Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

[eugenius]

Not sure Federer would have done better if 3 of the surfaces were grass,as in Lavers day.At the moment you'd have to give it to Laver,but might be different if Federer wins a couple more Grand slams.You would'nt be able to argue against 16 or more GS's really,would you?Still,no shame in being the 2nd GOAT,behind Laver.

 

[gpt]

totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

If you've seen Laver compete with Connors on youtube at nearly 40 when Connors was at his best do you also say a 5.5 player would 'take' on prime Connors?

Federer lost to Agassi
Agassi lost to Sampras
Sampras lost to Lendl
Lendl lost to Borg
Borg lost to Connors
Connors lost to Rosewall
Rosewall lost to Laver

GOAT arguments are abstract and subjective and a waste of time

Federer is most probably the most complete player of all time.

 

[thalivest]

What's also being overlooked is Laver played 3 of his 4 slams on grass since hardcourts didn't exist at the time...if Sampras and Fed played 3 out of 4 majors on grass I'm sure they'd both certainly have well above 14 majors a piece.

I disagree on Roger. Roger is pretty much equally good on hard courts as grass, I am not even sure if grass is his best surface. Since 2003 at Wimbledon he was a bit lucky in 2007 and lost in 2008, so could easily have only 4 Wimbledons now. He has won the Australian Open 3 times and got a bit unlucky in both 2005 and 2009 so could have easily won 5. He won the U.S Open 5 times. Really I dont see there being any difference probably.

Sampras yes would have even more slams if there were 3 on grass.

 

[TiradPass]

Your perception of human evolution is hilarious. Sandy Koufax threw like a girl.

"Evolution"? lol. It's a plain and simple fact that far more people play tennis today than in say the 1950s when Laver's generation would have begun playing. In the U.S. there were 10 million who played tennis in 1970 (hence I imagine considerably less in the 1950s!), 30 million by the late 70s (at the height of the boom), and though the boom in the U.S. has declined somewhat, still about 25 million today. With other countries I'm sure the growth has been even more significant since the advent of the open era (which is credited with spreading tennis globally). To deny that this massive growth makes little or no difference to the quality of the top 10-100 tennis players flies in the face of logic.

Ok, so I guess if you took a player from say the late 70's, 80's and asked them to play at the same level today they wouldnt succeed?
Then why did McEnroe win an Atp doubles tournament when he was 48 years old? He accomplished the same thing he did in the 70's and 80's in 2006 as a much older, less athletic version of himself. I would say thats pretty competetive.
McEnroes great rival was Borg, Borg had a few difficult matches with Laver when Laver was in his late 30's, such as this one:

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

Logic dictates that if Laver can be competitive with Borg at a relatively advanced age, he could have been competitive with McEnroe, and McEnroe playing even now would be a top 10 doubles player.

Prime laver, with equipment etc being equal as any peers, would be close to the top in ANY era.

The best players, for instance Laver and McEnroe, certainly would be able to succeed (not #1 but maybe top 10), but things don't look so hot for those ranked say 5-10 in Laver's time. Do you really think they would break into the top 50 today?

One last point. When discussing the GOAT issue Federer vs Laver, in Laver's era a Grand Slam generally only really began in the second week, as has previously been stated by several others. Nowadays, it is obviously so much harder and the top 10 regularly crash out in the first week of play, hence I would say winning a Slam today is at a bare minimum 50% harder than it was in Laver's time. I won't draw conclusions on other candidates like Sampras, but Federer clearly has a decisive edge over Laver in the GOAT discussion.

 

[Puma]

Okay, let's compare Federer's slice backhand to the supposed "gold standard" Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Federer accelerates through the slice and the ball comes back with a ridiculous curve that is not defensive in the least instead it is an offensive weapon that keeps his opponent back and allows Fed to be on the agressive. Ken Rosewall hit a nice clean well-slice backhand, but it was not a weapon. And as far as a clear, pure drive Feds slice backhand looks more correct and textbook. No comparison, and also Rosewall hit only slice because he couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Imagine that a top tennis professional today not being able to hit topspin off both sides, lights out, man!!

I disagree with your descriptions entirely. Fed does have variety in his slice, but he semi-floats the ball back quite often as his slice is often used as a defensive tactic. He rarely "drives" a slice. He may hit is low, but I don't see him driving it very often at all. In fact, in his technique you will see him take the racket to a high position in his backswing. This causes him to have a more "choppy" swing pattern into the ball, which is error prone, especially when it turns into a volley. BTW, others here have made comments about Feds slice technique before. And, I think the Text Book was written using Rosewall as "the" example.

Rosewall did have quite a nice driving slice. And of course he could float it or do anything he needed to do with it. And so can Fed, its just he has no real need to drive the slice from the baseline as much becuase of his topspin shot he has.

