Grand Slam for Fed?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Jan 26, 2010.

  1. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Two nights ago I was thinking: THIS IS FED'S YEAR. He looks unstoppable. This is the year he wins a true Grand Slam.

    He is playing really well; he's playing near the top of his game. His main nemesis (Nadal) is either off his stride or injured, therefore who's to stop him? Even at the FO, Rafa is no longer the "force" he once was.

    Roddick: fat chance, Murray: yea right, Djokovic: the choker(?), del Potro: not likely. The rest are also-rans.
    Four up; four down for Fed. Easy pickings.

    Laver look out, Fed is coming.

    Where will you put Fed on your GOAT-list if he does win it all this year?
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
    #1
  2. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    that's what happens when you're in Bierland.Hallucinations.

    :)
     
    #2
  3. dantesinferno18

    dantesinferno18 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    604
    Location:
    St. Paul MN
    i dont know if davydenko plays well (which he is not right now) i think he could win a major most likely the us open
     
    #3
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,342
    If he wins it all I would put him higher up on the all time list. Hard to top some like Laver with 199 tournaments, 19 majors, three Grand Slams.

    Rosewall, one Pro Grand Slam, 136 tournaments won, 23 majors.

    Federer would have over 60 tournaments won, 19 majors, 1 Grand Slam.

    Nadal mentioned after losing to Murray that he thought Murray would win the Australian anyway instead of Federer.
     
    #4
  5. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Way to go. Even the A0 are not a lock. If Murray goes through, he will be a tough opponent. He looks more athletic now , and seems quite fresh.
     
    #5
  6. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Ain't gonna happen.
     
    #6
  7. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    He really shouldn't...but Djoko, Murray, Tsonga....have yet to show true all-time champion heart/determination. We'll see...they now have enough experience that the chokes and shakiness are no longer excusable. Del po showed championship character...but now, like Nadal, injuries seem to be a factor.
     
    #7
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,342
    Good point. Injuries are often a major factor. The thing you have to give Federer credit for is that his smooth style allows him to avoid injuries, unlike the very physical style of a Nadal.

    That aside it will be very interesting to see the semi-final of Tsonga against Federer. Tsonga is possibly the best athlete on the tour today. I will never forget how brilliant he was a few years ago in crushing Nadal. Nadal looked like a beginner next to Tsonga's incredible play that day. His volleying was out of this world.
     
    #8
  9. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Yes, well I recall after that match, that many were picking him to cruise to the title, and I said NO WAY....expect another Fernando gonzales/Federer repeat...Tsonga would have the ol' nerves hit....and hey, it's understandable...first big breakthrough...but now..here's where we see how he holds up mentally. You're allowed to choke one...but usually, if you're gonna be a real slam champ, by this point, you're ready and able to show it. So, yes, it will be interesting. Tsonga is a great athlete...but actually...I'm a bit skeptical....for some reason, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it...I don't trust his game. I think it's because:
    1.he does go flat at times...look a bit heavy footed, error prone, and uninspired
    2.his accuracy doesn't seem fantastic. Doesn't quite find the same perfect angles, corners and lines. When this happens, his game seems very...straight forward...to me. Yes, he can hit some nice touch and move the opponent in and out of the net occasionally, but, he doesn't seem to me, like he hits the really great angles that well. Note, I also think Nadal has lost some of this latel. eg. instead of hitting the corner, he hits 3 feet closer to the center (not much, but huge in pro tennis...the difference between the opponent easily being there and in complete control, and the oppponent having to scramble a bit, and work to get back a decent reply, and have to then scramble to be in position for the next shot) OR he might drive one into the corner, but not 5 feet up the sideline, where the guy ends up in the stands trying to retrieve it. Tsonga has enough power, that he can still do damage with the more straight up game...but it can hurt him against the best!

    But we'll see...I don't want to say too much, b/c those are only general observations about Tsonga, and I only watched the Djoko match, other than that, I haven't actually watched him play in a while...
     
    #9
  10. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    PC, Thanks. This is a very logical way to look at it.

    Good synopsis.

