Who do Federer fans want to win the slam race?

[TMF]

Your list is basically meaningless. When John McEnroe best year actually leads this you know it doesn’t mean much. Does anyone think he’s a GOAT contender? You are basically cherry picking irrelevant or less meaningful stats to try keep Federer relevant. He’s been a fantastic player but no matter how you spin it, he’s 3rd best of this era now. In the records that matter the most he comes up a bit short I’m afraid. Every year matters. We used to hear about feds great longevity but it’s djokodal who are showing much more.

The only problem for Federer is he has many more players who lead the H2H over him than who lead djokodal. Therefore, his win/loss record against the field in his career is inferior compared to them.

Basically all of Federers best years came either before djokodal were on tour of they just started out and Fed only had youngdal on clay as tough competition till 2007/2008.

I never said McEnroe is a GOAT, but his 1984 dominance does deserve credit when evaluating his ranking in ATG. People who ranks Mac always mentioned his 1984 feat. My point is H2H against individual player has no meaning. Because it factors in number of meeting. on best/worst surface, age difference, etc. That's why I said overall H2H against the playing field is the best and most accurate method when judging who's the better player, more versatility, more consistency, more adaptability during their peak/prime years. Federer is more dominance against the field than Fedovic.

Federer came first and dominate the tour, Nadovic came later but they dominate less. The weak era is subjective but since many people have gone through extensive study about the era between 2016-present, it's clear that this is a very weak era, hence the name "career inflation era"

 

[TMF]

Fed was only dominate all at once. His longevity past 2010 wasn’t that great. Whereas to nadals credit he kept winning at least a major every year to maintain his grip at top of the game and get to where he is now. After 2010 bar that 2017 resurgence Fed was largely irrelevant at the top of mens game. He couldn’t even get a least 1 major in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 or 2019. He had his chances but couldn’t convert. That’s cost him overall.

Djokovic on the other hand had a slower start only getting 1 in 08. However, since 2011 went on a monster run to get in the conversation. I mean you keep blaming the next gen or djokodal luck for them overtaking Fed. All Fed had to do to stay top was a bit better in a couple of those years but he couldn’t do it. It’s simply on him why he’s ended up in 3rd place as well as djokodal brilliance and relentless motivation to hit the top.

Federer at 30 had peak Nadal and Djokovic. When Djokodal at 30s, they have NextGen, and old Federer. 2017 was part of the inflation era and Fed fans already admitted that he vulture those slams. Of course, Djokodal vulture the most from 2016-2022. I don't blame on Federer, but fact are fact...he's 6 years older than Nole who's in his prime. Let's not forget that Nole was taken to the distance against old Federer and the grand stage a few times and should have lost to him in 2019 Wimbledon. Old Federer still excel because of the weak competition, and Nole wasn't good enough to beat him in straight set but was hanging on a dear life, particularly at Wimbledon 2019.

 

[TMF]

My opinion is my opinion. Opinions are subjective.

But statistics are objective ...

The ONLY tennis record that Federer holds over any other male player is his 8 Wimbledon Singles Titles. (NB: Martina Navratilova has 9 Wimbledon Singles Titles.) He is inferior to at least one other player in every other significant tennis statistic. On that basis alone, Federer cannot be the GOAT of tennis.

Open Era tennis records – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And has been oft said, Federer's dominance occured during one of the weakest eras of the sport. His dominance quickly disappeared once Rafa appeared on the scene and was well and truly over when Djokovic arrived.

As for Margaret Smith-Court, she dominated her era much more than Graf did. Graf was also benefitted by what happened to Seles who was clearly starting to dominate her before that incident. Don't get me wrong. I think Steffi was a great player. Loved watching her play tennis. But she was no Margaret. Margaret changed the women's game. BJK, Evert and Navratilova all say that.

Look, I understand how modern fans of the sport love to simply write off the achievements of players from decades ago. But there is a reason why the sport keeps statistics. That is so those players continue to be remembered and honoured for the great contributions to this great sport.

