until the last two or three years once he stopped being able to overpower almost every opponent.

And frankly, if you want 'sick' drop shots, refer to Murray, Djokovic or Melzer. Those guys can hit them far more frequently and effectively than Federer.

I am pretty sure Nadal and every other player on tour hits inside out forehand winners several times a match. I'll grant Federer the backhand passes and the tweeners. However, Federer isn't really known for his great defense and lobbing skills. I'm not saying he isn't great at those things, but there are other guys who certainly stand out more defensively.

No they can't, not worth it arguing about this.:)

slice bh compliment
04-18-2011, 05:22 AM
Many things make Federer's game prettier than everybody else. He can do it all(Can Nadal and Djokovic serve and volley??), the way He moves, very light on his feet, aggressive, doesn't waste time, goes for it, and don;t rely on people's UE to win, He makes his wins, on his racket, unlike Nadal, Djoker, Murray, He owns his destiny, He created shots and made some shots his signature shots such as the knifing slice, FH drop shot and He does all of that with a classic one handed with a mid size racket, He is polite, doesn't even look at his box when playing.... I could go on and on, but , it isn't worth it.


No they can't, not worth it arguing about this.:)

In modern sports, there is no place for polite, self-sufficient players with an aesthetically pleasing game, versatility, grace and class. I appreciate the throwback and the use of only half his God-given number of hands on the backhand, but, come on, this guy is over da hill. He has no swagga.

To get famous, you gotta be in they faces, you gotta hammer, you gots to travel wit dat phat entourage (or else who you gonna watch entourage wit?), you gotta gets paid, you gotta wear the Disney Channel colors they tell you to wear and you gotta play the style that works.

This Rogerer guy needs to pack it up, bro'.

Hitman
04-18-2011, 06:01 AM
Man, I am going to miss the magic....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsJ1Wc9nscA

A great ambassador for the sport both on and off the court. The most complete player I have ever seen, and I just simply won't tire from watching his brilliance, and imagination on the court. There was no fakeness in his interviews, he always said it how he felt it was, whether people liked it or not, and I always appreciated that.

That court truly was his canvas on which he has created many special moments.

Marius_Hancu
04-18-2011, 06:12 AM
Many things make Federer's game prettier than everybody else. He can do it all(Can Nadal and Djokovic serve and volley??), the way He moves, very light on his feet, aggressive, doesn't waste time, goes for it, and don;t rely on people's UE to win, He makes his wins, on his racket, unlike Nadal, Djoker, Murray, He owns his destiny, He created shots and made some shots his signature shots such as the knifing slice, FH drop shot and He does all of that with a classic one handed with a mid size racket, He is polite, doesn't even look at his box when playing.... I could go on and on, but , it isn't worth it.

This great, original writer said it best:

Federer as Religious Experience
By DAVID FOSTER WALLACE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all

ananda
04-18-2011, 06:32 AM
In modern sports, there is no place for polite, self-sufficient players with an aesthetically pleasing game, versatility, grace and class. I appreciate the throwback and the use of only half his God-given number of hands on the backhand, but, come on, this guy is over da hill. He has no swagga.

To get famous, you gotta be in they faces, you gotta hammer, you gots to travel wit dat phat entourage (or else who you gonna watch entourage wit?), you gotta gets paid, you gotta wear the Disney Channel colors they tell you to wear and you gotta play the style that works.

This Rogerer guy needs to pack it up, bro'.
ROTFL !!! Hey slice, I've been away a while, the big fish here seem to have changed, but you still are pure gold ! Don't you "pack it up" ever, Sir.

sureshs
04-18-2011, 07:19 AM
Man, I am going to miss the magic....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsJ1Wc9nscA

A great ambassador for the sport both on and off the court. The most complete player I have ever seen, and I just simply won't tire from watching his brilliance, and imagination on the court. There was no fakeness in his interviews, he always said it how he felt it was, whether people liked it or not, and I always appreciated that.

That court truly was his canvas on which he has created many special moments.

A complete player doesn't have a flaky backhand.

sunny_cali
04-18-2011, 07:43 AM
A complete player doesn't have a flaky backhand.

Indeed. In much the same way that a complete troll should not recite the same tired lines over and over again. It is disappointing that the troll-GOAT is not more versatile and well-rounded.

sureshs
04-18-2011, 07:47 AM
Indeed. In much the same way that a complete troll should not recite the same tired lines over and over again. It is disappointing that the troll-GOAT is not more versatile and well-rounded.

It is not me who is repeating stuff, but others who keep saying he is the GOAT or complete player, etc.

sunny_cali
04-18-2011, 07:57 AM
It is not me who is repeating stuff, but others who keep saying he is the GOAT or complete player, etc.

As with the tennis-"GOAT" perhaps you have reached/crossed the ripe old age of 29 and are unable to note your glaring deficiencies ? Compared to the vibrant, energetic well-rounded trolling skills of an Yoda, you are looking positively lethargic, lacking in new ideas. Will troll-history look upon this moment as an inflection point, a passing of the baton perhaps ?

billnepill
04-18-2011, 08:01 AM
Indeed. In much the same way that a complete troll should not recite the same tired lines over and over again. It is disappointing that the troll-GOAT is not more versatile and well-rounded.