    I have my G-list this way now:
    1. Laver
    2. Rosewall
    3. Tilden
    4. Gonzales
    5. Federer

    If he gets a true GS, I would tempted to put Fed at least in fourth maybe third place.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2010
    #10
  11. cakewalk_draw

    cakewalk_draw Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Not a chance. Federer doesnt have any chance of winning even the AO. Either Tsonga or Murray will beat him.
     
    #11
  12. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Fed cruised against Davydenko. He will probably do the same against Tsonga.

    With Nadal out, he has no competition. (The present game is such a two-man show.)
     
    #12
  13. coachrick

    coachrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,157
    Location:
    Austin, hook 'em, Texas
    A little too early to put him in the 'Former Pro Player Talk' department, I reckon :) .
     
    #13
  14. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Honestly it is hard to compare amongst the eras but the tournament numbers definitely can't be counted. Tennis is a lot more difficult on the body now and although Laver has 199 a handful are 4 man and 8 man touranments, small round robins and various things like that. Impressive but none the less different. Fed only plays one 8 man tournament a year. A bit more needs to be taken in account and I have been looking into that while re creating my list. A lot more needs to be taken into account. It is clear the candidates for GOAT are Laver, Rosewall, Fed, Tilden, Sampras, Gonzales and Borg. A case can be made for all of them. If Fed does win the calendar slam and finishes his 6 year as number 1 I would probably bump him up to 2 leaving Laver as 1 and Rosewall as 3. Reason being Rosewall was great but never dominated the tour like Laver or Fed.

    60 he was sharing with Pancho
    61 he just squeaked it out though Pancho had more titles his win against him at the French Pro gave him the year
    62 in essence was a gift Pancho retired his main challenge..
    63 Pancho returns a bit out of form and Laver comes to challenge him.
    64 Laver takes over its all history from there

    Though it says apparently Laver and Rosewall were both equally ranked its not accurate Laver was 15-4 against Rosewall...so its tough to say. I would put Fed probably 2 though.
     
    #14
  15. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    He doesn't look that good to me, but he looks pretty good still.

    Fed was dancing out there against Davydenko after a rough start - the thing is that he doesn't enter this "God mode" consistently anymore.
     
    #15
  16. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,603
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    A GS this year for Federer is an interesting idea Hoodgem. Well Del Potro has some issues it seems in terms of durability especially and he has to prove himself to be a consistent threat. Nadal is a real question mark this year as well. Djokovic often is troubled physically at Grand Slams as matches wear on, and he goes into that second week. Roddick MAY threaten at Wimbledon and the US Open, but he too can be mentally fragile (up and down) and his mobility tends to hurt him against the top guys especially, though he's very "gritty" and determined. As far as Davydenko, he's a great two set player, but best of five at the Slams is totally different, especially against the top 10 players. So, Murray seems to really be emerging as Federer's biggest, consistent threat now.

    Federer is obviously getting close to winning this AO, but he's got some work to do. Tsonga may push him pretty hard, and then Murray may be very difficult to overcome. We'll see. Of the 3 guys, he's the most likely to win the title, but Murray is in the best form of his career at this point and that win versus Nadal got him "battle tested" just a couple of days ago. He's likely brimming with confidence.

    Having said that, after the AO, I still think that for him to repeat at the French will be a very tall order. I'll "take the field" there. He has an excellent chance to win Wimbledon after that, but then on the fast courts at the US Open, he could be facing several guys that are playing really well by then, with more big wins under their belt and an additional year of GS experience could serve them well.

    So, all in all, I suppose a Grand Slam is possible, but I think the odds of that happening are pretty long if you ask me. At this point, if anyone can do it this year, it'll be him. Yet, Tennis can change pretty quickly. If Murray wins it all, he'll be really tough at Wimbledon most likely, and even the US Open later this year, after "getting over the hump". Yet, I don't see Murray as a big threat at the French Open, while Davydenko, Del Potro, and hopefully Nadal will all be very tough there in the second week.

    As far as what a GS would do for his "legacy", we'll have to see how it plays out before answering that question. It would certainly strengthen his position. The ability to win on all surfaces against the top guys in one year is a unique accomplishment and in many ways the toughest thing to do in tennis. The edge he'd have on Laver is that back then, 3 of the slams were on Grass, but at the same time, they've "standardized" the surfaces quite a bit.

