I'm not greatest player - Roger Federer

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennissportsrog, Sep 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Here we go again. Let's look at what Laver went though in 1969:

    1969 Wimbledon
    Arthur Ashe
    Newcombe

    1969 US Open
    Emerson
    Ashe
    Roche

    1969 Aussie Open
    Emerson
    Stolle
    Roche
    Gimeno

    1969 French Open
    Gimeno
    Rosewall

    Ok. Now let's watch a 38 year old Rod Laver versus a prime Borg (20 years old)on clay. Laver loses the match, but I think it's pretty easy to see the GOATness.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk

    There has never been a better player.
     
  2. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    ^^ Former amateurs and players who had yet to see their greatest success.
     
  3. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    haha that's what "intimidating" Pancho sounds like?
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Rosewall was always dangerous even in an odd-year, Ashe and Roche were in their peak, Newcombe almost in his peak, Gimeno one of the great claycourters...
     
  5. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    for his overall body of work, including dominating the amateurs at first, then in the pros and then in the open era ; his dominance, his consistency , game wise and surface wise versatility etc etc .....

    the 69 grand slam was the pinnacle of his achievements, but that alone would nowhere be enough for others to call him the GOAT ...

    now explain why federer and borg have been called the GOAT far more times than don budge or why navratilova is rated above court generally by most ....
     
  6. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Ashe won the bulk of his titles after 1970, Roche won a single slam and that on clay, Newcombe was a former amateur who experienced his success in the 70's also. Gimeno won his only slam in 1972 on clay. So I fail to see how these players with the exception of Rosewall were some great field better than the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, older Agassi and younger Nadal and Djokovic.
     
  7. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,680
    Well, for the most part of tennis history, tennis has been a few swing of
    the racquet. And we always had grinding tennis on clay.

    Now, tennis is more like ping-pong. A lot of rallies all year long. This has been
    only last 10 years out of 200 years of tennis history with international competition.

    So, the modern tennis of last 10 years is not real tennis.
     
  8. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Yep. You do fail.
     
  9. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    Good to know Wimbledon 2012 wasn't real tennis...
    [​IMG]
     
  10. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Says the guy who thinks Federer didn't improve from 1998 to 2003 the competition just got weaker. Go watch some youtube videos man, educate yourself and stop looking like a clown posting your list of Laver's 'super hard competition' :oops:
     
  11. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,746
    Again, you are incorrect, as it was the Grand Slam that was the zenith alone. No one packaged his other achievements with that, as it stands alone, the same reason there was a swell to hail Graf as the GOAT the moment she won the Grand Slam--long before her career was finished (where she would win more majors, but as noted, the label did not wait). Figure it out.

    Re: Borg and Federer and Budge -- criticizing Budge's amateur Grand Slam (an attempt to reduce the importance of the GS) does not help your argument, as Laver won it in the Open Era, so the point--the distinguishing marker of the GOAT--still stands. Borg and Federer were not talented/dominant enough to touch that.

    Court: her supreme achievement has always been far and above the whole of Martina's career, but to be blunt, the former's views on gays had more to do with politically motivated shoving of Court aside than the actual tennis record in latter years (particularly in comparison to Martina). That anyone would dare rank Martina--on her best day never capable of winning the Grand Slam--over Court screams of one motivating factor. This is not a new point, either.
     
  12. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I never said Federer didn't improve. You Federites do nothing but completely ignore what people say.

    I said it wasn't the only factor. Go back and quote it if you want. I won't bother because I know exactly what I said.

    You guys think the strength of field has nothing to do with anything. And there's nothing I can do about that. I can give you kindergarten logic about opposing forces... and you still won't believe it.
     
  13. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    You made a point of saying Federer couldn't win anything from 1998 to 2003 because it was the field stopping him. Which is utter BS. Fields are a factor ofcourse but I don't think the years Federer dominated were weak. Especially after seeing what you consider one of the greatest fields ever.
     