Without Federer tennis will be duller and trolls such as Suresh might need to retire as well. Suresh just isn't able to draw attention to himself with Nadal and Djokovic puns, which makes me sad for him.

On a more serious note, people will appreciate Federer more once he retires. As proven by Nadal and lately Djokovic ultimate success comes with excellent defense and with 90 % of the surfaces being slow, this will be a key to entering the top 3.

I hope I will see a player who can take the aggressive approach more often and be successful against the defenders, because as I said, for me, tennis will be duller.

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 09:21 AM
It's okay, in about 6 years when he retires, Dimitrov will just take his place, and people will think it's Federer. :)

slice bh compliment
04-18-2011, 09:57 AM
ROTFL !!! Hey slice, I've been away a while, the big fish here seem to have changed, but you still are pure gold ! Don't you "pack it up" ever, Sir. hahahah ananda, thanks..too kind. Thanks for picking that up. I was thinking I'd get flamed, hahah. How are you? Glad you are back. Hope you're hitting the ball well.

It's okay, in about 6 years when he retires, Dimitrov will just take his place, and people will think it's Federer. :)

Nice! I hope you are onto something!
But I have this sinking feeling Grigor will be Gasquet Part Deux rather than Roger Fed-again.

sunny_cali
04-18-2011, 10:06 AM
On a more serious note, people will appreciate Federer more once he retires. As proven by Nadal and lately Djokovic ultimate success comes with excellent defense and with 90 % of the surfaces being slow, this will be a key to entering the top 3.

I hope I will see a player who can take the aggressive approach more often and be successful against the defenders, because as I said, for me, tennis will be duller.

+1.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be anyone on the horizon yet who can consistently pull off an offensive game.

Wonder if the homogenization of surfaces will reach it's logical conclusion, and we will see a reversal of that process ?

sunny_cali
04-18-2011, 10:08 AM
It's okay, in about 6 years when he retires, Dimitrov will just take his place, and people will think it's Federer. :)

Wish it would be true. However, Grigor does not have the FH or the silken movement (yet).

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 10:13 AM
He will, soon. And he'll beat Federer in the 4th round of Wimbledon this year in 5 sets, and he'll go on to lose to Murray in the QFs, then win Wimbledon 2013 and there you go. :)

Marius_Hancu
04-19-2011, 04:44 AM
Wish it would be true. However, Grigor does not have the FH or the silken movement (yet).

he major prob is the movement

Povl Carstensen
04-19-2011, 07:54 AM
I've wiped Federer completely from my memory. Is he the ugly Swiss guy with the crap backhand?

Federer was not even the greatest in his own era (8-15 against Nadal) then how can he be the GOAT.

Notice how I used the past tense.

The end is near.
Just for reading pleasure.

Devilito
04-19-2011, 08:02 AM
he major prob is the movement

his major problem is the lack of winning

glazkovss
04-19-2011, 08:29 AM
I would like to see Federer try and win Singles Olimpics and Davis Cup - these titles I think are more important than fighting for no.1 ranking weeks record, which as it seems Fed priories now. I don't see much difference in spending 285 or 290 weeks at the top, while with those titles I've listed you either have it (like Nadal, Agassi, Kafelnikov own both or Sampras, Courier, Djokovic only DC) or not (like Federer). It's gonna be visible holes in the resume of his caliber if he won't win at least one of the two.

killertubbie
04-19-2011, 09:03 AM
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

What a dumb***** excuse! Nadal won his 2 Wimbledon while Fed has mono in 2008 and a back pain last year...

sureshs
04-19-2011, 09:09 AM
What a dumb***** excuse! Nadal won his 2 Wimbledon while Fed has mono in 2008 and a back pain last year...

I am sure he did

ananda
04-19-2011, 09:19 AM
I've wiped Federer completely from my memory. Is he the ugly Swiss guy with the crap backhand?
So you guys watch tennis for pretty faces ?? Wow, this forum is getting filled with girly men !!!

And yes, the backhand that only one person could break down.

Federer was not even the greatest in his own era (8-15 against Nadal) then how can he be the GOAT.

Notice how I used the past tense.

The end is near.
Put your fanboyism apart for a moment. Your h2h argument conveniently ignores the fact that Rafa did not reach many finals, and the h2h was largely on clay.

In any case, if you read the OP carefully, he is talking about RF's tennis, not whether Roger is the GOAT or not.

ananda
04-19-2011, 09:21 AM
Generally speaking, has nothing changed on this forum in the last one year. Do people still turn every thread into a Fed vs Nadal one, a h2h or GOAT one ??? :(

sureshs
04-19-2011, 09:25 AM
So what if it is mostly on clay? It is neither Fed's fault nor Rafa's fault.

Fact is, the H2H stands. Any number of excuses can be made, but it is the fact. As also that Rafa won the Olympics singles gold.