    I think it would be more impressive than his semifinal streak though, because winning a GS tournament is MUCH different than just reaching the semifinals of one. To get past the semifinals means winning in crunch time against a player that is likely playing extremely well, if he is not too "worn out" or injured. Let's watch the Tsonga match first and not get ahead of ourselves. The tennis world can change in a hurry. Even a few months can be a long time and can see considerable changes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
    #16
  17. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Like I said, Fed cruised against Tsonga (2, 3, 2)!
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
    #17
  18. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    True, but I wanted to have an intelligent discussion.

    I can't find that in the Pro Match Results or the General Pro Player sections where the "intellectually immature" persons hang out.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
    #18
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Right, but unfortunately for us, he does not even need to enter his "God mode" any more. With Nadal playing at his present level, Fed has no competition at all--no one to push him into that mode.

    It says as much about Fed as it says about the present field.
     
    #19
  20. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,721
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    Very true ! Fed and Nadal are the two (2) great players today (2000 decade) that can raise thier levels when slam championships are on the line. The lone exceptions to his statement is the Del Porto victory at the 2009 USO and DJokovic at the 2008 AO and Hewitt/Roddick early in the 2000s. This is the case in point about comparing the Federer competition to the Sampras, Borg, and Laver competition ... Of the many great players today (Murray, Tsonga, Davydenko, ...) none of them has yet shown this champion capability. I sure hope Murray finds it soon (2010 AO).
     
    #20
  21. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Murray is no Tsonga(who played a poor match and is an easy match up for Fed).

    Fed is the favourite on Sunday of course but I doubt anyone would be surprised if Murray win his first slam either,he's certainly not without his chances and knows how to play Fed on HC.
     
    #21
  22. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Here's what I have for Rosewall in terms of world no. 1:
    1960—Gonzales(8 )/Rosewall
    1961—Rosewall
    1962—Rosewall
    1963—Rosewall
    1964—Laver . . .

    Go here:
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295675
     
    #22
  23. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Oh, I see. Rosewall was never a true number one. He was just lucky that Pancho was "off his game".

    What a crap argument that one can make about a lot of players.

    Pancho just wasn't as durable a player anymore in the 1960s. Older, no longer as consistently motivated. Rosewall was winning all the big titles in the early 60s, not Pancho.
     
    #23
  24. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Federer deserves the win. He played a very good tournament, and built up confidence in the quarters, when he got through a hot player with Davydenko, and saw his nemesis Nabal ousted. I thought, that Murray was in with a chance, but had to win one of the first two sets against the frontrunner Federer, to get a foot into the match. His first set serving was dismal with only 45%, but he had his break chances there, and later in the third even had some set points. At least he wasn't giving up, but put on a fight in the last set. The younger players have to get their act together in the course of the season. Del Potro looked lackluster and doesn't seem to be completely fit, and Djokovic, whom i saw against Tzonga, was in disappointing form and should regroup his whole tennis approach. Nadal is a question mark, but he and Delpo should give Federer trouble at Roland Garros.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2010
    #24
  25. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Obviously. But if someone takes an off-his-game, weakened Nadal out again at Roland Garros, then Fed will probably take another FO title. Then, who would you bet on to win Wimbledon?

    I stand by my earlier contentions: it's a two-man show; with Nadal weakened no one remains to challenge Fed so he wins a GS in a manifestly weak era.
     
    #25
  26. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Imo Nadal didn't played that bad at the AO, since the DC win, he showed some improvement, compared to the USO and the late season last year. He should focus on the clay season, pace himself and build up his form, peaking at RG. In Murray's case, i heard some remarks by Wilander at the outset of the AO tournament, that Murray played too conservatively waiting for faults, to beat Federer or Nadal. Del Potro has to deal still with his USO win. I expect him to regain his fine form of last year in the summer, and to be strong factor at RG. I thought, over the full tournament, he was the best player at RG last year, despite his sf loss.
    The player, i don't have a clue to understand, is Djokovic. He seems to go lackluster through the motions at the big events, he has lost his sharpness. He had good draws in all his last majors, but had disappointing losses in all cases. All these experienced players above have to regroup their game after their inititial run to the top, and after some lows have to make a certain improvements in their game. But Hoodjem, you are right, that there are no interesting new faces on the horizon, except maybe Cilic, who may be a factor on fast courts.
     
