Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Jamin2112, May 31, 2012.
Yeah, and that makes him the best in that one Grand Slam tournament, and that's why he won it.
No he has much more competition than he used to.
"This is the golden era"
Federer still dominated in 2004, 2005 (and to some degree in 2003), that's why you can't say that he "thrived against a weak field".
It got significantly worse in 2006 when Safin/Hewitt became non-factors and Roddick was crap for the first 7-8 months of the year (Federer dominated completely off clay and only lost to Nadal in the finals on clay), then by 2007 we already had a fully established Federer-Nadal-Djokovic trio, yet Federer still dominated (at least when it mattered).
Yes and he is nr. 1 in it, at 31, we've heard it.
Maybe but would he have had as many slams?
is a myth the same thing as a claim??
Probably. Perhaps he would have a couple less in his prime, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. And then he would be raking in more now, because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out.
Its not maybe.
Ok but he would probably not be considered the goat...for some odd reason most people measure if one is a goat by the number of slams they rack up...(maybe because it's the simplest way?)
Which in Federers case is really not great as a feat as it seems.
Is Federers one of the greatest......Absolutely. Is he the greatest......not in my personal opinion.
By my standards the number of slams one wins is only one factor.
For example.....Borg had more slams than McEnroe ; however before Borg quit McEnroe basically had Borgs number. Therefore I think McEnroe was the better player.
Same thing with Laver. Although Emerson had more slams I think Laver was the better player.
Finally in my book Nadal is the greatest of all time.....Nadal is clearly a better player on clay but Federers is better indoors. That used to not matter but now that two of the four slams are partially indoors it does make a difference.
But the reason I think Nadal is the greatest is the same reason I think laver is the greatest. Laver did not win as many slams as Emerson but Laver did win the calendar slam twice.......by analogy Nadal won the career slam and the golden slam.....Federer did neither in my opinion.
I don't find Federers calendar slam impressive at all......it's only a calendar slam on paper because he didn't go through Nadal. Rafa had a lot of issues that year and skipped Wimbledon......in fact I believe Federers stats are only as great as they are because Nadal was not around.
Feds French open slam is symbolic of his entire career. It's the premise that :
"Federer can only win if Rafa is not around".
Nadals game is more physical and he cannot be around as much as Federer. So Federers is fortunate that Nadal was not around for much of his career. Feds stats only look good on paper.....the truth is Nadal is the stronger player.
Clearly though I think Nadal is the better player in my personal opinion.
Glad you agree.
I think he would.
Glad you agree....touché
And I think he would not. You like this dance? ......let's just agree to disagree.....
Truth is I miss the rivalry more than anything !
Rivalry doesn't have to be a one-versus-one battle. It can also be a race and, right now, Federer leads.
Yeah yeah, because Rafa got hammered by Rosol at Wimby, and flunked out for the rest of the year? Yawn...
Back to bash some more of Fed, huh? Some pleasure are hard to take away.
Yeah like the 2008 Wimbledon? I like this game.
I command thee, Discuss!
Sure . It's quality versus quantity.....
Fed supporters are convinced that Fed is the goat because of his 17 slams.
But Nadal supporters say that since Rafa beat Fed in most of his slams that his quality is better and that Nadal did it in a stronger era.
I agree with the later statement....
I personally would rather be married to Brooklyn Decker than married to Mirka even though there is more of Mirka. ;-)
Even since the 2005 FO, when Nadal won his first Grand Slam, Federer has won more Grand Slams than Nadal has (13 to 11). If anything, the age difference benefits Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal's Hardcourt and Grasscourt slams would be tougher playing against same-aged Federer/Djokovic and Federer (though Nadal would probably still win 1 Wimbledon and maybe a couple of HC slams where Federer takes out Djokovic in the SFs to meet Nadal in the final). He'd be sitting on 7 FOs either way. And Djokovic would just have won maybe 2/3 Hardcourt slams (those in which Nadal takes out Federer in the SFs or something and meets Djokovic in the final).
And once all 3 (well, 4, including Murray) hit 27/28, Federer would be owning them all (except Nadal on clay).
Federer won only four of his slams before Rafa won his first. If Fed played in a weak era, so did Rafa. If you want to bring up Djoker, then please remember that peak (2011) Djokovic had no trouble handling Rafa or Fed. At least Fed was way past his prime (and was still at least able to beat Djoker at a slam that year), what is Rafa's excuse?
As for the Decker vs. Mirka comment, I get the feeling that you would be happy to be married to any woman.
It just comes down to Quality vs Quantity.
I can't tell you which one to agree with .....but for me ( and Roddick) it's quality .
Well 17 slams does = more $$$$ . That would be the only reason .
However if $$$$ were not the issue I would take Nadals 11 slams over Feds 17 any day .......especially winning the "greatest match of all time ".
Clearly that is worth more than Feds Wimbledon over Philopusis.
