Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

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

  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    They could have made this list:

    1. Roger Federer
    2. Andy Roddick
    3. Lleyton Hewitt
    4. Marat Safin
    5. James Blake
    6. Ivan Ljubicic
    7. David Nalbandian
    8. Sebastien Grosjean
    9. Rod Laver
    10. Scheng Schalken

    and you will be happy with it. All you care about is any list that has Federer at #1, no matter how ridiculous it otherwise is. Actually my list would have you drooling in ectasy as it would potray the Federer era players a collection of GOATs who would all have won 30 slams without Federer, which is of course the fantasy World you try in vein to instill in people 24 7 here.
     
  2. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,344
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Hewitt and Roddick are worthy of being 3-4'ish time slam champions in terms of talent and level I think. They're not open era greats by any means but they were capable of playing high level tennis.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Insulting Steve, Where is the logic? You blame me (falsely) for knowing little about modern tennis and yet you concede you don't know much about older times. How then can you think Federer is better than Rosewall f.i. with your little knowledge.

    It's very nasty to threaten me or another poster. Thanks for your help.
     
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,075
    WRONG !

    Tennis Channel uses a specific criteria to determine the player's ranking. Your list of players failed to meet the criteria below.


    PLAYER'S CRITERIA

    * Number of Major Titles won
    * Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
    * Player Ranking
    * Performance at ATP/WTA events
    * Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
    * Records held or broken
    * Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)
     
  5. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511

    No way would TMF agree with that list. Always trying to start trouble...pathetic
     
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,075
    If based on achievements alone, the modern era only has few players on the top 100 list. But if based on talent/level of playing, then many more players would make the list.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF: Tennis Channel has only "forgotten" a tiny thing: the absence from Grand Slam and other amateur events by th best players in the world (old pros). Will you ever accept it??

    They were not consequent: They should have ranked Cooper ahead of Gonzalez because Ashley has won more GS titles...
     
  8. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,971

    Since Sampras' quote, Fed's won two more slams, WTF's, more weeks at #1 and more masters.

    Many have said this before he went on to win more, and it's still not over.

    By now all that have made these quotes have much more evidence to solidify their opinion.
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    no, the hate is when you say a player like hewitt won't be top 10 in any other era just to belittle federer .... when you haven't even see the best of hewitt, not even close ...

    no, I don't, but given your comments its obvious its quite less ....

    I didn't ask you to describe it in beautiful words or in poetry ... simple English words will suffice.

    If someone ask you to describe a Rosewall match where he played very well ..... are you going to say ..oh no, I can't describe as well as so and so person ? or are you going to say something like his volleying was very good, his backhand rock solid, passing brilliant etc etc ?

    describing matches well is not a criterion to judge players , but watching matches is

    how would you respond if someone said rosewall's backhand sucked ? that's equivalent to saying federer lacks touch shots

    its not just about where you place the players, but to actually try to know why you should place them there ... to have the curiosity to learn/watch .....

    I posted several points/videos of federer's brilliant touch ... you didn't even check/respond to one of them, did you !?

    Will add this ........

     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Hateful abmk, I asked you to stop addressing me.

    Here my last words to you:

    Only you and God (this time not Roger) know why it is hate to rank a player lower than you do.

    How can you say I have not watched prime Hewitt? It's your secret.

    Good bye, hateful man!
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,075
    Yes they did. Did you watch all the coutdown of all the top players from The Tennis Channel? They did mention Laver's entire career including his 1969 GS, even the 62 GS but little credit due to a weak amateur field. Laver is ranked #2 because of his 69 GS, and is the reason he's ahead of Sampras(who's well behind Federer by now).
     
  12. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    fine, I'll stop addressing your posts seriously. I'm only going to poke fun when you make statements like the one in my signature ? Deal ? :)
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Funny TMF, I referred to the old PROS from Tilden to Gimeno. T.C has totally neglected their achievements, see Emerson ahead of Rosewall and Gonzalez.
     
