Applying TW Federer logic Nadal and Emerson are greater than Laver

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I'm one of the people who think that Federer's numbers in 2004 to 2007 were inflated due to a vacuum of competition. I do believe that Tsonga, Murray, Del Potro, and Djokovic "of the now" are better than old Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko, and Ljubucic.

    All of that being said, it isn't all about the numbers for me.

    As a watcher and player of tennis... I can look at Federer, weak era or not, and I see the tennis greatness there.

    If Federer had stronger players up in the top 10 during his prime, I think his numbers would be less, but it wouldn't reduce his greatness in my mind. I know the guy is greater than Sampras. I know the guy is greater than Borg. I know he's greater than Lendl. I know the guy is Tier-1. It isn't his fault that he peaked at a time when he was playing mostly washouts and old guys.

    If numbers were all that mattered, then great players in strong eras would never be considered great.
     
  2. rosewallGOAT

    rosewallGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Well in that case alot of players must be "bashed" since people make that weaker competition argument against alot of players, not just Federer. Please dont pretend Federer is the only one who people have used the weak competition argument against, including Nadal and Djokovic, and thus he should be somehow immune to it for those who feel that way.
     
  3. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    I can respect your opinion. I don't agree with it. But you are respectful, so it is ok to disagree. It's boring being surrounded by yes men anyway, hehe. That is how progress is made by controversy.

    Of course Fed wins less if you put other greats in his peak years. But so would others if you put peak Fed in their eras. It evens out.

    But numbers do matter. You assess the strength of an era with numbers of the guys. But more competitive era doesn't mean the strongest. It just means more players split slams and one player is not as dominant.

    One flaw that I see in your theory. You use slams across surfaces to boost players. Just because Nadal has 8 RG titles, this doesn't make him better on hard. So we need to look the strength of players in individual surfaces.

    WO: Fed has beaten a lot of W champions on grass. Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt. I add even roddick with 3 grass finals. Even Murray is great on grass.

    USO:He has beaten Roddick, Djokovic, Hewitt, Agassi, Murray

    AO: He beat Djokovic once. Murray is decent at AO. I guess at AO Fed and Djokovic dominate, so not many AO greats here.

    RG: Maybe here you have a point, he never beat RG champions.

    Let's check Nadal. How many champions did he beat at RG? Just Fed in 2011. Before he was 0 RG champion.

    At USO, he had nobody. He beat just Djokovic, 0 USO champion at the time.
    He didn't beat USO champions never I think.

    On grass Fed beat a lot better players than Nadal.

    At WTF no contest. No easy draws. Here Fed beat the toughest opposition probably in all those years.

    So, if you compare by slams alone considering the surface, you see, that Feds opposition is not that weak and Nadal's is not as strong as it seems.
     
  4. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,276
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Yes and no to this, Tsonga has had moments of incredible form but I doubt he could beat peak Federer (albeit with some foot difficulties) at TMC like Nalbandian did or beat Djokovic, Nadal and Federer back to back and win two indoor masters in 07. Likewise Davydenko leads Nadal 6-1 on hardcourts and won the WTF's beating Federer and Del Potro in a row, that in his Del Potro's best year. I'd take Old Agassi at the US Open over Tsonga easily and only take Del Potro in his 09 form. Peak Hewitt and Peak Roddick on grass are better on average than Djokovic and would be a good match for Murray. The only thing I really agree with is Djokovic and Murray being better on hardcourts at their best since 2011.
     
  5. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I disagree with your assessment of the strength of those players. I think Fed's greatest Wimbledon achievement was in 2012. He had to go through Benneteau, Murray, and Djokovic to win it. That is incredibly tough on grass against those guys at his age. The next toughest was beating Nadal in 2007 (although Nadal was still a grass infant). Those two achievements alone show how good the guy is on fast surfaces.

    As for the USO, Federer never really had any in-form or in-prime competition there. Not that it mattered, he ruled/rules fast surfaces. Same for the WTF. I think his results would be nearly as good with tougher competition.

    As for the AO, he never had real competition there, either.

    As for the French Open... Federer is a good clay player, but he can't beat Nadal (nobody really can). Federer was never as good as Djokovic on clay, either. Federer is lucky that Soderling's forehand was able to GOAT for four sets back in 2009... otherwise Fed would never have won the FO.

    I'm hopeful that Federer has a resurgence. I disagree with all the people who says he's done. Agassi and Williams both did a massive resurgence at Federer's age. I think Federer can do it, too. I sincerely hope he does.
     