I personally do not believe that all grand slam finals are created equal.
I'd take Federer's career over Nadal's in a heartbeat and I think just about any pro would as well
The Grand Slams are just the tip of the iceberg (a really nice tip, though). He owns just about every record worth having. You name it, he's got it. Except for the Calender Year Grand Slam (or THE Grand Slam in general, both are equally impressive) but he shouldn't have it, anyway, or there would be no more debates.
Viva la differance!!!
But as far as any pro? Your right because of money for sure .
Personally I never went after what the majority of people think. In fact smart people are in the minority .
Remember Christopher Columbus said the world was round and no one believed him.
Same in tennis ......sheesh .....you really can't listen to the majority . Every great stroke in tennis happened because they didn't listen to "the right way to hit a tennis ball".
It was common knowledge that you must hit with a closed stance. Borg would not listen and hit with an open stance .
Lendl created the windshield wiper forehand.
Look at how many pros hit off the back foot.
Nadals strokes.....they don't teach that anywhere.
Two handed backhands.....all against the grain
Finish your stroke above the shoulders?.....gone .....now it's across the body
The list just goes on and on . So whatever the majority says is the way you need to do the opposite because the majority of people are idiots.
In the end of the day nobody cares who you played against to win what!! Its how much you won that counts!! Nadal had the weakest field in the 2010 USO so it doesnt count?? BS its legit!! Therefore fed is GOAT right now because he has more slams and more weeks at number 1 and is WAAAAY more consistent than Rafa. (Rafa has missed all 4 slams fed has a 32 consecutive QF going) this is why I feel he his GOAT. The only ones that can contend Fed are Laver, Gonzales and maybe Emerson. I for one cannot see how Rafa can be in contention when he has only 11 slams and can rarely win apart from clay. THat doesnt mean hes bad just that he's not a GOAT contender as of yet!! When they show the stats its about the numbers not the players and right now fed is way ahead of rafa in that department!!
The Dark Knight thinks that as time moves on people will look at the field and the quality but in reality its all about the STATS!!! and in that federer is the clear winner!! More Prize Money, More Ranking points, More wins, More GS
Nobody with a meager 102 weeks at #1 is going to be GOAT. Even Djokovic might beat out Nadal in that category soon. Hewitt nearly did. To be the greatest ever you have to at least transcend your own era, which means being consistent everywhere and not just relying on three months of the season for your titles. That may sound harsh, but Nadal is historically a #2 player mainly, so The Dark Knight's assessment is ridiculous. Nadal for GOAT standards is very inconsistent off clay, which is why he has seen the #1 ranking only a third as long as Federer.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Federer has had stronger competition than Nadal, or even Djokovic, has. He's had to contend with the best from his generation (Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick) and also the best from the next generation (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro). The previous generation is much, much stronger than the upcoming one (I can't see anyone remotely promising). That Federer has done so well in spite of being hurt so badly by Nadal at slams is amazing (not necessarily in a good way).
Deleted for irrelevancy
Who's stats were better .....Borg or Mcenroe?
No one cares.....what they remember is that they had the greatest match of all time.......actually now the second best .
What everyone will remember is that Nadal beat Federer in his own house in the greatest match of all time . An epic!
No one remembers that Emerson had more grand slams than Laver either . Laver is considered by EVERYONE the better player.
Quality over quantity
See Federer has the biggest fan base in the tennis world so its not going to be like that. Federer is not going to be remembered as the guy who lost the wimby 2008 final but rather the guy who has the most succesful tennis career of ALL TIME and the likely GOAT!! Due to the face that he has the biggest fan base. Nadal on the other hand will be remembered as the clay GOAT and the guy who the epic match. Sampras was considered goat before fed because he had the most slams so basically all it comes down to is slams plus weeks at number 1 or YE number 1 all 3 federer leads against nadal and leads 2 against sampras
Well history proves you wrong again.
We can only predict the future by looking at what has happened in the past.
As with Borg & Mcenroe no really cares about the stats what everyone remembers is the then greatest match of all time.
As far as fan base......Borg was the Federer of his day and Mcenroe was the Nadal ( not tennis style wise but demeanor).
Borg was the cool classy swede gentleman with the Rolex . Today Federer is the cool classy Swiss with the Rolex.
Mcenroe was the brash upstart punk who played in a rock band and yelling on court . Nadal was the brash young punk with the sleeveless shirts and pirate pants yelling "VAMOS" and fist pumping n the court.
The bottom line....back then Borg was the fan favorite . He had a much bigger fan base than Mcenroe........
And yet it is Mcenroe that is everywhere and not Borg.
Sampras is a bad example because unlike Federer , Sampras was able to dominate Agassi.
A better example would be Lendl. He dominated Mcenroe and had better stats, but no one cares....all anyone talks about is Borg vs. Mcenroe.
And stats are not what only matters....Emerson had more slams than Laver.....but it is Laver that everyone called the GOAT.