There is no way Fed can be GOAT when there has been a player in his own time dominating him so ruthlessly.

And it all comes down to his BH. Again, that is not Fed's fault, as his one hander was in the tradition of Sampras and Laver. It is a basic deficiency of the one hander, which now even Djokovic can exploit. It is not Fed's fault that the game has evolved, but that does not grant him an excuse.

fednad
04-19-2011, 09:26 AM
I've wiped Federer completely from my memory. Is he the ugly Swiss guy with the crap backhand?

You seem to be fan of that Spanish Chimp who, every second minute, thrusts his hand between his butt crack and then publicly smells it with pleasure followed by a loud vamos-fart.

JustBob
04-19-2011, 09:43 AM
H2H ,weak era and crap backhand, the favorite idiotic non-arguments of delusional Nadal fans desperate to undermine Federer's accomplishments.

JustBob
04-19-2011, 09:48 AM
And it all comes down to his BH. Again, that is not Fed's fault, as his one hander was in the tradition of Sampras and Laver. It is a basic deficiency of the one hander, which now even Djokovic can exploit. It is not Fed's fault that the game has evolved, but that does not grant him an excuse.

By your logic, since the game always evolves, no former player can ever be GOAT because by current standards, they would have "deficiencies".

Omega_7000
04-19-2011, 09:50 AM
You seem to be fan of that Spanish Chimp who, every second minute, thrusts his hand between his butt crack and then publicly smells it with pleasure followed by a loud vamos-fart.

Ouch! :lol:

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 09:53 AM
So what if it is mostly on clay? It is neither Fed's fault nor Rafa's fault.

Fact is, the H2H stands. Any number of excuses can be made, but it is the fact. As also that Rafa won the Olympics singles gold.

There is no way Fed can be GOAT when there has been a player in his own time dominating him so ruthlessly.

And it all comes down to his BH. Again, that is not Fed's fault, as his one hander was in the tradition of Sampras and Laver. It is a basic deficiency of the one hander, which now even Djokovic can exploit. It is not Fed's fault that the game has evolved, but that does not grant him an excuse.

Wait why isn't it Rafa's fault he didn't reach more other surface finals from 05-07?

sureshs
04-19-2011, 10:26 AM
Wait why isn't it Rafa's fault he didn't reach more other surface finals from 05-07?

It only matters when they played each other. Why they did not play each other is not the point.

sureshs
04-19-2011, 10:26 AM
By your logic, since the game always evolves, no former player can ever be GOAT because by current standards, they would have "deficiencies".

No, it is when someone in the same era dominates him due to the weakness that it becomes an issue

ivan_the_terrible
04-19-2011, 10:34 AM
No, it is when someone in the same era dominates him due to the weakness that it becomes an issue

Supposing that "someone" is a dishonest cheater, does your argument still hold water? Or are you just a numbers guy?

MaiDee
04-19-2011, 10:35 AM
Life outside tennis is far more financially lucrative now than then, so there isn't quite the financial or psychological incentive to stay and prove oneself in the game. Indeed, playing past ones peak is probably frowned upon as tarnishing a legend, but I tend to agree this isn't so (or shouldn't be so).

Rossini Beautiful :)

LuckyR
04-19-2011, 10:53 AM
Tennis may or may not need RF, the question, though is: does Roger need tennis? Or to put it another way: at what ranking (below #1) does the RF ego say "the h3ll with it, if I can't be #1 I don't want to mess with the tour!".
How low is too low for Rog? Do you foresee him tolerating being introduced on the PA system around the world: "and now, former world #1, the current number seven, IN THE WORLD... Roger Federer!!!"

Povl Carstensen
04-19-2011, 01:09 PM
So what if it is mostly on clay? It is neither Fed's fault nor Rafa's fault.

Fact is, the H2H stands. Any number of excuses can be made, but it is the fact. As also that Rafa won the Olympics singles gold.

There is no way Fed can be GOAT when there has been a player in his own time dominating him so ruthlessly.

And it all comes down to his BH. Again, that is not Fed's fault, as his one hander was in the tradition of Sampras and Laver. It is a basic deficiency of the one hander, which now even Djokovic can exploit. It is not Fed's fault that the game has evolved, but that does not grant him an excuse.

Posted by Nadal: I am more than happy with my titles, and I think talk about if I am better or worse than Roger is stupid because the titles say he's much better than me, so that's the truth at that moment. I think that will be true all my life.

Povl Carstensen
04-19-2011, 01:16 PM
It only matters when they played each other. Why they did not play each other is not the point.
Thats your opinion, but not shared by most.

sureshs
04-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Posted by Nadal: I am more than happy with my titles, and I think talk about if I am better or worse than Roger is stupid because the titles say he's much better than me, so that's the truth at that moment. I think that will be true all my life.