    #26
  27. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    Something just went wrong with Rafa :(

    In the first 5 months of last year he played just incredible tennis,fireing from all guns and running for every possible ball and point. But,it all took price and in May he was allready well tired. For example,Murray won 6 titles that year and Rafa stormed to 5 in less then 5 months. He booked place for WTF in the middle of May,the rest needed few more months for that

    After RG he just wasn't the same. He finished last year with decent results but that wasn't his level.. he looks scared and insure of his abilities. Davydenko would never survived Doha in match with old Rafa,but at the moment he is not that player


    I'm huge fan of this young man (today again we saw that he was the only savior from Fed's torutre in last 5 years) and really hoping he can be back to path of glory.. he can very soon became greatest Masters player in history and he is just two Slams from Agassi and great Lendl. Praying to all Gods to give his power to continue and be even greater player then he is now
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2010
    #27
  28. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Djokovic is a very good player and I can see how he is dissapointing at times. However I also thought his prospects were always a bit overrated. He has less long range potential than either Del Potro or Murray IMO, possibly even Cilic. When you look at his game it is very strong all around across most respects but nothing that stands out enough, not the extra blinding power of Del Potro or Cilic, or the craftiness and return of serve of Murray.
     
    #28
  29. samprasvsfederer123

    samprasvsfederer123 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Inside Federer's Mind
    stupid to put gonzales on top of federer just plain stupid.
     
    #29
  30. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    ^^^ Interesting avatar.
    With only 8 years as the world's top player, and one of the greatest serves in the history of the game, I can see why you'd say that. Glad you approve.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
    #30
  31. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Just out of curiosity in that case what would Federer have to do in order to move up to 1st in your personal list?
     
    #31
  32. whistleway

    whistleway Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    538
    pc1, just a point of view - that both the pros you quote are from 1950s/60s, when they had the opportunity to get 2x majors, i.e. you count them at both amateur and pro level. To be consistent, you'd have to either count them strictly pro or leave out pro slams and just count amateur. After WW2, in late 50s/60s till Open Era is a unique point in tennis history with both tours being held regularly. To make a poor analogy, it would be kind of like counting junior and open era slams, for modern players, say like Edberg or Federer.

    When you look at numbers during that era, that's the reason why we have laver at 19, rosewall at 23. Inflated because, one player can get 4 slams in one year at amateur level, while another can get 3 slams at pro level at the same year. And since Laver and Rosewall dominated both the tours a few years apart - over their career, the numbers look more impressive than they should be.

    Hope what I wrote makes some sense - I am not being very articulate today.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
    #32
  33. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    To this I would add Gonzales's eight years as world no. 1. I would also add Tilden's US Championships titles record of six straight wins, and his Davis Cup dominance of seven straight years.

    This is a reasonable way to look at it IMO. To be number one, Fed would need to top all these numbers.

    Federer is definitely the best player of this era and of his generation. I'm no Fed-hater. But to be the best of all time, he needs to be better than anyone and everyone else.

    Yes, that bar is pretty high, but I didn't put it up there--these guys did.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
    #33
  34. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Thanks for your answer. I was just curious what you thought the standard was at this point.
     
    #34
  35. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    You're welcome. IMO Fed is definitely one of the greats already.

    He could become the greatest of all, but I think that would depend on him--how motivated he is, and how long he wants to play. These other guys who set these records pretty much played into their later 30s.
     
    #35
  36. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Just a note to the load of titles of Laver (199) or Rosewall (130), which some people here and on other forums call inflated, and discredite. The amateur and open titles were won in at least 5 rounds tournaments. The pro titles had smaller draws, but often were played as round robins with sf and finals, so you had often 5 rounds, too. Look at the finalists, quarters or semis of those tournaments of the pro tour, and you see, that the opponents were always top class players. It wouble be, if Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djoko, Davydenko and Delpotro would play a Masters Cup every week.
    Also, Laver for instance won 54 open titels in open era since 1968/69, all regular tournaments, when he was 30 years and older. He won this amount in the last third of his career. So you could add another 100 for the two thirds of his career, when he was on the height of his physical and mental powers. If you subtract ca. 20-25 four-man events from the 199, which can documented, it still leaves Laver with actual 175 titles in his career. Same for Connors, if you don't count the minor Riordan titles in his resume, he still has around 100 titles in open era. *******s try to dismiss those numbers, but they don't go away so easy.
     