At the end of the day, it is ridiculous to compare players from significantly different eras on most counts. But it is quite easy to identify levels of competition during each era and what players were dominant during them.

But hey, if you want to keep believing that Roger is the GOAT, that's fine by me. You will have a hard time explaining to me why he has inferior H2H against both Rafa and Novak. AND even harder time explaining how Rafa has beaten him at Wimbledon to win the Title there while Roger has not been able to beat Rafa at RG. Meanwhile Novak has beaten both of them at both venues.

Still we go round and round .... and still we come to the same realisation that Laver achieved two GRAND SLAMS. The only player to do so in the sports history.

According to ultimate tennis, Federer holds the most ATP records.

1) Roger Federer - 342
2) Rafael Nadal - 202
3) Novak Djokovic - 184
4) Jimmy Connors - 155

GOAT is subjective, I have followed the big 3 in their entire career, and in my opinion Federer achievements was more impressive. The numbers he put up were beyond belief, like 237 consecutive weeks at #1, 18/19 slam finals, 23 consecutive slam semifinals, dominated 3 out of the 4 slams including WTF. This is not taking anything away from Djokodal, but Federer resume is more awe-inspiring.

I disagree with Court. Graf was most dominant female tennis player including Court despite not holding the most slams. Her overall achievements and records held/broken impressive me the most. Many people have Serena as GOAT but to me Graf was way more dominant than Serena even though she had a much shorter career.

They are all great players but I still maintain that Graf is the greatest female tennis player of all time. People pick Serena today is because of present-bias.



Top 5 reasons Steffi Graf is Tennis "Greatest Of All Time(GOAT)"


5. Footwork
Tennis is a game of legs and no player man or women ever moves as fluidly and beautify as Steffi Graf. In his memoir open, Agassi said Steffi was so fast she once trained for the German Olympic track and field team. Even in her retirement when Graf hit the court her feet never stop moving.


4. The Forehand
The Graf forehand has been called the greatest single groundstroke in women's tennis history. Earning her the nickname "Fraulein Forehand".


3. The Golden Moment
Steffi holds the record that may never be broken. She's the only player man or women to win a single season "Golden Slam".


2. Major Dominance
Steffi was at her best at grand slam stages. From 1987 to 1990, Graf reaches an astounding 13 consecutive grand slam finals, and she won 9 of those. Even more impressive, she won every grand slam titles at least 4 times, and remains the only player to achieved that feat. Graf reaches 31 Grand Slam single finals, and her 90% winning percentage in Grand Slam matches remains one of the best of all time and that's truly incredible.


1. Time at the top
Numbers don't lie. Steffi Graf is the greatest of all time because of her longevity at the top. Graf held the top spot for a record 377 weeks, that's nearly 60 weeks more than Williams who was number one for 319 weeks. When you stack Steffi's career next to Serena, Graf 900 career victories are more than Williams and her 107 career titles are 35 more than Serena who won 72 titles. And she achieved all of that in a shorter career than Serena. Steffi retire in 1999 at the age of 30, ending nearly 17 years career. Serena at 39 today is playing in her 26th professional season.

For the upteempth time, H2H against a single player is irrelevant to the player achievements, titles, records, and can't determine who's the better player overall. It's the win/loss against the entire playing field that truly defines your level as a tennis player. Nadal H2H against Federer means nothing(e.g. 2006 ring a bell). Federer is better than him everywhere except clay. Nadal doesn't even have 1 WTF, but his detractors can only base on H2H fallacy. That reeks with desperation

 

[duaneeo]

Basically all of Federers best years came either before djokodal were on tour of they just started out and Fed only had youngdal on clay as tough competition till 2007/2008.

The "just started out" Nadal peaked early on clay and grass, and had faced Federer in 4 slam finals before 2008.