Real intent of Humbalito: Everyone knows I am better than Federer. He called me one-dimensional and insulted Uncle Toni for supposedly coaching me. Once he found that he could not beat me, he decided to try some bromance on me. I am a simple kid and don't play mind games, so I just play my best and beat him every time.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 01:40 PM
Real intent of Humbalito: Everyone knows I am better than Federer. He called me one-dimensional and insulted Uncle Toni for supposedly coaching me. Once he found that he could not beat me, he decided to try some bromance on me. I am a simple kid and don't play mind games, so I just play my best and beat him every time.

How could he beat him every time if the H2H is 15-8?

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 01:41 PM
It only matters when they played each other. Why they did not play each other is not the point.

The reason they did not play each other more often was because Rafa stunk on all the surface until Fed's mono hit. What a coincidence.

sureshs
04-19-2011, 01:44 PM
Excuses really don't matter. The H2H speaks for itself. Facts cannot be changed.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 01:46 PM
Excuses really don't matter. The H2H speaks for itself. Facts cannot be changed.

Agreed, Davydenko's dominance of Nadal H2H speaks for itself. Facts are facts.

sureshs
04-19-2011, 01:49 PM
Agreed, Davydenko's dominance of Nadal H2H speaks for itself. Facts are facts.

That still doesn't change Fed-Nadal H2H though. Davydenko may be the GOAT, but Fed isn't is the point.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 01:52 PM
That still doesn't change Fed-Nadal H2H though. Davydenko may be the GOAT, but Fed isn't is the point.

Hmmm so Davydenko is the GOAT, yet Fed dominates Davydenko H2H, so that makes him GOAT??? LOL Got yaaaaaaaaaaa. You can't weasel out of this one :)

sureshs
04-19-2011, 01:59 PM
Hmmm so Davydenko is the GOAT, yet Fed dominates Davydenko H2H, so that makes him GOAT??? LOL Got yaaaaaaaaaaa. You can't weasel out of this one :)

Yes, because people always mention Davydenko as GOAT, not Nadal or Federer.

Give it up man.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 02:00 PM
Yes, because people always mention Davydenko as GOAT, not Nadal or Federer.

Give it up man.

HAhaah, excuses excuses. But clearly the H2H speaks for itself. Davydenko >>> Nadal.

What's better to have a losing H2H against a 9 time slam champion or a slamless wonder? :) Think about that one for a bit ;)

Ray Mercer
04-19-2011, 04:05 PM
sureshs is a clown.

ananda
04-19-2011, 08:00 PM
H2H is an interesting stat but by itself it does not tell the full story.

Anyway, this thread was not about who is better. Or who is GOAT. Let's not derail the thread.

rommil
04-19-2011, 08:26 PM
sureshs is a clown.

He jst tries to make some good jokes but his delivery isn't polished. The person good though at delivering a joke is suresh's mom.

fednad
04-19-2011, 08:55 PM
Yes, because people always mention Davydenko as GOAT, not Nadal or Federer.

Give it up man.

When did you return from Rafa's harum and massage parlour?

MichaelNadal
04-19-2011, 08:57 PM
He jst tries to make some good jokes but his delivery isn't polished. The person good though at delivering a joke is suresh's mom.

Oucccch.

10char.

ksbh
04-20-2011, 05:12 AM
ROFL X 5000! Brilliant!

Suresh, give the girl a break. I think you've taken her to the cleaners enough times in this one thread alone! LOL!

That still doesn't change Fed-Nadal H2H though. Davydenko may be the GOAT, but Fed isn't is the point.

OTMPut
04-20-2011, 06:18 AM
Yes, because people always mention Davydenko as GOAT, not Nadal or Federer.

Give it up man.

i have told you this many times. you are better off investing your time in improving that ugly serve of yours.

sureshs
04-20-2011, 09:09 AM
ROFL X 5000! Brilliant!

Suresh, give the girl a break. I think you've taken her to the cleaners enough times in this one thread alone! LOL!

Probably you didn't see it, but in the Former Pro Player section, there was a thread about the GOAT from each country. People were suggesting Ramanathan Krishnan and Vijay Amritraj. I corrected them and suggested your name.

sureshs
04-20-2011, 09:10 AM
He jst tries to make some good jokes but his delivery isn't polished. The person good though at delivering a joke is suresh's mom.

No, the person better than her is Federer because he delivers a joke backhand.

rommil
04-20-2011, 09:18 AM
No, the person better than her is Federer because he delivers a joke backhand.

It's a joke backhand that gave the others a chance at relative greatness.

ksbh
04-20-2011, 10:32 AM
No, I didn't see it but thanks for stating the facts Suresh! I'm indeed the best that country ever produced.

And among the objective reporters of this game, you're certainly the best!

Probably you didn't see it, but in the Former Pro Player section, there was a thread about the GOAT from each country. People were suggesting Ramanathan Krishnan and Vijay Amritraj. I corrected them and suggested your name.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-20-2011, 10:38 AM
Sorry, but Vijay was a movie star too. He wins.

sureshs
04-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Sorry, but Vijay was a movie star too. He wins.

Octopusssy.......