 

[jimbo333]

One last point. When discussing the GOAT issue Federer vs Laver, in Laver's era a Grand Slam generally only really began in the second week, as has previously been stated by several others. Nowadays, it is obviously so much harder and the top 10 regularly crash out in the first week of play, hence I would say winning a Slam today is at a bare minimum 50% harder than it was in Laver's time. I won't draw conclusions on other candidates like Sampras, but Federer clearly has a decisive edge over Laver in the GOAT discussion.

You didn't read what I said did you? The top players have it way easier today!

They get byes in the early rounds and then top 32 are seeded, so top players avoid playing difficult matches until later in tournaments!!!

LAVER is the GOAT, if he had played Grand Slams throughout his career he definitely would have won over 20 for example

 

[jimbo333]

Oh, and I think you'll find most athletes in the US now play baseball, basketball etc rather than tennis. It is way easier to be a professional tennis player now than in previous years, with a bit of dedication!

 

[hewittboy]

jimbo, since it seems you are a Connors fan just curious where do you believe he ranks all time. Thanks.

 

[mtommer]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Okay, but what if we take today's players and have them grow up in Laver's era and vice versa? Would Laver still be "obsolete"? Would today's players back then have today's power game?

 

[jimbo333]

jimbo, since it seems you are a Connors fan just curious where do you believe he ranks all time. Thanks.

He is definitely in TOP 10 of all-time

About 8th I would reckon!!!

 

[drakulie]

You didn't read what I said did you? The top players have it way easier today!

Thats a laugh. It is well documented the tour was way easier in Laver days. The first couple of rounds, many of the top "pros/amateurs" were playing club players/teaching pros because the "Tour" didn't have enough players to fill draws. Therefore, when they arrived at a certain location, many of the local players would be in the draw the first week. It wasn't until deep in the draw that guys like Laver had to face stiff competetion.

LAVER is the GOAT, if he had played Grand Slams throughout his career he definitely would have won over 20 for example

Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

 

[AAAA]

I disagree with your descriptions entirely. Fed does have variety in his slice, but he semi-floats the ball back quite often as his slice is often used as a defensive tactic. He rarely "drives" a slice. He may hit is low, but I don't see him driving it very often at all. In fact, in his technique you will see him take the racket to a high position in his backswing. This causes him to have a more "choppy" swing pattern into the ball, which is error prone, especially when it turns into a volley.

All the above could be due to the fact that courts are generally higher bouncing or his opponents generally hit with more topspin than players in the past. Slice is much usually easier to 'knife' when the ball is coming at you fast and flattish. It's not really possible from the usual TV perspective to see how high the ball is when players hit the slice. Just saying.

 

[spiderman123]

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right?

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

So you give Roddick a racquet that was used in the 70s and suddenly he will serve slower than the guys in the 70s?

[This is just an example.]

Game, players, training methods evolve. And players get better. That is the reason running and swimming records are broken. The fastest man of today will beat the fastest swimmer of 1909 if both are swimming in exactly similar trunks.

 

[jimbo333]

Thats a laugh. It is well documented the tour was way easier in Laver days. The first couple of rounds, many of the top "pros/amateurs" were playing club players/teaching pros because the "Tour" didn't have enough players to fill draws. Therefore, when they arrived at a certain location, many of the local players would be in the draw the first week. It wasn't until deep in the draw that guys like Laver had to face stiff competetion.




Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

Well apart from yourself, who do think is the GOAT?

I've said previously that Federer may well be considered the GOAT at the end of his career, but until then, he just simply isn't, fact

I'm not nornally one to look at head to head results, but Federer certainly needs to improve this against Nadal and Murray for a start!!!

In summary he needs to contnue this form for another 3 years or so, retire, and then probably be the GOAT

 

[vtmike]

Thats a laugh. It is well documented the tour was way easier in Laver days. The first couple of rounds, many of the top "pros/amateurs" were playing club players/teaching pros because the "Tour" didn't have enough players to fill draws. Therefore, when they arrived at a certain location, many of the local players would be in the draw the first week. It wasn't until deep in the draw that guys like Laver had to face stiff competetion.




Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

Very Good points Drak!! I personally don't believe in GOAT...I mean each person will have his own GOAT based on his/her personal preferences...

 

[jimbo333]

The 4 surfaces for the Grand Slams were more different in about 1970 than they are now in 2009 (Grass courts can be and were VERY different, ask the players that played then). Ironically surfaces were most different in probably about 1995ish, when Sampras was invincible on grass and hopeless on clay!!!

 

[jimbo333]

And what really makes me laugh is that until this years French Open, Nadal was many peoples GOAT, not Federer!!!