  14. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Well, this post I finally think is reasonable because we are down to the real disagreement. FINALLY.

    And the disagreement at its core is that I think Federer's field during his pinnacle of dominance was weaker than Laver's field during his pinnacle of dominance.

    At least we've finally come down to it.
     
  15. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    There's no argument for Laver, that ship has sailed quite awhile ago so shouldn't be brought up anymore.

    Remember Laver was 7-6 in slam finals entering 1969, this is a good record but not for GOAT talk.
     
  16. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    He hit the CYGS as an amateur. Then goes pro and makes the finals 15 out of 16 times. He wins 9 of those. Then comes the Open era and he wins 5 out of the eight majors he enters in 1968 and 1969? Four of those in a single calendar year?

    7-6 entering 1969? Where did that come from?
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, It's really a mistake of your's and your failure to neglect the great opponents of Laver. Ashe won the US Open in 1968 and was tough also in 1969. Newcombe also strong in 1969 (Wimbledon final and so on), Roche had a hth of 5:4 against Laver that year, Gimeno is one of the all-time greats on clay. Learn history!
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    mightyrick, The Federer admirers will never accept that Roger in his peak years had weaker field than Laver in his peak years. They actually think that Roddick and Safin were as strong as Rosewall and Newcombe...
     
  19. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I'm actually fine with that opinion, honestly. I think it is something that can be rationally discussed.

    I'd certainly rather have the discussion on that level. Comparing the fields of these two great players. Rather than spewing forth a few stats and saying, "my guy's number is greater than your guy's number... therefore my guy is the GOAT."
     
  20. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    But Federer is widely called the GOAT by the media/commentators/ex-players now. So if your criteria is "what everyone thinks", then you'd have to acknowledge Fed as the GOAT now.
     
  21. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Laver himself said a major today is worth two in his days.
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    please it was laver's whole body of work , not just the 69 GS ....

    no one sane called graf the GOAT after she had won the 88 slam ...

    she still had to win a lot of majors after that ...

    still quite a few put navratilova above her ...


    I'm not reducing the importance of the GS. budge was the #1 the year he went to pros unlike laver who was dominated by rosewall and hoad in 63 after his amateur slam ....

    very few call budge the GOAT ....that's because the GS by itself isn't enough to make one GOAT although it is a contributing factor.

    borg in 79/80 itself was being called the GOAT by many over laver though he didn't win the GS ....

    and obviously far more call federer the GOAT.

    As I've explained before, one needs to look at the totality of a player's career, not just one year.

    The GS shows total dominance over the field over the course of a year, right ?

    well what about 5 consecutive majors at two different venues ? does that not show total dominance over 2 venues in majors over a period of five years ?

    you need to stop with your narrow vision and stop yapping only about the grand slam.

    you had the pro-amateur split from the 30s till the advent of the open era ....... the surfaces/conditions change over time. The importance of some events changes over time, eg. the Davis Cup, the AO in the early 70s to early 80s to what it is now etc etc ... you need to evaluate a player looking in the context of that era. Not use one single criteria.


    no, that is not the only reason. That wouldn't be reason enough for many who are not prejudiced.

    The other reasons are :

    court's AOs were won in depleted fields, so her major count is a bit inflated.

    she under-performed at wimbledon , the most major event of tennis, though she was widely regarded as the best grass courter of her generation ....navratilova and graf excelled far more there ....
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  23. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    That's a lie. I said pre-peak Ashe and Newcombe plus amateurs like Emerson weren't better than the field Roger faced. Peak Roddick and Safin being as good as pre-peak Newcombe isn't odd either. I never said anything about Rosewall either.
    I know Ashe won the US Open in 1968, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of his wins came after 1970. Same with Newcombe. Nothing I said was wrong. As far as the records go these players were in the early stages of their success. The bulk of which was still to come. I don't call that peak sorry. Strong players maybe but you guys talk as if they were in their primes winning big titles consistantly. They weren't that happened later.