BrooklynNY
04-20-2011, 10:48 AM
Sureshs for the win!

sureshs
04-20-2011, 10:53 AM
No, I didn't see it but thanks for stating the facts Suresh! I'm indeed the best that country ever produced.

And among the objective reporters of this game, you're certainly the best!

I was in the same place where you grew up. I used to see your name in the sports page of the Statesman. I have also visited the South Club where you must have played many matches. But those days I had no clue about tennis. I got myself a wood racquet and hit with it for a few days but gave up.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-20-2011, 10:56 AM
Octopusssy.......

I think the latter two syllables pretty much proves my point.

ananda
04-20-2011, 08:25 PM
Probably more relevant than the derailing going on ...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5586664&postcount=82

accidental
04-20-2011, 09:05 PM
Great post Op.

hutennis
04-20-2011, 09:59 PM
Great original post. I feel like Federer's game, even if he were in his prime, could not dominate the current field of competitors boasting so much power and speed. But I must say, watching Federer is more like poetry in motion in comparison to others. I'd definitely like him to stick around a few more years so more people can witness it... losing or not.

accidental
04-20-2011, 10:15 PM
Roger Federer is worth looking at. His head, features, shoulders, and torso have a size that attracts attention; their proportions to each other made an effect which in any male at any place would justify more than the term handsome - in his later years, he is likely to become to be known beyond his local world, the word "Roman" will be used in descriptions of him.

His legs bore out the striking and agreeable proportions of his body; and his lightness on his feet, his erectness, his easy bearing, add to the impression of physical grace and virility. His suppleness, combined with his bigness of frame, and his large, wide-set rather glowing eyes, heavy brown hair, and markedly bronze complexion give him some of the handsomeness of an Indian. His courtesy as he surrenders tennis advice to fellow players suggests genuine friendliness towards all mankind. His voice is noticeably resonant, masculine, warm. His pleasure in the attentions of the bootblack's whisk reflect a consciousness about clothes unusual in an Swiss man. His manner, as he bestows a tip suggested generous good-nature, a wish to give pleasure, based on physical well-being and a sincere kindliness of heart.

ledwix
04-21-2011, 12:05 AM
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.

That's right, Nadal was on top of the world for 2 whole years!!! That makes him in a whole different class above Federer....meanwhile Federer was only #1 whenever the field sucked. But whenever Nadal was #1, the field was awesome!!!

Hitman
04-21-2011, 12:46 AM
That's right, Nadal was on top of the world for 2 whole years!!! That makes him in a whole different class above Federer....meanwhile Federer was only #1 whenever the field sucked. But whenever Nadal was #1, the field was awesome!!!


Of course!!!!!! That is the way it works. The field sucked big time from Feb 04until August 08.

But then the field was just soooo strong from Aug 08, to June 09. You won't believe the astronomical rise in the competition field during those months. It was nothing that was ever seen before.

But, something strange happened...July 09 until June 10 the field was depleted. Some kind of biblical plague, unleashing of the four horseman, ravaged the lands of the extremely competitive tennis world. It was terrible, there was no competition left.

But then, after the darkest of days, the brightest of light came from beyond the horizon from July 10, and the competition became miraciously the greatest it has ever been. The depth, incomparable to anything in the past was truly a God-send to this planet.

NadalAgassi
04-21-2011, 01:01 AM
Federer and Nadal both faced a weak overall field. Most Nadal fans have no problems admiting this obvious fact, it seems most Federer fans are in denial and actually consider the current era that boasts Roddick as one of its biggest dogs (long term) as a super field superior to past ones, lol! The big difference is Nadal went through Federer himself to win alot of his titles, unlike the other way around.

namelessone
04-21-2011, 02:28 AM
Of course!!!!!! That is the way it works. The field sucked big time from Feb 04until August 08.

But then the field was just soooo strong from Aug 08, to June 09. You won't believe the astronomical rise in the competition field during those months. It was nothing that was ever seen before.

But, something strange happened...July 09 until June 10 the field was depleted. Some kind of biblical plague, unleashing of the four horseman, ravaged the lands of the extremely competitive tennis world. It was terrible, there was no competition left.

But then, after the darkest of days, the brightest of light came from beyond the horizon from July 10, and the competition became miraciously the greatest it has ever been. The depth, incomparable to anything in the past was truly a God-send to this planet.

The field gets stronger when trophies are bitten and lessened when they are kissed :)

Apparently that's the way tennis works nowadays.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 05:15 AM
Federer and Nadal both faced a weak overall field. Most Nadal fans have no problems admiting this obvious fact, it seems most Federer fans are in denial and actually consider the current era that boasts Roddick as one of its biggest dogs (long term) as a super field superior to past ones, lol! The big difference is Nadal went through Federer himself to win alot of his titles, unlike the other way around.

It's a shame those most Nadal fans can't grasp the concepts of 'weak-strong' era contradictions.

ksbh
04-21-2011, 05:58 AM
ROFL X 5000, NA! You, sir, are on the ball today!

I've said some harsh things about Roddick myself but this one? I won't argue though because it does hammer home a good point! LOL!

