If Stanimal wins the FO this year, will he have a better clay court career than Fed?

[mike danny]

Yawn. You Fed fans bring up age when it's convenient for your agenda. Age didn't matter when he beat a pre-prime Nadal 2x at wimbledon right??? Or a 20 year old Djoker at US Open....

Read this post again:

If memory serves me right, there have only been 3 players aged 32 or older who won slams in the Open Era: Federer, Rosewall and Agassi.

Meanwhile there have been at least 8 players ages 20 or younger in the Open Era who have won majors: Borg, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic.

For those who believe that age is not a factor for an old player.

Age matters for the older player. Otherwise how do you explain many more players aged 20 or younger winning slams?

 

[mike danny]

A lot of them were 1 time slam winner or no slams. To be precise 9 of his 18 came against players with 1 or 0 slams. 10 with 2 or less. 11 with 3 or less(muzzard).

Nadal beat up only on 0 and 1 time FO winners. His FO wins have been weak. Weak clay era.

 

[mike danny]

He beat the so called "GOAT" in 4 of 9 of them. Keep in mind this is as many slam wins as Roger has against Rafa and Dkoker COMBINED. LOL. And he beat Djoker in 2 of the 9. 18x slam winner and 12x slam winner.

LOL. Why do their slam counts matter? Only 1 of their majors came at RG. Rafa basically beat up on guys who won the majority of their majors outside of clay.

They have only won 1 RG each. This has been Rafa's competition for his 9 RG titles.

 

[mike danny]

Yawn. You Fed fans bring up age when it's convenient for your agenda. Age didn't matter when he beat a pre-prime Nadal 2x at wimbledon right??? Or a 20 year old Djoker at US Open....

Yeah, pre-prime Nadal at Wimb, right? Compared to the juggernaut he was on grass post 2011....

 

[mike danny]

Yawn. You Fed fans bring up age when it's convenient for your agenda. Age didn't matter when he beat a pre-prime Nadal 2x at wimbledon right??? Or a 20 year old Djoker at US Open....

Yawn. Rafa's age would be all you you'd be talking about if Nadal were in Fed's shoes.

 

[JoelDali]

Who is this? Asking for a friend.

 

[6august]

She's a model. Celine Farach is her name.

 

[Neil_Fedfan]

A lot of them were 1 time slam winner or no slams. To be precise 9 of his 18 came against players with 1 or 0 slams. 10 with 2 or less. 11 with 3 or less(muzzard).

Doesn't matter. They were all slam winners in the end. In 2 of his slam finals against Murray, he beat Djokovic in SF. And your hypocrisy is exposed in this post of yours:

He beat the so called "GOAT" in 4 of 9 of them. Keep in mind this is as many slam wins as Roger has against Rafa and Dkoker COMBINED. LOL. And he beat Djoker in 2 of the 9. 18x slam winner and 12x slam winner.

They might be 18x and 12x slam winners but are all 1 time RG winner (In Fed's case its effectively 0 because Soderling helped, your fanbase words).

 

[Druss]

You bet he would. Two FO's trumps one, despite Fed's superiority in non-major clay finals. Plus let's not forget that Stan beat Roger in the MC final a few years back.

That MC final Federer I felt he kinda wanted Stan to win. I saw the match, he didn't seem to be playing like he really wanted it. At that point Fed had like over 20 Masters and his good mate, countryman and DC teammate had none. Watching their encounters at non-clay slams after MC 2014, Roger played to win... and guess what? He did!

 

[Neil_Fedfan]

That MC final Federer I felt he kinda wanted Stan to win. I saw the match, he didn't seem to be playing like he really wanted it. At that point Fed had like over 20 Masters and his good mate, countryman and DC teammate had none. Watching their encounters at non-clay slams after MC 2014, Roger played to win... and guess what? He did!

What are you talking about? Federer has never won MC and he desperately wanted to win it. Wawrinka was the better player and snatched the match away. Saying Federer gifted this away... *facepalm*

 

[tennisaddict]

That MC final Federer I felt he kinda wanted Stan to win. I saw the match, he didn't seem to be playing like he really wanted it. At that point Fed had like over 20 Masters and his good mate, countryman and DC teammate had none. Watching their encounters at non-clay slams after MC 2014, Roger played to win... and guess what? He did!

Fed was the better player till the second set tiebreak. After that Stan had a virtual bye.

 

[duaneeo]

The number of slam titles is most important factor, but not the only factor. If Stan wins the FO, 2 Roland Garros titles, 1 Masters title, and 2 Masters finals do NOT make a better clay court career than 1 Roland Garros title, 4 Roland Garros finals, 6 Masters titles, and 10 Masters finals. Even if Wawrinka wins a 2nd FO, Federer's name will be mentioned more when there is talk of great clay court players.

 

[metsman]

Early contender for thread of the year. Mattosgrant smiles. I don't know if OP was trolling but if someone was looking for the passive aggressive troll playbook this would be it!

 

[cc0509]

The number of slam titles is most important factor, but not the only factor. If Stan wins the FO, 2 Roland Garros titles, 1 Masters title, and 2 Masters finals do NOT make a better clay court career than 1 Roland Garros title, 4 Roland Garros finals, 6 Masters titles, and 10 Masters finals. Even if Wawrinka wins a 2nd FO, Federer's name will be mentioned more when there is talk of great clay court players.

Unfortunately, it won't with most tennis historians. The two FOs over one will take higher precedence.

But who cares, Fed's the overall GOAT or closest thing to it at the moment.

 

[duaneeo]

Unfortunately, it won't with most tennis historians. The two FOs over one will take higher precedence.

But who cares...

True that, but I think the opinion of most "tennis historians" would be that the better clay courter is the one who would have at least 5 FO titles if not for just one player...one who happens to be the greatest ever to play on the surface.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Stanimal, please SAVE TENNIS!!!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Early contender for thread of the year. Mattosgrant smiles. I don't know if OP was trolling but if someone was looking for the passive aggressive troll playbook this would be it!

Not trolling.
Am interested in how some Fed fans and many Sampras fans discount the value of Masters titles, as those are often used to prop up Djokodal in the GOAT debate.

Hopefully Stanimal can pull off a miracle tomorrow! I wouldn't bet on it, however.

 

[MeatTornado]

I initially said no, but now that we know he'll have to beat Rafa to win this year, it's a resounding yes.

I don't care how many runner-up plates Roger's collected over the years, all of that combined will count for less than actually beating Rafa Nadal on Philippe-Chatrier just once.

 

[Sentinel]

Stanimal, please SAVE TENNIS!!!

You mean "Stan, please save Federer's Slam Count" !!!

 

[GabeT]

This would only make sense if you think the FO is 100% of clay tennis. I suspect Stan would laugh at the idea that his 2 FOs (if he wins) means he has a better clay career than Fed or Nole.

 

[I Am Finnish]

No wawrinka needs to win more clay masters

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I initially said no, but now that we know he'll have to beat Rafa to win this year, it's a resounding yes.

I don't care how many runner-up plates Roger's collected over the years, all of that combined will count for less than actually beating Rafa Nadal on Philippe-Chatrier just once.

Agree. Fed would trade all his blue and red clay Masters to have toppled Nadal in ONE of those FO battles!