  6. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    What's your point? That Fed didn't deserve his records because of a weak competition? He made 23 straight semis against the same guys that Nadal had. Nadal managed 5? So this means Fed really is that great.

    How can you fault Fed because he was so good that nobody was able to challenge him? But now that Djokovic and Nadal are challenging him, you also penalize him.

    Tell me something. What would Fed have to do for you, to be considered goat and have strong competition? Give me a scenario that you would consider him goat.
     
  7. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,276
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    mightyrick isn't a Nadal fan as you seem to think. He thinks Laver is the GOAT, can't fault anyone for that really.

    Hewitt and Roddick could have been 4-5 time grand slam champions easily, there aren't many era's with multiple all time greats competing at the same time in their primes. Some of Federer's performances in major finals were simply irresistible.
     
  8. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    I never thought he was. It doesn't matter, really. We are just discussing the logic of the weak era theory.
     
  9. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,276
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I'd also like to add, a way past his best Davydenko schooled Ferrer earlier this year. He's also beaten Nadal twice in masters 1000 finals (08 and 09) and has 3 masters. He's a much better player than given credit for.
     
  10. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    All top players are great. Those are the elite. The best in the world. Why would any of them be weak?

    And people also cherry pick stats and matches to prove their points. Like old Agassi took a set of peak Fed.

    I can also say, old grandpapa Fed, who is a businessman and a family man now and plays tennis for hobby in his spare time, bageled peak Nadal and Djoker in 2011 and 2012 and he took nr.1 ranking away from them.
     
  11. mike danny

    mike danny Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,992
    well agree with you assessment. federer on fast surfaces would beat the top 4 more often than not. at the uso he did have competition. he had tough matches against agassi in 2004, hewitt in 2005 and djokovic in 2007. he also had some other tough matches he should have won like djoko in 2010 and 2011 so at the us open he can deal with any kind of comp at his peak. at the AO he also had tough matches like haas and davydenko in 2006 and of course in 2004 where he had to go through hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero and safin in succession. that was far from easy even for nole and rafa. also do not forget davy leads nadal on hards so it is not a given ge beats the russian. at wimbledon besides nafal he also had those 2 tough matches with roddick in 2004 and 2009. oh and for his french do u really think.it was easy to come back from defeat twice against haas and del potro? the way those were playing they made fed deserve his french
     
  12. mike danny

    mike danny Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,992
    exactly has berdych orctsonga for ex ever defeated both djokovic and nadal to win a masters? or at least one of them? nope. and they call them.better than davy
     
  13. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    And Davy was the only one who who challenged Feds run at AO 2010. Fed was on fire that tournament. Last memories of his prime.
     
  14. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,295
    To wrap this up, "TW Federer" and "logic" are disparate elements--as incapable of mixing in any natural manner as oil and water, as the former ("TW Federer," or the Federer fringe) lives in such a constucted fantasy world, that true history does not exist--the opposite of truth. Where truth is tossed aside, you will find the fringe--specifically, sub-groups within the fringe: those clinging to lies and childlike screaming of a group living in a moment, and another so rattled that their false godhood pinned to Federer is not universally accepted, so they will resort to flaming hardly as clever as the variety found on many a schoolyard.

    There are other sub-groups of the fringe--such as the "neutral member" who claims to take no side in the matter, yet slips right into flaming Federer critics, or offering an allegedly "objective" view that just so happens to support the erroneous "Federer is GOAT" fantasy.

    That is the sad state of too many threads.
     
  15. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    What in sport is universally accepted ? Why must it be universally accepted ?

    Let the pigs squabble in the mud, take the moral high ground and sneer at them -- why must you stoop down to their level ?
     
  16. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    Do you also believe that Nadal won his Clay titles in the weakest Clay court era of all time ? If not, what era was weaker for Clay ?
     
  17. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Yeah! If elephants fight, only the grass suffers.
     
  18. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Hey TV, I've missed you. Still using the word fringe.

    Tell me , what your logic is. Who is the goat for you? And why? Give me your opinion based on facts and good reasoning.
     
  19. mike danny

    mike danny Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,992
    seriously if the weak era thing exists how come 2 of the weak era mugs are leading the strong era greats? this should not be happening. roddick.reaching a slam final and veating murray who has to be better than him on the surface. davydenko defeating both djokovic and nadal to win a masters and defeating nafal and federer to win the WTF something berdych and tsonga would only dream of accomplishing. haas beating djokovic at wimby and others. these things alone eliminate the idea of weak competition. also since the borg era no other era has had multiple all time greats competing against each other. so if a strong era exists that imo was the only one
     
  20. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Actually, yeah. I do believe that the clay field Nadal faced was weak. Pretty much as weak as the grass field that Federer faced. I think it inflated both of their numbers.