Until a persons career is over, it is not fair to compare players

 

[fps]

they belong to different eras, so we should leave them there.

because there's no way of knowing how well federer would have done with old style racquets/nutrition etc

and there's no way in hell someone standing 5ft8 could challenge for grand slams on today's tour.

 

[pound cat]

Not sure Federer would have done better if 3 of the surfaces were grass,as in Lavers day.At the moment you'd have to give it to Laver,but might be different if Federer wins a couple more Grand slams.You would'nt be able to argue against 16 or more GS's really,would you?Still,no shame in being the 2nd GOAT,behind Laver.

Federer may be the greatest of his generation, but judging and comparing beyond his makes absolutely no sense. Every generation in tennis is different...rackets, tournaments, court surfaces, balls, new techniques, stress or not on physical fitness, shoes, fabric of tennis outfits, emphasis or not on coaches and large support team, tournament sched. changes, rain relays or not due to lack of roof, etc etc.

 

[beernutz]

He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

I personally think Roger is the GOAT but unfortunately for my argument he doesn't have the most weeks at #1.

Sampras has the most weeks at #1 by a pretty big margin over Roger, and Roger is just #4 on the list being also behind Lendl and Conners. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_players#Weeks_at_number_1

 

[TiradPass]

Jimbo: I did read what you said about seeds being more protected nowadays, but as drakulie says, how can you believe winning a Grand Slam was harder in Laver's days? Any seed protection is more than outweighed by the FAR tougher field these days.

Oh, and I think you'll find most athletes in the US now play baseball, basketball etc rather than tennis. It is way easier to be a professional tennis player now than in previous years, with a bit of dedication!

I would now ask if you read what I said earlier. There are maybe 25 million tennis players in the U.S. today, compared to well under 10 million during Laver's formative years. How does that in any way make it way easier to break into the top 10-100? And in other countries the difference is more pronounced still, for example in Russia tennis is obviously big now whereas not long ago (and certainly in say the 1950s!) I believe it was frowned on by the Soviet authorities for being a bourgeois sport and was barely popular at all. Obviously if you compare the number of people playing tennis globally today vs the 1950s, the first number will be many times higher than the second.

 

[ttwarrior1]

its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

 

[Guamanian G]

So many pros, along with McEnroe have said he's the greatest
because he IS!
lol

 

[jimbo333]

So you give Roddick a racquet that was used in the 70s and suddenly he will serve slower than the guys in the 70s?

[This is just an example.]

Game, players, training methods evolve. And players get better. That is the reason running and swimming records are broken. The fastest man of today will beat the fastest swimmer of 1909 if both are swimming in exactly similar trunks.

If you gave Roscoe Tanner a modern Babolat racquet at his peak, he would serve faster than Roddick!

(this is just an example)

OK, i'll ask you who is the greatest 400M hurdler of all-time? Is it Kevin Young the current world record holder, or is it Ed Moses? Yes almost everyone would agree it is Ed Moses

Federer may go on to be the GOAT. When he finally retires we will see!

Currently the GOAT is Rocket ROD LAVER

 

[jimbo333]

So many pros, along with McEnroe have said he's the greatest
because he IS!
lol

McEnroe was a great player, but he does speak rubbish a lot of the time mate

If you did a poll of all tennis playing pros through history alive today, I bet LAVER would come come out as GOAT!!!

 

[jimbo333]

its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

Absolutely mate

The thing is that I am sure Federer will go on to be the GOAT, but just because he won the French Open, a huge fuss is being made, which I think is very funny. If Nadal somehow wins Wimbledon, I'm waiting to argue against "Nadal is the GOAT" rubbish that no doubt I'll hear!!!

 

[TiradPass]

its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

Well since speed, strength etc is all part of the game, just like in tennis, then yes the NBA players today are of course better. Do you really think a top 1970s NBA team would stand a chance against an NBA team today? The 1970s team would get thrashed.

 

[Radical10is]

He certainly could've been taller if his parents had had better nutrition. It's not that hard of a conclusion to reach?

Tallness is based on genetics, and autosomal traits. To say his parents could have made him taller by eating better is just absurd.

 

[nfor304]

Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

Everyone wants to compare Laver's achievements to Feds, which is equally unfair to Laver. Federer is equally as good on grass as he is on hard court, and clay is clearly the surface he is least successful on. Yet he hasn't as yet managed to win a clay slam in the same year as another slam. Laver accomplished the feat twice, playing on grass that is faster and less consistent than it is today. When Laver won the USopen in 1969 he played most of the final wearing spikes, because the grass was loose and slippery.

If Fed had to play on the courts that Laver did during his grand slam years he would be less likely to win on the clay imo, because the disparity would be so much greater than playing year round on fast, inconsistent grass and incredibly slow clay.