Federer and Nadal both faced a weak overall field. Most Nadal fans have no problems admiting this obvious fact, it seems most Federer fans are in denial and actually consider the current era that boasts Roddick as one of its biggest dogs (long term) as a super field superior to past ones, lol! The big difference is Nadal went through Federer himself to win alot of his titles, unlike the other way around.

Povl Carstensen
04-21-2011, 06:11 AM
Excuses really don't matter. The H2H speaks for itself. Facts cannot be changed.
The fact is that you are pretty alone with your opinions.
That still doesn't change Fed-Nadal H2H though. Davydenko may be the GOAT, but Fed isn't is the point.
If Davydenko may be the goat, then certainly Federer is.

Povl Carstensen
04-21-2011, 06:12 AM
Heres a few facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

TheTruth
04-21-2011, 06:51 AM
How do people miss that the current Top 10 are in the 23-25 range?

So how old were they six years ago?

Don't they get time to mature and gain experience?

It is impossible for the field to have been strong back then, when they've just reached the age of maturity.

LOL@ the wild dramatizations.

Hitman
04-21-2011, 07:19 AM
The field gets stronger when trophies are bitten and lessened when they are kissed :)

Apparently that's the way tennis works nowadays.

LOL! Yeah, if you're biting trophies, the field gets stronger. If you are kissing, it weakens. Because lets face it, kissing is for pansies! LOL! And we have been waiting decades for the biting to begin, so we can finally say we have a strong era! And here we are, living that strong era we have so desperately been craving.

:)

sureshs
04-21-2011, 07:27 AM
Roger Federer is worth looking at. His head, features, shoulders, and torso have a size that attracts attention; their proportions to each other made an effect which in any male at any place would justify more than the term handsome - in his later years, he is likely to become to be known beyond his local world, the word "Roman" will be used in descriptions of him.

His legs bore out the striking and agreeable proportions of his body; and his lightness on his feet, his erectness, his easy bearing, add to the impression of physical grace and virility. His suppleness, combined with his bigness of frame, and his large, wide-set rather glowing eyes, heavy brown hair, and markedly bronze complexion give him some of the handsomeness of an Indian. His courtesy as he surrenders tennis advice to fellow players suggests genuine friendliness towards all mankind. His voice is noticeably resonant, masculine, warm. His pleasure in the attentions of the bootblack's whisk reflect a consciousness about clothes unusual in an Swiss man. His manner, as he bestows a tip suggested generous good-nature, a wish to give pleasure, based on physical well-being and a sincere kindliness of heart.

Are you a painter or sculptor?

ksbh
04-21-2011, 07:37 AM
ha ha, I'm amused by the number of Fedfools in here that think Suresh's opinions are worthless yet get in circular arguments with him! ROFL!

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 08:04 AM
ha ha, I'm amused by the number of Fedfools in here that think Suresh's opinions are worthless yet get in circular arguments with him! ROFL!

What circular arguments? He's the one saying Davydenko is GOAT :).

ksbh
04-21-2011, 09:12 AM
Suresh's argument is clear as the water that runs outside the Temple in Mookambika Kollur (in the southern state of Karnataka, India, for you non-Indian folks)... I could see the water coursing through the scattered little pebbles at the bottom of the stream! But this was over 20 years ago, so I can't vouch for that in modern times, unless I visit again!

Davydenko may or may not be the GOAT. Nadal either. The point is that regardless of that, Federer isn't the GOAT.

And no, he didn't say Federer-arse-kisser Davydenko is the GOAT. You did.

What circular arguments? He's the one saying Davydenko is GOAT :).

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 09:20 AM
Suresh's argument is clear as the water that runs outside the Temple in Mookambika Kollur (in the southern state of Karnataka, India, for you non-Indian folks)... I could see the water coursing through the scattered little pebbles at the bottom of the stream! But this was over 20 years ago, so I can't vouch for that in modern times, unless I visit again!

Davydenko may or may not be the GOAT. Nadal either. The point is that regardless of that, Federer isn't the GOAT.

And no, he didn't say Federer-arse-kisser Davydenko is the GOAT. You did.

No one is GOAT. But if someone put a gun to your head, the majority of people would name Roger Federer. Done deal. Mob rules!

Povl Carstensen
04-21-2011, 09:37 AM
ha ha, I'm amused by the number of Fedfools in here that think Suresh's opinions are worthless yet get in circular arguments with him! ROFL!

Suresh's argument is clear as the water that runs outside the Temple in Mookambika Kollur (in the southern state of Karnataka, India, for you non-Indian folks)... I could see the water coursing through the scattered little pebbles at the bottom of the stream! But this was over 20 years ago, so I can't vouch for that in modern times, unless I visit again!

Davydenko may or may not be the GOAT. Nadal either. The point is that regardless of that, Federer isn't the GOAT.

And no, he didn't say Federer-arse-kisser Davydenko is the GOAT. You did.
Maybe you should stop calling people names and stating opinions as facts.

ksbh
04-21-2011, 09:39 AM
Okay now, it's possible that may be true. But you'd do well to note that many of those folks have jumped off the Federer bandwagon already.