Regardless, peak Federer dominated his non-ATG contemporaries as expected of an ATG. The guy in your avatar failed to dominate his non-ATG contemporaries during his peak as expected of an ATG. This is why the guy in your avatar will never be considered the GOAT.

 

[bigbadboaz]

For the upteempth time, H2H against a single player is irrelevant to the player achievements..

Can't get on board with this at all, for the first time or the umpteenth.

You want to emphasize the overall career picture by comparison, fine. But specific records have to have bearing somewhere. The name of the game is to WIN, and that still counts in the H2H setting. If Player A just can't beat Player B, it damn well means something.

At the very least, it has separating value when comparing two players who are just that close. That's exactly why it's coming up now, right, and appears to get under your skin: because the Fed/Nadal debate has been so close and so ongoing for so long, with H2H coming up often as a differentiator?

 

[Daniel Andrade]

As a Federer and Nadal fan.

 

[Enceladus]

Nadal deserves way more credit for his career than he gets here. He won 22 slams despite skipping 4 years of his career due to injuries, while Djokovic pretty much never had injuries. (Only some "magic injuries" which only made him play better and win the title) Also, RG organizers suddenly changing the conditions, making them terrible for Nadal and absolutely perfect for Djokovic is terrible. Before that, Djokovic could only win this slam with an extremely weak draw.

Djokovic had an elbow injury, dude. He had to undergo surgery for this. How many surgeries has Nadal had in his career when he is so much injured?

 

[Enceladus]

Include the Women and no one comes close to Margaret Smith-Court.

As for Margaret Smith-Court, she dominated her era much more than Graf did. Graf was also benefitted by what happened to Seles who was clearly starting to dominate her before that incident. Don't get me wrong. I think Steffi was a great player. Loved watching her play tennis. But she was no Margaret. Margaret changed the women's game. BJK, Evert and Navratilova all say that.

Outside of Court fans and the Aussies, no one considers Court to be the GOAT. The majority consensus is that she belongs in the 4th or 5th spot, vying with Evert, which one is better. The TOP 3 of women's tennis are Graf, Serena and Navratilova.

 

[Karma Tennis]

According to ultimate tennis, Federer holds the most ATP records.

1) Roger Federer - 342
2) Rafael Nadal - 202
3) Novak Djokovic - 184
4) Jimmy Connors - 155

GOAT is subjective, ... This is not taking anything away from Djokodal, but Federer resume is more awe-inspiring.

It's understandable that Federer fans are so fond of him. I feel the same way about Laver and Borg. But regardles, the only objective method is analysing the historical stats.

Roger holds a lot of records. Few of them are the significant apart from his Wimbledon Singles titles collection. His two major rivals lead their respective H2H records against him and that is damning statistic over the course of twenty years.

Imho, awe-inspiring is winning all four Major titles in the same year. Laver did it twice. Awe-inspiring is winning Roland Garros Title fourteen times. Awe-inspiring is achieving the Channel Slam three times like Borg did. Federer's awe inspiring achievement is his eight Wimbledon Titles.

If you consider the non objective aspects, Laver, Borg, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all transcended the sport of tennis. Each of them made a massive contribution to pushing the sport forward. It is probably fair to say that both Borg and Federer saved the Men's game in some ways. The Men's game changed significantly once they arrived on the scene.

For the upteempth time, H2H against a single player is irrelevant to the player achievements, titles, records, and can't determine who's the better player overall. It's the win/loss against the entire playing field that truly defines your level as a tennis player. Nadal H2H against Federer means nothing(e.g. 2006 ring a bell). Federer is better than him everywhere except clay. Nadal doesn't even have 1 WTF, but his detractors can only base on H2H fallacy. That reeks with desperation

Win/Loss records against an entire field is a function of the quality of the entire field. There is little argument that the years between 1999 and 2006 were pretty weak in comparison to most other eras of the Men's game. It is during this period that Federer achieved much of his success. But as soon as Rafa and Novak came along, you can see that Roger's significant stats proceeded to become less impressive.