    Given that, I still believe both guys deserve the accolades they are given.
     
  21. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Well, I will first before he does. It is an impressive achievement. Along with Lavers 199 tournament wins. But it's not the only measuring stick for greatness, that's certain.

    But it is so unfair to compare Laver and Federer era. Things were so different.
    It's like it is a different game today. Not saying any era is harder or better, just things are so different, that you can't put those numbers in context, to compare them.
     
  22. mike danny

    mike danny Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,992
    interesting stat about the big 4. except murray all 3 of federer djokovic and nadal were no.1 and were very close to 4 slams in a row.
     
  23. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,295
    Posted in other threads. Whether you accept the truth is another matter.
     
  24. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Ok, fair enough. I love the truth. But it's really hard to distinguish between reality and perceptions of reality. It's hard to even trust our own thoughts.
     
  25. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    Well -- at least you are consistent and balanced then.

    Actually I think that the clay was weaker. Nadal is better on grass than Fed is on clay, and irrespective of what the haters say Roddick/Hewitt were'nt bad at all.

    Absolutely, both are all-time greats.
     
  26. mike danny

    mike danny Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,992
    who agrees that if federer's numbers were inflated than so nadal's h2h record against roger? inflated due to the huge number of matches on nadal's favorite surfaces(slow and high bouncing courts) while playing very few matches on fed's favorite?(fast and/or low bouncing courts?) proof? nadal is 19-4 in the first part of the year where he excels and fed leads 6-1 on the second part of the year where he excels. also inflated due to bad luck for fed
     
  27. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,066
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    This is why I think Sampras is greater than Federer. Sampras never lost in any Roland Garros finals.
     
  28. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    The problem is that nearly all surfaces are slow and high-bouncing. So, whichever way you look at it, Fed should have found a way to either figure Nadal out or learn to avoid him [for instance he could have tanked both IW/ROme this year and kept the h2h where it was]

    The H2H prior to the mono was 6-8. I do think that it robbed Fed a year or so of his prime and a chance to do better against his nemesis.
     
  29. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    My post got deleted even though it was light hearted. I know who reported me.
     
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    Please try to differentiate between fact and opinion, and between majority and minority.
     
  31. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I agree with this, also. Roger murders Nadal on fast, low bouncing surfaces. Nadal murders Federer on slow, higher-bouncing surfaces. Their H2H is a wash as far as I'm concerned. Given the distribution of the venues.

    Following along those lines, since most events in tennis are on HC... this likewise inflates Federer's numbers against the field... whereas Nadal's are not as good. It's the same logic.
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    As Robert Percy Plant has stated since 1971
    " cause sometimes all our thoughts are missgiving"
     
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    But you're forgetting the courts have been gradually slow down and added high bounce over the years which benefitted Nadal but handicap Federer. Yes Federer is superior over Nadal on hc and grass but the drastic change in condition slow down Federer domination and boost Nadal success. And with Fed aging this is a great opportunity for Nadal to win off clay. If they have never tweak the court speed and the bounce Fed would be a lot further ahead of Nadal. No question Nadal is very lucky.
     
  34. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Haha. That's why the best people in their fields have advisors, coaches, teams.
    Because it's hard to analyze yourself. Others see you better.
     
  35. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Also Del Potro has 100% winning rate in slam finals. And also never lost in any RG finals.
     
  36. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    All this says is that the distribution of surfaces/venues -- combined with the surface preference of a player -- directly correlates to what kind of overall career numbers they will end up with.

    Lucky? It isn't luck at all.

    It seems fairly straightforward.
     
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    Federer and Nadal are quite the opposite when it comes to favorite and worst conditions. Since the tour decided to slow down the court, it favors Nadal. So yes, Nadal was lucky while Fed and other players who thrives on fast court(Hewitt, Safin..) suffer.
     
  38. mike danny

    mike danny Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,992
    the point is roger also had a lot of bad luck and combined with nadal better in pressure moments the h2h looks as it is. for ex i call bad luck the fact that federer could have actually won the match had he had a better serving day. he still pushed it to 5 just with his second serve so a better serving day would have helped him a lot. there are at least a handful of matches federer should have won against nadal and the one that is unfogivable is the dubai one. he rwally should not have let nadal win that one. those matches alone could have made the h2h less lopsided
     
  39. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,295
    Reality and history walk hand in hand--moving through the ages, while perception is the hallmark of desire--what one tries to sell as reality, when it is merely a wish--evidenced by the need to continue to mold and pad a body of informantion, because left alone, it is not the reality of history.
     