No one is GOAT. But if someone put a gun to your head, the majority of people would name Roger Federer. Done deal. Mob rules!

ksbh
04-21-2011, 09:40 AM
Fair enough, sorry!

Maybe you should stop calling people names and stating opinions as facts.

Povl Carstensen
04-21-2011, 09:42 AM
Yes goat is a matter of general consensus, and in that respect Federer is clearly the goat. Seems like some people have a hard time living with that.

ksbh
04-21-2011, 11:10 AM
Yes, and the mediocre Spice Girls are the greatest musical group in the world.

Yes goat is a matter of general consensus, and in that respect Federer is clearly the goat. Seems like some people have a hard time living with that.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 11:17 AM
Okay now, it's possible that may be true. But you'd do well to note that many of those folks have jumped off the Federer bandwagon already.

Yeah sure, that's the fickle nature of humanity. But the only objective data we have are achievements, all else including weak era arguments are subjective BS. 16 slams rules currently rules the roost. It's all just semantics, you can call that GOAT or not.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 11:19 AM
Yes, and the mediocre Spice Girls are the greatest musical group in the world.

Ummm, no that would be the Beatles. Usually the mob is onto something. It's only the minority that is caught up in their own delusional beliefs. Majority chooses by Brownian motion. That's how life works.

slice bh compliment
04-21-2011, 11:31 AM
Majority chooses by Brownian motion. That's how life works.

Yes. Brownianmotion. Look at the brain on Brad.

I've seen Brownianmotion, man, and it ain't pretty, especially when you are about to eat a brownie and it just gets up and walks away from you. That indeed is how life works. Brownianmotion.

slice bh compliment
04-21-2011, 11:35 AM
Yes, and the mediocre Spice Girls are the greatest musical group in the world.

What? You don't like the Spice Girls? Why The Face?

I agree with DjokerisBeast. Even my youngest son knows the Beatles and Federer are the greatest KNOWN to man. He may root for Rafa and jam to a Green Day or a Radiohead song, but like most of us...he knows who the GoATs are.

sureshs
04-21-2011, 11:37 AM
Yes goat is a matter of general consensus, and in that respect Federer is clearly the goat. Seems like some people have a hard time living with that.

If Fed had won the Olympics singles Gold, I might have forgiven his H2H and his BH and accepted him as GOAT, given his 16 Slams and Career Slam. But that did not happen. He has one more chance next year in London.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 11:38 AM
If Fed had won the Olympics singles Gold, I might have forgiven his H2H and his BH and accepted him as GOAT, given his 16 Slams and Career Slam. But that did not happen. He has one more chance next year in London.

Isn't doubles twice as good as singles? Simple math.

bolo
04-21-2011, 11:50 AM
I hope he sticks around for a few more years too, tennis (and nadal) would be poorer without him.

billnepill
04-21-2011, 12:44 PM
Okay now, it's possible that may be true. But you'd do well to note that many of those folks have jumped off the Federer bandwagon already.

jumping off the bandwagon must be fun. You should know.

Btw, the thread is about Federer being needed, not Federer being the GOAT.

Like it or not, the majority of the people here, me incl, consider him the best they have ever seen. Maybe we are young fools, maybe we are not considerate, but that is what he is to us, "*******s". He has produced some amazing tennis and has achieved A LOT.

Proclaiming him GOAT, however, is not clever. There shouldn't be GOAT. It is not fair to past greats who achieved as much in different conditions.
It is also not fair that you spread your hatred towards Federer everywhere on the boards. It is disappointing and disturbing, because ppl here seem to like you.

rk_sports
04-21-2011, 03:52 PM
To all of those saying that Federer should retire in order not to diminish his heritage:
....
Like Federer today, Laver in his thirties did a great service to the tennis community by continuing to present a great style of play, even if the results weren't favorable to him.
....
New generations of players need Federer just for the visual gratification and showcasing of a great style of play (yes: S-Volleying, even though less than Sampras; yes: 1HBH; yes: smaller-head raquets), just as yesteryear's generations needed Laver to stay around.

We need models and Federer is the best model against the uniformity that traps the current game. He's the model of great physical and mental talent, of great and easy shotmaking, against the great plodding.

We need him because he is the star that was and still is both extremely spectacular and light-moving and deadly efficient while at it.

Well said mate!

Hopefully Fed keep playing and not take the Borg route.

I know there are rival fans who are not so much into Fed and most of those reasons are not because they don't like his tennis style, but purely non-technical so to say (too many wins, arrogant, etc, etc)

P.S. The buzz at the tournament when Fed is going to practice or playing is just amazing (basing this on my personal observation at Indian Wells and hearing commentators talk about it at other torunaments)

ksbh
04-25-2011, 09:40 AM
You aren't off the mark Bill. I do engage in quite a bit of Federer bashing. Nothing personal though, it's all in good fun. But my apologies anyways, I certainly need to tone it down ... and I will :)

It is also not fair that you spread your hatred towards Federer everywhere on the boards. It is disappointing and disturbing, because ppl here seem to like you.