  14. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    Yes you are right Bobby. Budge made the impossible in achievieng the 1938 GS. Just the tiny problem that his 3 main rivals at the time (Vines, Perry and Nusslein ) were pros. It would be the equivalent of Nadal making the GS without playing Federer, Djokovic and Murray.
    Mc Enroe was number 1 only 3 years (81,83,84), never won RG and failed to make a major final the last 7 years of his career. As talented as he was....you are dead wrong, he is behind Nadal.

    Learn history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  15. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    For a dude who played in long pants in ancient stages of the sport's history the tennis channel placed Tilden as high as I would place him
     
  16. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,796
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I did not threaten or insult you. If you think I did I am very sorry but I tried not to. I simply presented you with 2 options. I also did not claim Federer was better than Rosewall. You are saying here that you have an adequate knowledge of the modern game yet you conceded in an earlier post that you have not watched many if any of Federer's matches, and since we are discussing him I don't know if I can take your claim seriously.

    In regards to former players. The difference is you often post false facts about Federer while claiming to have not watched him, but do you see me getting involved in statistical discussions about Rosewall? It would be like me or anybody else here posting completely false stuff about Rosewall just to get you mad, and I guarantee you that you would not like that. Again I am not trying to insult you. I am simply going by your posting history which I've followed closely enough, or even seen in signatures that some of the stuff you post about Federer couldn't be more false if somebody actually tried.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    You consider Drysdale a GOAT candidate...he just reached and lost a traditional slam final, in 1965 at US Nationals (Forest Hills)
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    hahaha.But he wouldn´t like a list where Laver is in the top 10.I put the Bob Bryan instead.
     
  19. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,400
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    If you don't want people to insult you Bobby you should stop using the reply that 'more intelligence is needed' to understand some premise you have stated, particularly when that is the only support you provide for your position.

    I had not insulted you at all in my first post, I merely questioned how you could rank a person tied for GOAT who had to me such a glaring deficiency in his tennis resume. Rather than simply answering why you believe Rosewall still is the co-GOAT, you question my intelligence. That is not the politeness you seem to demand from others when they address you, so why do you feel entitled to use such comments towards the people you address?

    Don't you see how that is an insulting reply to the person to whom you are responding? Or are you just a hypocrite who only sees insults when they are directed at himself?
     
  20. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    Yes Kiki, i also believe that he meant to put Drysdale as a GOAT contender.....
     
  21. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,344
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    He's just a hippocrite.
     
  22. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,796
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Deleted post.
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    TC pannel only expertise is at whisky.I don´t know if anybody knows how many drank before making their list.
     
  24. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    find me in my post exactly where I say he's a GOAT candidate? I said expert.
     
  25. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    wtf is wrong with that guy, i said experts, he's making stuff up as it goes
     
  26. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,796
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    He misinterpreted the sentence (maybe intentionally I don't know). Pretty sure you were referring to the people who have called Federer the GOAT. You weren't making up your own list correct?
     
  27. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    I was referring to various tennis experts/people who have stated Fed is the greatest they've seen. TMF already displayed the quotes by a few of them in this thread.
     
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Don´t be so sure.You can expect anything from such a bizarre poster as ForzaMIlan.
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    You guys stop your doggy croop attack on elderly people like Bobbyone, specially if golden ( as per member of the Golden Era)

    I know he can be a very stubborn character at times, and that may arise nerves but you shouldn´t abuse of a lonely man as a gang group just because you want to honour DET 8 as of members of Dullest Era of Tennis)
     
  30. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,745
    Bobbyone,

    You need to see the difference between criticism of your perspective, and insulting your character traits.

    From what i have seen these past few pages, most so called "federer worshippers" (your term) have criticized your point of view regarding federer's weaknesses and his standing in history.

    I think this is quite fair. Very few have actually gone the extra mile and insulted you personally unless provoked.

    And i have seen you also question other posters logical ability and intelligence many times too - which is also a personal attack.

    No need to be so defensive. Many in this thread including "federer-worshippers" hold rosewall in high esteem.

    You should also know and understand that others may not share your perspective or your conclusions. You must learn to respect that...

    I personally do not share your judgements on federer and respect that you do not hold him as a contender for GOAT.