    Why is Gimeno an all time great on clay, he won a single FO? That was also in 1972 3 years after Laver's grand slam. I'm not so fussed about h2h, Roche isn't an all time great because he beat Laver 5 times in 1969. He won a French Open title and made several finals on grass. His career is no better than Roddick's.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    My "friend" NatF, first of all the Moderator has asked us in the other forum to not being nasty or insulting. Why the nasty word "lie"???

    Ashe was NOT pre-peak in 1969.

    Rosewall was rather weak in 1969.

    Gimeno is an all-time great on clay because he won many clay tournaments and had a very strong peak. F.i. he was the No.1 player on clay in 1966 beating both Laver and Rosewall twice in the two big claycourt events. He was surely not weaker in 1969 than in 1972.

    As many you underrate Tony Roche. In his peak (1969) he was extremely strong, see his five setter against Laver at the AO. And yet, hth is an important indicator!
     
  25. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Saying I or anyone said Roddick and Safin were greater than Rosewall is a lie. It's not nasty to point that out...Safin's peak was extremely strong though if we're talking about playing level. Roddick's peak was also pretty good, defeats to Federer just wore him down mentally.

    If Ashe was not pre-peak why did he win most of his titles in the 70's? If Rosewall was weak in 1969 then I really don't see why this field was so strong.

    I did not know about Gimeno's clay career in the pro's, thank you.

    I recently read about that 5 setter between Roche and Laver, Bud Collin's mentioned a controversial line call, still doesn't make his career any better than Roddick's ;). Past his peak Roddick played an extremely competitive 5 setter against Federer in 09, he also had his chances in 04. H2H isn't as important as titles and never will be, especially across era's.
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I never said that you wrote Safin and Roddick are greater than Rosewall!!! You obviously try to distort our discussion with wrong claims. Please try to be serious. Otherwise I cannot discuss with you anymore. I had you on my ignore list but discussed with you again after the moderator's warning.
     
  27. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Ok, then who thinks Roddick and Safin were greater than Rosewall. The way you phrased it it seemed as though you believe it's a common belief among Federer fans...
     
  28. Backyard Tennis Blog

    Backyard Tennis Blog New User

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9
  29. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I like Andy Roddick. Hell, I live in the same town that Roddick is from. But I'm telling you... Roddick is a mug. And that is the way it is. Was he a good player? Sure... he was good. Sure, he was a hard worker. Roddick is like a hardcourt version of Nicolas Almagro.

    He was fortunate enough to win a single slam. In that US Open, some key people got taken out and the stars aligned.

    But the guy has never made any other major final other than Wimbledon. On hardcourt, he could only make it to the semi-finals. On clay, the man was non-existent. And then you bring up past-prime Roddick giving past-prime Federer a run at 2009 Wimbledon? Please. Just stop it already.

    For you to hold up Roddick and compare him to the people that Laver contended with during his prime is ridiculous. Roddick got lucky to get a slam. Roddick could only play on HC. Roddick didn't even touch clay. Roddick only made the finals on grass.

    If Roddick was Fed's big, competitive field... wow... that's a pretty weak argument.
     
  30. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    After all your talk of telling me to do research my research it must be abit embarassing for you to forget about the USO 2006 final which Roddick reached. Almagro? lol. Almagro isn't half the player Andy Roddick is, how many semi finals has Almagro reached in the slams? Was he #1 and a consistant top tenner like Roddick? Did he reach major finals on 2 surfaces? Has he won a masters let alone 5? Sampras' record on clay is terrible for a top tier great so I don't see why Roddick lacking success there is an issue. He was good on 2 of the 3.