Federer will never get rid of the blemish on his record,,,,,.he just could not beat Nadal.
...except when he did, has, and still will in the future. Nadal will beat Fed in the future, too, just thinking logically at least. But in your sensationalist irrational mindset, Federer has "never" beaten Nadal, and so accomplishments don't matter, only who could see in the dark longer for a match.
No in my mind....he has never really beaten Nadal.
History really only remembers the slams.....for example the only thing that is remembered about Chang is that he beat Lendl at the FO ( with a cramp and an underhanded serve!)...... No one cares about anything else he has done.
So only slams matter.....and yeah Fed beat Nadal when he was labeled a clay court specialist......but in my mind those two wins did not really mean all that much as he was still developing as a player.
The same holds true for rafter beating Federer on clay hard and grass. No one places much value on that because Federer was a developing player as was Nadal.
More money,...the only reason. Only to you. At this stage, both Fed and Rafa have more money than their grand-grand-grand (to the X) kids can ever spend out.
You and a few Rafa's fans on this forum seem to miss this point: # of slams matter. Who gives a rat's ass about who you face in a final (of GS). All it means is you and your opponent on that very particular day SUCCESSFULLY made through the previous 6 matches. Your opponent can be Mr. X, Y, or Z. It doesn't matter. You beat him. You win. Trophy is yours to keep forever. In this case, Fed has 17 to keep, and Rafa, only 11.
You kept bringing up Philippoussis and Hewitt, and Roddick to diminish Fed's achievements. If they were so weak, then where was your Rafa in each of this particular tournament when either of your weak player faced Fed in the GS final?
Name the year, the tournament and do a side-by-side comparo between these weak players and your Rafa (when Fed won these finals). Go ahead. Curious to see your comparo. Either Rafa got kicked out ealier, got injured, or didn't even play.
Your 11>17 argument is so laughable. So are "weak era", "greatest match of all time (when Rafa won)", "not a matchup issue", "Rafa is a beast", and so on and so forth....Keep spinning them...
Fed has those slams because Rafa wasn't there.
@ RF20Lennon, The Devil's Church is back in business as I can see, and its preacher is louder than ever! Apparently the TW ban wasn't forever. Too bad...
where's the comparo?
Rafa wasn't there because...?
Bouhoo, Rafa wasn't there! LOL.
See, for any Fed fan, they at least can say that Fed made it to the FO final 6 times and lost square and fair to Rafa. At least Fed made it to the final (Key sentence here in case you miss it).
In your case, Rafa wasn't there in each of those final where your weak player faced Fed. So if they were weak, Rafa must be even weaker for not being there. Your logic, isn't it right?
Rafa style of game is very physical. He plays hurt....he played hurt at the FO and then skipped Wimbledon .
His doctors told him at age 18 that he would never be able to play tennis again but he just fights on.
Rafa battles his war torn body as well as his opponents. But we all know deep down that Nadal is the better player. You know it , I know it and everyone knows it.......admitting is a different story.
Okay, I'm gonna troll a bit.
[Troll mode ON]
We all know who that one guy is who's better than Nadal. We all know it deep down. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it... admitting is a different story... He is Lukas Rosol.
[Troll mode OFF]
Yeah, I can do it too!
A bit of a revisionist, aren't we?
Where's the comparo that I asked? Too ashamed to show? Show it and explain to us how Rafa, being such a superior, stronger player (in your mind) than Hewitt, Roddick, Philippoussis, wasn't there in these finals? Explain to us how a weaker player got through the 6 matches of a GS to face Fed, whereas the invicible Rafa was nowhere to be found in such tournament? Go ahead, I'm listening.
For all your talk about Rafa being so much stronger than Fed, where was he in all these finals? Why let the weaker players take his place?
Bouhoo, bouhoo... Cry on, TDK.
If only slams matter then isn't Federer greater than Nadal?
Also Federer's wins over Nadal in slams came when Nadal was a Multiple time grand slam champion, whereas Rafter's wins over Fed came years before he won Wimbledon
I know this will change soon but it's ridiculous that
Federer (17) = Nadal + Djokovic + Murray (11+5+1)
Huh, what part of your answer above explains all the GS finals that Fed won without having Rafa on the other side of the net? Is it a rule in tennis that Fed has to pamper Rafa and take him by the hand all the way to the final in each tournament they play?
(Before I take my morning cup of coffee) I take 11 GS titles over 17 any time, any where, any how.
(After my cup of coffee)Christ, how moron did I just sound? Hope no one heard what I said!
And I would take Brooklyn decker over Mirka even though there is more of her.
More does not equal better in my opinion.
He skipped Wimbledon , he skipped the open, ......
Other times he was just way to young and a devolving clay court specialist. The same exact way Federer got his butt kicked on every surface known to man by rafter at the same age as Nadal.......the difference is Nadal at that age was still able to beat Federer.
Separate names with a comma.