    But I do not have to respect your analysis on how you made that judgement - see the difference? This goes both ways of course...
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013
  31. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    Nah I think my posting style is pretty dead on, if I am trying to be sarcastic or subliminal or something it'd be easy to spot, but putting alongside Drysdale with those other ones wasn't in that this collection of people are GOAT contenders, bur rather it was a bunch of retired tennis authorities who have commented on who they think is the best.
     
  32. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    This post has shattered my world, you've convinced me
     
  33. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,796
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Yeah you've always seemed pretty normal to me. Far from "bizarre".
     
  34. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,511
    People who generally conflict with my opinions are the following, and you can spot a pattern over here in the last couple: kik, BobbyOne, Thundervolley,90s Clay, NadalAgassi, the entirety of NSK army who succeeded in getting me banned for 2 weeks while they still roam freely.
     
  35. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,583
    Yes, do you agree with that as well?
     
  36. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,583
    I disagree strongly with this. In the past, describing matches may not have been so important, particularly if there was little or no footage. These days it's virtually impossible to carry on debate about particular matches with fans who have seen -- perhaps even studied -- the matches, if you haven't seen them yourself.

    That's because if you haven't seen them, you've left yourself behind in the conversation. There would be no problem if you were debating with someone else who also has not seen the matches; then you would be on equal footing. But if there are fans who have seen the matches, and studied them, and based their specific arguments on the time and study they have put in -- and you have not done that work but choose still to disagree with their specific arguments, of course they're going to tell you that you're out of your depth and that you should do the work and get on some semblance of equal footing before you attempt to contradict specific arguments.

    You would have the right to say the same to someone who hasn't done even a semblance of the research and learning that you've done on a past great but chooses nevertheless to contradict you. Let's say someone who knows next to nothing about Hans Nusslein, and even admits that he does not care for that time period, adamantly refuses to accept the possibility that Nusslein was the best claycourter of the 1930s. How would you view that sort of resistance? Would you respect it? If such a person merely seemed to resist your argument about Nusslein because he can't accept Nusslein taking the esteem of traditionally known greats like von Cramm, but he doesn't know much about Nusslein and merely contradicts you by saying, "You're a Nusslein fanatic"; and when you tell him that he needs to do some significant research on Nusslein before he makes such adamant conclusions about him, he merely responds with, "I know enough already to make conclusions"; how would you view that? Would you respect it?

    I know that the Nusslein example, coming from the 1930s, is somewhat different than this debate about Federer. For past greats, studying video, watching matches -- even studying stats -- is hardly a requirement. So I'm not sure what the exact parallel would be. Maybe someone who has not seen very much of Federer's matches would correspond to someone who has not read very much about Nusslein.

    The parallel is not exact but the principle is the same. You've got to be on equal footing with the people you're debating. Not fully equal footing -- no one expects you to know Federer's matches the way ABMK does -- but watching videos of modern greats is, I think, an absolutely basic requirement. Watching some is good; watching more is better; watching a lot is best -- especially if your opponents in debate have done this themselves. That's really the key, isn't it? Specific arguments based on first-hand observation cannot just be contradicted with brief or general objections; they have to be countered with other arguments from first-hand observation.
     
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,075

    kiki,
    Please read carefully because forzamilan90 didn't say Drysdale is the goat candidate. Dysdale believe Roger is the best, yes even above your boy Laver. See below.



    Tennis Week: When we've spoken in the past, you've rated Roger as the
    top player you've seen with Laver as the next most complete player
    followed by Sampras. Do you still stand by that?

    Cliff Drysdale: Yes. As difficult as it is to compare with all that's
    said and done, like Laver played most of his tennis on grass with the
    exception of the French, there are so many issues, but the bottom line
    I still feel the same way. Federer is the best and most complete player
    I've seen
    .


    Tennis Week: Who is the most exciting player you've seen over the
    course of your career?