    #36
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,342
    You can also argue that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez also had to play all time greats like each other, Ashley Cooper, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Sedgman, Hoad, Gimeno, Kramer, Anderson in a field that had no easy rounds. Gonzalez for example in 1959 defeated the amateur champions Cooper and Anderson on a tour with 14 wins and 0 losses against Anderson and 20 wins and 0 losses against Cooper. Against any of the amateurs Cooper and Anderson were virtually unbeatable.

    So I don't discount Laver's 199 tournament victories. Laver actually maintained that high pace when Open Tennis started. I don't think Laver was any better than he was in the Pros when Open Tennis started. I actually think Laver was declining but his level of play was so high in the Old Pro Tour that he was still able to win the Open Grand Slam in 1969. I also am of the opinion that is why Rosewall was able to win tournaments into a late age, because his former high level was so high that even at an older age, he could still win at a lower level of play.

    Look at a typical small tournament Laver won in 1964-Laver won the Round Robin by defeating Sedgman, Rosewall and Hoad.

    Gonzalez also in 1964 defeated Anderson, Laver, Hoad and Rosewall in consecutive rounds. The odds of defeating any one of them is very low yet in the Pros at that time, champions were playing champions.

    My point is that while some tournaments were only three rounds, winning those three rounds could be tougher than winning some majors. Players tend to rise to the level of their opposition and the champions entering the Pro Tour at the time had to rise to a higher level. It was true of Gonzalez, Laver, Hoad and Rosewall.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #37
  38. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I believe that we had established that 1967 was probably Laver's peak year. And that by 1969 when he won the Open GS, he had declined slightly.
     
    #38
  39. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    837
    I think that you misrepresent the posters that you are criticizing.

    You mention Federer, so let's use his record as an example. To date Federer has won "only" 62 tournaments. However, of that total 16 are majors (with 128-man draws), another 16 are Masters tournaments with 56 to 96 player draws and four are year end championships to which only the best 8 players are invited. As such, 36 of his 62 titles have been won in big tournaments.

    Moreover, during Federer's career ALL the leading players who are not injured show up at every major and the YEC, and players rarely miss Masters events (except for Roddick during the European clay court season, but he is not a major contender at these events). To win a major or even a Masters title today you almost always have to beat a field consisting of all the world's best players. This was by no means generally the case in the 1960's, when the field was split between amateur and pro ranks. During the 1970's there were rival pro tours, and many of the tournaments that Connors won were very small (sometimes 8 or even 4 man invitational events). If you doubt this, look at a list of Connors' titles. Most were won in tournaments that were - even at the time - regarded as small.

    Over the past 20 years players have focused their energies increasingly on winning the biggest events rather than on accumulating a large number of titles. Sampras was not that much different from Federer in this respect. His total of 64 pro titles includes 14 majors, 11 Masters titles and 5 year end championships. Federer's last 7 titles have included all 4 majors (U.S. Open 2008 to Australian Open 2010), Masters titles at Madrid and Cincinnati and only one smaller tournament, Basel 2008. I have little doubt that if he wanted to he could have entered and won many smaller tournaments. That, however, is not the main priority for him or Nadal or any other of today's leading players.

    To sum up, the argument is that the number of pro titles won is at best a criterion of extremely limited value when comparing players across generations (although it is far more useful when comparing contemporaries). I yield to no one in my admiration for Laver, but my admiration is not based primarily on the number of titles he won but rather on the way that he dominated the game, which is not reflected solely in his total of career titles.
     
    #39
  40. Rogeforever

    Rogeforever New User

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    40
    ...LOL Not "even" the AO I wonder what happend to ROGER----did he develope a Knie-Problem or some pulled abdominal muscles???:confused: I remember Roger beat all of them Davydenky, Tsonga and Murray or was that in another Year???
     