  40. RPMBlast

    RPMBlast Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    132
    I assume you're being sarcastic, right?
     
  41. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,066
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Yes.


    10ch.
     
  42. pjonesy

    pjonesy Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,098
    Sampras has 14 Major titles. Sampras never won the French. A glaring deficiency that the entire world can see. But who truly dominated or owned Sampras? Nobody.

    Federer has 17 Major titles. Federer has been dominated by Nadal at Majors. Nadal OWNS Federer. A glaring deficiency that the entire world can see. Which Major is Federer missing? None.

    Nadal has won 12 Major titles, including all 4 Major tournament titles and no player has dominated or owned him. Many see his game style as being a glaring deficiency.

    I am not a Nadal fan, but if he wins more Majors than Federer, how can he NOT be the GOAT?


    I'm not ignoring the 1960s, but it is just too difficult to compare such different eras. IMO, Laver perfected what tennis was in the mid to late 1960s. Which is a different game compared to 2013.
     
  43. ScottleeSV

    ScottleeSV Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    783
    I think most sensible Federer fans would say Nadal is the GOAT if he wins 18 slams.
     
  44. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Federer has only one deficiency. He is 2nd on clay behind the clay goat. He did own him on clay, yes. But Fed has record at 4 main events. WO, USO, AO, WTF. Nadal dominates only 1 event.

    Also Fed has 300 weeks at nr.1, Nadal has 100. Fed has 23 straight semifinals, Nadal has 5.

    How can you say Feds deficiencies are compared to Nadals? It is going to be almost impossible for Nadal to surpass Federer. Unless people go against the logic and somehow try to inflate Nadals stats and deflate Feds.
     
  45. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Well this is a tough one. If we use only slam count, I guess we have to concede.

    But lot of people value weeks being nr.1 a lot. It's not only Feds slam, that he is considered goat. His WTF titles and rankings. And his slam consistency is amazing.

    I guess a lot of details will be considered to break the tie. I mean if Nadal is considered above Sampras with 12 slams (not by me), this means that some people value other things also.

    But I will go with the consensus. If most will call Nadal goat, that's ok, I will also.
    But Fed will still be my favorite player.
     
  46. pjonesy

    pjonesy Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,098
    I try to simplify the criteria and here goes another Fed fan muddying up the comparison. I'm not talking about weeks at #1 or semifinals at Majors. Last time I checked, the French is a Major tournament. Find 1 player who has beaten Sampras or Nadal that often in a Major.

    Dude, WAKE UP!!!! Who won the 2008 Wimbledon Final? On Federer's best surface. When Federer beats Nadal in a Final at the French in that same manner, come talk to me. If Prime Federer and Prime Nadal played a match at Wimbledon, in which your life was on the line to pick the winner, who would you pick? Of course, you would pick Federer. That tells me all I need to know. You would die for Federer, which makes you completely biased and unable to make rational arguments about Federer's place in tennis history.
     
  47. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,066
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Prime Federer and prime Nadal played finals at Wimbledon. If you're asking one who would they choose between the best Federer at Wimbledon and the best Nadal at Wimbledon, I'm certainly taking Fed.
     
  48. ScottleeSV

    ScottleeSV Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    783
    You entirely miss the point that Nadal is a clay specialist whereas Federer is more an all-court player. Nadal didn't conquer a grass-specialist (if such a thing exists); he beat a guy on 'arguably' his most successful surface. Once.

    Fed then shrugged his shoulders and went and won the US Open that year.

    If Fed had beaten Nadal at RG it would have been much more damaging.

    Edit - Prime Federer is a slight favourite over a prime Nadal at Wimbledon.
     
  49. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,870
    Lol, you are making fake scenarios and even picking instead of me and also accusing me based on your actions of being biased in the scenario you invented and also chose for me. Before I even say anything. And in this imaginary scenario Fed already lost the match. And even if this fantasy happens what does 1 match prove?

    And I don't even know what your argument is. You are so vague here.
     
  50. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,189
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    They did. Wimbledon 2007. It was honestly the better match in the end. Prime for prime..it is impossible for me to say who would win. But if you think nadal would definitely win you're also being biased. Because they have always been neck and neck. Even the FO meetings aside from 2008 have been very competitive. 2006 could easily have gone 5, and 2011 even couldve seen federer up 2-0 in sets had he played them even a tad differently.

    Yes Nadal has come out on top since 2007, the end of feds peak. But the matches have never been one sided but once.
     

Share This Page