    Cliff Drysdale: The most exciting player? Andre Agassi is certainly one
    of them. John McEnroe was as exciting as could be to watch, so was
    Jimmy Connors and I also have to mention Rod Laver, my contemporary,
    but the most exciting player I've ever watched, the guy I would watch
    and do watch every chance I get, is Roger Federer. He's the best player
    I've ever seen. He has a genius and a talent that is unmatched in the
    history of the game, in my opinion
    .
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ARFED, I can give you good news: I have already learnt tennis history!

    You doubt that an amateur GS is a GS???

    McEnroe was No.1 in the ATP rankings. Not too bad...
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, It's good to know that not only TMF defends Tennis Channel list. I understand...
     
  40. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,344
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Top 10 for someone who played so long ago isn't so bad is it?

    What do you make of Laver ranking Rosewall 6th on his top 10 of players from the past?
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Especially for you: I did see several Federer matches albeit not all available. End. I'm just not an admirer of his non-variable game...
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Thanks for your support. I noticed over the recent months that you never insulted me even though we disagreed sometimes. It honours you.
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    World Beater, Thanks for your moderate words. But you still are wrong. I'm never the first to make insults as far as I can remember and I even apologized for those which I have done. Never has a Federer fanatic apologized for his (surely males because women seldom are so aggressive) insult. I even got a few threats...I would never say someone is an idiot when ranking Federer first but reverse some posters called me bad things because I rank Rosewall first (probably equal with Laver)...
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, Yes I do.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, I stress: I have watched several Federer matches but I have not analysed them like you or abmk do. All what I have seen from Federer confirms me that he is overrated by most experts and fans, especially by this forum's posters.

    I give Roger the credit he deserves: I have him ranked him fourth in a list. By the way, a friend of mine meanwhile has convinced me that my ranking has a flaw. He showed me that Gonzalez has greater achievements than Federer. So I will rank Roger only fifth in the future. You see I'm open to learn...

    I contradict that I cannot judge a player's accomplishments without watching his matches (or not too many). I have never seen a match of Tilden or Nüsslein and yet I'm entitled to rank them re achievements: I studied their career and record!!! I even would say that watching a player keeps a certain danger: I could be enticed to get a subjective view about him or her.I can be a fan of player X and therefore overrate his status in history! This danger is not given when only reading the results.

    I find, like kiki and maybe others, the current tennis a bit dull even though I concede that the top four now have some fine talent.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, You are so funny in always praising your darling. If I would praise Rosewall in every post I would have been killed by the Federer fanatics...
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I disagree with Laver. If he would have played as he ranks he would not have achieved THREE Grand Slams...
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    No need to
    I also observed that neutral US posters finally get off the closet
    It is a battle between Gold and Dull and you cannot hide
     
  50. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,101
    You shouldn't claim that you are neutral because you didn't say these players play. It is not hard to have a small biais for older player only be reading about them. It can happen just as easily as it can happens by watching them play. Our interest in these discussion comes from our subjectivity. However we can try to control it by objectify it.

    I know that I have a biais toward Connors, Lendl and Rosewall, in comparison to Borg, Sampras or Nadal. Why? Because I appreciate their consistency, there longevity, and also the fact that they have somehow less recognition than the other three I mentioned. They are the man in the shadow, and I like that in them. Objectively I'm perfectly objective regarding Federer ;-)

    On a different matter, you always write that you have been attacked because you rank Rosewall in such hight esteem. It is wrong. You have been attacked because you have criticized Federer violently, with poor arguments. Even Krosero who is a model of virtues agree!

    Now we know that you have no interest for current tennis, as you think Federer has a non-variable game. His tennis might be less varied than in some previous eras, but he has by far the most various game today. If you can't admire his achievements, it is because you can't admire any current tennis player achievement, just as I can't admire Schumacher achievements: I don't care for F1.

    You judge current tennis with a 50's lens, when current tennis should be judged with a current lens. It is as unfair to current tennis that what is the rule on the current pro section to judge Rosewall and Laver with the current lens ("lol Laver wouldn't even be top 5000 today he is so small, no power, no serve, etc.").

    I'm very happy that you understood that Gonzales achievement are higher than Fed's. As you say, it shows how tuned and open minded you can be. ;-)
     

Share This Page