Laver had to master 2 surfaces that at the time were as far apart in the way they played than 2 surfaces ever have been. Federer has had to master 3 surfaces, yes, but everyone knows the grass has been slowed from what it used to be, so I dont think the difference is as cut and dry as your making it out to be.

Your forgetting that the years Laver played on the pro tour he played on literally dozens of different surfaces and not only succeeded on all of them, against players far superior to the ones playing the grand slams at the time, he dominated. They played on indoor polished floor boards, cement, crushed shell courts etc etc. I dont think its unreasonable to say Laver would have handled hard court fairly well.

 

[edmondsm]

its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

What a silly statement. Of course they are better. You just said, "they are quicker and stronger." Newsflash: they also shoot better and play better defense too. Give me a break. Are you trying to say that the Bulls of the 90's would lose to the Celtics of the 50's???

 

[FiveO]

What a silly statement. Of course they are better. You just said, "they are quicker and stronger." Newsflash: they also shoot better and play better defense too. Give me a break. Are you trying to say that the Bulls of the 90's would lose to the Celtics of the 50's???

Two different conversations at once. The conversation is about the absolute elite of a generation. If one believes that a Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Julius Erving, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird or Michael Jordan, developing and playing in this environment would not be stars in it, is to fail to see what makes a truly elite player. Teams as a whole are a different matter. "Defense"? ahem. Why do you think the rules were changed to allow once illegal zones to be played?

5

 

[carlos djackal]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

I agree....together with fitness, training, technology, the evolution of athletes would just make the present players tower over their past generation counterparts.......this however could not be applied to his airness Michael Jordan in basketball (and probably in other sports also), he is just a very special athlete but that is another story......

 

[carlos djackal]

double post

 

[maddogz32]

i think the most accomplished is the greatest

 

[jimbo333]

Everyone wants to compare Laver's achievements to Feds, which is equally unfair to Laver. Federer is equally as good on grass as he is on hard court, and clay is clearly the surface he is least successful on. Yet he hasn't as yet managed to win a clay slam in the same year as another slam. Laver accomplished the feat twice, playing on grass that is faster and less consistent than it is today. When Laver won the USopen in 1969 he played most of the final wearing spikes, because the grass was loose and slippery.

If Fed had to play on the courts that Laver did during his grand slam years he would be less likely to win on the clay imo, because the disparity would be so much greater than playing year round on fast, inconsistent grass and incredibly slow clay.

Laver had to master 2 surfaces that at the time were as far apart in the way they played than 2 surfaces ever have been. Federer has had to master 3 surfaces, yes, but everyone knows the grass has been slowed from what it used to be, so I dont think the difference is as cut and dry as your making it out to be.

Your forgetting that the years Laver played on the pro tour he played on literally dozens of different surfaces and not only succeeded on all of them, against players far superior to the ones playing the grand slams at the time, he dominated. They played on indoor polished floor boards, cement, crushed shell courts etc etc. I dont think its unreasonable to say Laver would have handled hard court fairly well.

I agree. Thanks for making this point so clearly

Most people have no idea how different the surfaces were in the 60's/70's. The surfaces today are much more similar to each other.

 

[JeMar]

Tallness is based on genetics, and autosomal traits. To say his parents could have made him taller by eating better is just absurd.

No, but it's only one of the aspects in which we've made strides in the last 30 years.

 

[gpt]

Everyone wants to compare Laver's achievements to Feds, which is equally unfair to Laver. Federer is equally as good on grass as he is on hard court, and clay is clearly the surface he is least successful on. Yet he hasn't as yet managed to win a clay slam in the same year as another slam. Laver accomplished the feat twice, playing on grass that is faster and less consistent than it is today. When Laver won the USopen in 1969 he played most of the final wearing spikes, because the grass was loose and slippery.

If Fed had to play on the courts that Laver did during his grand slam years he would be less likely to win on the clay imo, because the disparity would be so much greater than playing year round on fast, inconsistent grass and incredibly slow clay.

Laver had to master 2 surfaces that at the time were as far apart in the way they played than 2 surfaces ever have been. Federer has had to master 3 surfaces, yes, but everyone knows the grass has been slowed from what it used to be, so I dont think the difference is as cut and dry as your making it out to be.

Your forgetting that the years Laver played on the pro tour he played on literally dozens of different surfaces and not only succeeded on all of them, against players far superior to the ones playing the grand slams at the time, he dominated. They played on indoor polished floor boards, cement, crushed shell courts etc etc. I dont think its unreasonable to say Laver would have handled hard court fairly well.

Very well put.
Laver had to beat Roche on wet slippery grass at Forest Hills in 69 to win the Slam. Todays player wouldn't have been allowed to walk across it.