You can win 1000 matches against the bulk of the inferior competition. But if you keep losing to your significant rivals, especially in the biggest competitions, that opens up a lot of questions as to where you are placed in the overall scheme of things. This is why H2H records (as long as they are over a long period involving a lot of matches) are so important.

Outside of Court fans and the Aussies, no one considers Court to be the GOAT.

You mean, North Americans.

The Record Books only show the Statistics of the sport. They are the only objective indicator. On that basis Margaret Smith-Court is the female GOAT. And like Borg and Federer in the Mens' game, the Women's game changed once Smith-Court arrived on the scene. She influenced the actual sport of the Women's game more than anyone else. And Billie Jean King should always be credited for changing the Women's game more than anyone else in all other aspects.

The majority consensus is that she belongs in the 4th or 5th spot, vying with Evert, which one is better. The TOP 3 of women's tennis are Graf, Serena and Navratilova.

Consensus is not objective.

Smith-Court achieved the GRAND SLAM. She holds the record for the most Major Titles.

And she was clearly the most dominant player of her era by quite some way. This cannot be said of any of the other women players you have mentioned.

 

[Enceladus]

You mean, North Americans.

Not. All of them. All fans outside of Australia doesn't recognize Court as GOAT. I don't know of any tennis analyst who considers Court the GOAT of women's tennis.

The Record Books only show the Statistics of the sport. They are the only objective indicator. On that basis Margaret Smith-Court is the female GOAT. And like Borg and Federer in the Mens' game, the Women's game changed once Smith-Court arrived on the scene. She influenced the actual sport of the Women's game more than anyone else. And Billie Jean King should always be credited for changing the Women's game more than anyone else in all other aspects.

Court played at a time when the game was not yet fully professionalized and she won many titles on AO where the game fields were weak quality.
I don't understand how Court has changed tennis. King changed women's tennis much more than Court, she founded the WTA, pushed for more prize money for women's tennis, beat the swagger Riggs unlike to Court. Navratilova influenced tennis with her focus on healthy eating and fitness.

Consensus is not objective.

Smith-Court achieved the GRAND SLAM. She holds the record for the most Major Titles.

And she was clearly the most dominant player of her era by quite some way. This cannot be said of any of the other women players you have mentioned.

Court acquired CYGS at a time when tennis players only played on two surfaces, HC was start used on GS tournaments 8 years later. Graf's CYGS is therefore a more impressive achievement.
As I said before, Court's GS title record is inflated. The careers of Graf, Serena and Navratilova are considered better because they all took place in the Open era, unlike to Court's career.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Not. All of them. All fans outside of Australia doesn't recognize Court as GOAT. I don't know of any tennis analyst who considers Court the GOAT of women's tennis.

Recency bias. Objective historical statistics always include Smith-Court in the conversation even though she retired in the 1970s.

And many still obsessed with the hope that Serena can equal Smith-Court's records. LOL.

Court played at a time when the game was not yet fully professionalized and she won many titles on AO where the game fields were weak quality.
I don't understand how Court has changed tennis. King changed women's tennis much more than Court, she founded the WTA, pushed for more prize money for women's tennis, beat the swagger Riggs unlike to Court. Navratilova influenced tennis with her focus on healthy eating and fitness.

The Women's game has always been OPEN. "Fully professionalised" ??? The best women players always played on the same Tour, unlike the Men.

AO Title argument has been debunked. Several other threads here invalidate that view from an objective standpoint.

Smith-Court was responsible for introducing athleticisim in to the sport of Women's tennis. She was the first female player to train with male players. Once other women realised what Smith-Court was doing, they all followed suite. That was a massive change to the game.

Court acquired CYGS at a time when tennis players only played on two surfaces,

FOUR SURFACES!

The grass courts of Australia, England and the United States only had one thing in common. They were grass. But the courts themselves actually played very differently. Aussie grass was more like Hard Court.

I guess you had to be there to understand that.

Cheers.