Sentinel
04-25-2011, 08:01 PM
^ Whazzup mate ? You still see feedfools and fediots swimming around in your head :D Considering that Fed beat Rafa only in 2 slam finals, whereas Rafa beat Fed in 47, you have not much to feel bitter about !!!

ksbh
04-26-2011, 05:47 AM
Please stop associating my moniker with terms such as fedfools and fediots. I've made a promise to Bill and I intend to keep it. I fed you when you were a hungry kid on the streets. Please respect that fact if not anything else.

^ Whazzup mate ? You still see feedfools and fediots swimming around in your head :D Considering that Fed beat Rafa only in 2 slam finals, whereas Rafa beat Fed in 47, you have not much to feel bitter about !!!

ksbh
04-26-2011, 05:52 AM
ROFL X 7000, Slice!

There's something with Federer fans and the products of their procreation! Let me list for you-

1. Chris In Japan's then 6 year old daughter who could tell Federer had a smoother style!

2. Rhino's 5 year old (now 7) nephew who proclaimed that Federer was GOAT based on playing style!

Ladies and gentlemen, would you please welcome the latest addition to the club- Slice BH's youngest son!

:)

What? You don't like the Spice Girls? Why The Face?

I agree with DjokerisBeast. Even my youngest son knows the Beatles and Federer are the greatest KNOWN to man. He may root for Rafa and jam to a Green Day or a Radiohead song, but like most of us...he knows who the GoATs are.

sureshs
04-26-2011, 07:28 AM
So this Federer fanboyism is genetic? Then can we really blame them for it?

slice bh compliment
04-26-2011, 11:43 AM
Yes, my appreciation for The Fed has nothing to do with my youngest son's:
shanktastic one handed backhand,
his penchant for headbands,
his unecessarily graceful carioca steps on sliced BH approaches,
his vegetarianism,
and his preference for the meatier girls at the school dance.
He also lists a Bush cd as a guilty pleasure and did a mash-up of a No Doubt and a Bush song.

Hmmmm.... not sure where he gets it. It must be genetic.

I'm of course making most of that up....but I've got to mention how absolutely proud a fellow dad I met was when he was identifying his son in a match [pretty high level of 10 and under tennis). He struck up a nice conversation with me. The guy had olive skin and curly dk-brown hair, and so did both kids. I asked which kid was his: the Rafa or the Federer? He smiled and proudly answered, "haha, The Roger" nodding toward the kid with the 26 inch junior version of the BLX Tour, the head-to-toe RF garb and the shanktastic one hander. Nice smile and a knowing glance, sharing the thought that all of us FEDophile Fathers would love for our sons to have half the game of the real RF.

EDIT:
Okay, offf the Federer thing....my comments on kids.....
Kids are really tapped into what's golden in the universe, from what I'm seeing (as a dad, as a former tennis pro/coach and as an IndianGuides chief. Kids 'get' good music until Disney Channel gets a hold of them.
They talk to God...until Disney Channel gets a hold of them.
They even rock on garage band until pre-teen girl culture enters their periphery.

Sentinel
04-26-2011, 08:07 PM
^ *Tips hat to slice*
Best post of thread (after the first post).

ksbh
04-27-2011, 06:01 AM
ROFL X 800! :)

So this Federer fanboyism is genetic? Then can we really blame them for it?

ksbh
04-27-2011, 06:02 AM
ROFL squared! Great post! Sir Slice, you're off the chain here!

LOL!

Yes, my appreciation for The Fed has nothing to do with my youngest son's:
shanktastic one handed backhand,
his penchant for headbands,
his unecessarily graceful carioca steps on sliced BH approaches,
his vegetarianism,
and his preference for the meatier girls at the school dance.
He also lists a Bush cd as a guilty pleasure and did a mash-up of a No Doubt and a Bush song.

Hmmmm.... not sure where he gets it. It must be genetic.

I'm of course making most of that up....but I've got to mention how absolutely proud a fellow dad I met was when he was identifying his son in a match [pretty high level of 10 and under tennis). He struck up a nice conversation with me. The guy had olive skin and curly dk-brown hair, and so did both kids. I asked which kid was his: the Rafa or the Federer? He smiled and proudly answered, "haha, The Roger" nodding toward the kid with the 26 inch junior version of the BLX Tour, the head-to-toe RF garb and the shanktastic one hander. Nice smile and a knowing glance, sharing the thought that all of us FEDophile Fathers would love for our sons to have half the game of the real RF.

EDIT:
Okay, offf the Federer thing....my comments on kids.....
Kids are really tapped into what's golden in the universe, from what I'm seeing (as a dad, as a former tennis pro/coach and as an IndianGuides chief. Kids 'get' good music until Disney Channel gets a hold of them.
They talk to God...until Disney Channel gets a hold of them.
They even rock on garage band until pre-teen girl culture enters their periphery.