    #40
  41. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Moving right along. The FO is next up for Roge. If Nadal is less than 100%, then it's a walkover for TMF.
     
    #41
  42. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I hope Nadal is healthy and strong for Roland Garros. I want Roger to have to win another French Open that way. If Roger could somehow beat a healthy and strong Nadal at the French it would be a major statement to his greatness. If he cant ever beat a healthy or strong Nadal at the French he also doesnt deserve any serious future GOAT consideration IMO. The greatest player ever should atleast at some point in time be able to beat any opponent on any surface. The way Laver in winning his Grand Slam beat Rosewall the great clay courter in resounding straight sets. The way Graf dethroned Navratilova in her home at Wimbledon to win the French. The way Navratilova trounced Evert on her beloved clay on the way to winning 6 slams in a row.
     
    #42
  43. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,066
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    This sounds too simplistic as there are a plethora of things that can be used to judge greatness. I don't think history would look back on Federer negatively if he wasn't able to achieve that and as we know he is already firmly considered in serious GOAT discussion and I doubt that will change. Regardless, I hope he can perform the feat as well for further consolidation of his legacy.

    Also it is possible that Federer wins 1 or 2 more of these without having to face Nadal, which wouldn't be his fault. In that scenario he could have won 2 - 3 French Opens and won at least 2-3 times at each and every Slam event. Nadal would be out of Federer's control.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2010
    #43
  44. britbox

    britbox Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    237
    I'd be surprised if anyone hits Lavers level of tournamount wins, mainly because the way the tour is currently stuctured. Urban brings up a good point about discrediting them - but it still has to be said that some were little more than glorified exhibitions by today's standards.

    I also think you have to show some caution when granting a pro major the same credence as a current major. Sure, these were the best players playing at the time - but the field was smaller and it was a closed shop - not to mention that the same players were playing each other on an almost continual basis. No room for shocks like Federer/Sampras, Soderling/Nadal or Hewitt/Karlovic... and the fact it was a closed shop probably stilted the growth in the overall level of play in the amateur game.

    Comparing Federer's total major count to Laver's "official" major count is like comparing apples and oranges. On the same note, comparing his tournamount titles and his major count to Laver's "unofficial" major count is also comparing apples and oranges.
     
    #44
  45. Danstevens

    Danstevens Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    538
    Location:
    Nottingham, England
    It's certainly possible that Federer could win the calendar grand slam this year but the French open is next and that could be a stern test for him. If he wins the French, IMO he's over half way there but that's a big "if". I wouldn't be surprised if he did win all four this year but equally, I don't think that at this moment in time, it's looking particularly likely - the Australian open has barely finished and we're talking about Federer winning the grand slam this year.

    As for where it would put Federer on my "GOAT list", his position wouldn't change. I believe that at the moment, he's probably the greatest ever to have lived so winning the grand slam wouldn't move him, just solidify his position. I don't mean to take anything away from Laver or any of the other past greats but in my opinion, the evidence suggests that Federer is the greatest.
     
    #45
  46. Sidd Finch

    Sidd Finch Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Po
    I agree ^^^. The French is by far the biggest obstacle and frankly I don't think he can do it. But LOOK OUT if he pulls it off. He will be a man possessed to win Wimbledon & USO.
     
    #46
  47. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    You lost me on this one.?
     
    #47
  48. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Sorry, it was a typo. I meant the way Graf dethroned Navratilova at Wimbledon on her way to her Calender Slam, the way Laver thumped Rosewall at the French on the way to his, the way Navratilova thumped Evert at the French on her way to winning 6 in a row. Also given that the unique career path of Navratilova had her win 15 of her 18 slams and reached 24 of her 31 slam finals from ages 25 to 33 the past her prime line would not fly as a copout to diminish Graf in this case.
     
    #48
  49. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes. If Fed gets another French without facing a full-strength 100% Nadal, it's no big deal, more easy pickings.

    If he beats a 100% Nadal in the semis or along the way then, he rises a level in my book.

    (Because Nadal in no. 2 on clay, and Fed is no. 15. If Fed beats top-form Nadal at RG, then Fed must move up quite a bit. Simple logic.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2010
    #49
  50. JoelDali

    JoelDali G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10,497
    So very true.
     
    #50

Share This Page