    The stars didn't align, he fought hard and beat Nalbandian and the FO winner in the final. He also swept the American hardcourt masters leading up to it. At the USO 2007 he played Federer extremely tough and hit nearly twice as many winners to unforced errors, finishing with over 40 winners in a 3 set match. The guy was a great player who was unlucky to face Federer 8 times in the majors. Federer was still prime in 2009, he was past his peak and they both played well in that final. Roddick swept past Berydch, Hewitt and Murray to make it to Federer. If 2009 is past prime Federer than Murray should be embarassed losing to Federer in 2012...

    Laver beat on a bunch of amateurs and guys who had yet to find their best success. They probably had to wait till Laver and Rosewall declined if they were peak in 1969. Split the tour and let Roddick sit in the amaturs and he'd own the roost.

    Roddick could only play on hardcourt and just made finals on grass, so he made 3 finals an a semi without being able to play on the surface? lol. Roddick was just one player, who happened to have career achievements similar to Roche someone you touted as great competition.

    Sorry but your response is embarassing, Roddick compared to Almagro? :oops:
     
  31. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Rofl, I see mightythick is still spewing nonsense
     
  32. Top Jimmy

    Top Jimmy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    The greatest is a numbers and record game, Fed has the numbers, he's the greatest.

    The best on the other hand is a handful of debatable players. If this was a March Madness type bracket, Fed, Pete, Laver and I'm not sure who, Borg Maybe, would be the #1 seeds. McEnroe, Agassi, Nadal, and maybe Lendl as #2 seeds.

    Assuming a neutral hardcourt surface, I think Fed and Pete meet in the final.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I guess even the fiercest Federer fans do not claim that Roddick and Safin were greater than Rosewall. Here we are d'accord.
     
  34. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I'm glad we agree on something.
     
  35. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Well as long as we are talking achievement. Peak play on the other hand... ;-)
     
  36. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Haha ;)

    Peak Roddick had power in spades, huge hitter. Would tough for anyone to handle let alone never lose to like Federer did...
     
  37. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    Actually, ARoddick beat RFederer 3 times. I honestly can't see any difference between ARoddick and TBerdych. TBerdych hits and serves as hard as ARoddick, except TBerdych actually BEATS RFederer in slams. No point in having all that power if you don't have the balls to use it properly. :p
     
  38. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    And that's why your tennis expertise is held in such high esteem.
     
  39. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Peak Roddick, Roddick beat Federer in 2003, 2008 and 2012. The only one of those where they were both at or near their peak was 2003. Roddick serves far harder than Berdych lol.
     
  40. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I did forget this one. Ok. He's got another final. I was incorrect and I'll admit it when I am. It still doesn't change the result.


    Nalbandian. Another great, strong field player. :roll:

    Stop already... for every single Roddick performance where he hit a bunch of winners (most of them aces duh), I can give you two where he absolutely stunk.

    He wasn't unlucky to face Federer 8 times. He was unlucky to be a mug. Because if he was worth his salt, he should have beaten Federer at least once on a big stage... instead of settling for barely beating him in 3-set conditionsthat Federer uses for hitting practice.

    No he wasn't. You need to understand what "prime" means.

    Ok, where do I start. First, you say he's prime. Then you say he's past peak (prime). Then you imply that 2009 was not past prime for Federer... again. So which is it? Was 2009 Fed's prime or not?

    And Roddick sweeping past fellow mugs Berdych, Hewitt, and Murray is nothing. Horrible. Although Hewitt I'd hold up there as probably the best of the lot. But clearly old and past prime. Just like Agassi.


    Laver beat Rosewall, Gimeno, Roche, Ashe, and Newcombe. Federer beat Roddick, Mugbandian, Olditt, and Olgassi.
     
  41. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    It does, Andy made finals and semi's on grass and hard. Not some one surface wonder you were trying to paint him as...

    He'd look strong playing in the amateurs building up his reputation so 40 years later, clueless posters like you could prop him up as some super competition.

    Roddick finds it hard to ace Federer, most of those were ground stroke winners. You're just chatting crap tbh. A guy who was top 10 for 8 years gave more bad performances than good ones? I guess you know the ins and outs of those old pro players careers too right?

    Nah, Federer is just that good. If those players Laver faced had to go against Federer they'd look even worse than Roddick.

    I do? Federer reached all 4 finals and won 2 in 2009, he improved from his mono year in 2008. In 2010 he started losing to bums in slams and became far less consistant. He was at the tail end of his prime in 2009, his peak was 04 - 07.

    It's not hard to understand, even for someone as narrow minded as you. Peak is the period where you're at your absolute best, 2009 wasn't peak Federer but he was still playing well consistantly especially in the slams and he was still physically there.

    Horrible because you say so? Laver beating on guys who played in the little leagues and won most of their titles in 70's is no better.

    The guys Laver beat were either not peak or overrated. Hewitt wasn't old in 04/05. He played very well, in 6 straight slams he only lost to the eventual winner. Agassi still had great matches in him and played them in his USO runs. Nadal on clay was also there who even in his younger days would beat any of those 60's players. There's also Davydenko and Safin. Although I guess in their eyes they're all mugs.
     
  42. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,746
    No, it was not. No one ever packaged other titles to the Grand Slam, as it is a distinction that stands apart from all other tennis accomplishments. Your premise (like the nonsensical comments about Graf and Budge) is simply designed to reduce the historically recognized status of the GS, in order to elevate the likes of Federer--who needs his fans to glue-slap-glue random titles in order to say he is some sort of GOAT.

    There would be no need to post woefully desparate claims such as (paraphrasing) "winning 5 in a row is bigger than the Grand Slam," or that "consecutive weeks at #1 was a greater accomplishment than the Grand Slam."

    Absolute desperation revealing that even Federer's biggest fanboys know they need to resort to fiction to combat a historic achievement beyond his abilities.



    Tennis is and has been highly politicized (in certain ways) for decades. Some fear discussing that, but as I do not fear a person or organization, it is easy to talk about the attack on Court's legendary career. A career with the Grand Slam being the accomplishment for the ages, yet in recent years, she has been steadily shoved into the corner of history--the result of her religiously-inspired views on gays. This is not news, guy. With her outstanding career, there is only one reason this occured, while others of her own generation (who never came close to winning the Grand Slam) are held in higher regard on average--when that was not the case in her years on tour and shortly afterward.

    I cannot pretend Court's treatment is not the result of an agenda.
     
  43. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Natf, it's hopeless to argue these discussion about the strength of the opposition of Laver and Federer. Roddick, who lost 4 slams final to the one of the best grass courter of all time and won 32 titles is a mug in comparison with the great Roche, who lost 3 slams final to two of the best grass courter of all time, and won 9 overall titles in the open era.

    You can't beat the argument. If the datas available (the numbers and the statistics) can't be used to determine the goat, they can't be used to determine the strength of their opposition. Therefore, X's opposition is strong or weak only because I say so.
     
  44. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    You're right ofcourse, although Roddick being a hardcourt Almagro is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.
     
  45. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Yep, but reason never wins against bad faith.
     
  46. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Not sure why you ignored that Roche won the French Open. Also, you aren't really looking at who Roche beat to even make it to those major finals.

    Look a little deeper. I think you'll find some guys in there who are a little tougher than Nalbandian and crew.
     
  47. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    Roche only has 9 titles??? This is the guy Bobby ranked higher than Fed back in his original controversial list....holy crap
     
  48. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,362
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Bobby really rated Roche higher than Federer? Maddness, I might start rating Ferrero higher than Rosewall on clay ;)
     
  49. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    I think it was a list of peak level of play/longevity or something along those lines (there was also one for achievements where Fed was number 4 or 5) he got a storm of fury from a bunch of posters, I being one of them (Becker found his way in one of the lists, top 10 lists mind you, hell even Nadal and Djokovic were ranked higher in one if the lists, which also caught him a lit of flak).
     
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Laver and Fed are good friends, with deep mutual respect.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page