View Single Post
Old 10-14-2012, 09:18 AM   #16
Steve0904
Legend
 
Steve0904's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NL, Canada
Posts: 6,168
Default

It seems we need an unbiased party in here. I haven't read the article, and I'm not going to as I have heard that it is poorly written. I don't see how any sane person can debate that considering the quotes I've seen from the article. Fans of Laver, or people that are not fans of Federer will keep saying that Laver is the greatest, and Fed fans will do the opposite. Every discussion that revolves around the GOAT in tennis is exactly the same. IMO (I'm biased too) Federer is the greatest because the numbers he's put up over an extended period are beyond ridiculous. The best IMO. Nobody can argue that unless you're a troll no matter how much anybody hates the guy.

I've seen it many times before. People will start posting saying what kind of numbers? Somebody (perhaps me) will give a rundown of Federer's numbers. Then somebody else will say, but Laver did this, or he has a losing record against Nadal, or I don't care about those numbers which is beyond stupid because if we can't base it on numbers it leaves little to argue about. And my all time personal favourite "He played in a weak era." This argument has more holes than swiss cheese (pun intended) and is very subjective.

Who's to say Federer just didn't dominate that much. Nobody can prove I'm wrong really. I also laugh when people talk about the competition nowadays. If Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray couldn't beat Federer they wouldn't be competition, and then the people that go on and on about weak eras would have a more convincing argument, since none of those guys would be half as good today if they couldn't beat Federer in the first place.

Like the fact that if Federer beat Novak at RG in 2011, and near beat him at the USO, what in god's name makes anybody think he wouldn't beat him at most of the slams if they played in their primes. Not to mention that he's #1 right now at 31, but I digress.

For the writer to use the age old argument about Federer not even being the best of his era is weak, considering by that logic that Nadal is not really the "best" of his era if you factor in Djokovic. Just because Alan is well respected does not mean that he's right all the time. I always hate it when people say that.

And then I've also seen that he said that Federer wasn't comfortable at RG until 2009. That's BS. If anything Federer was at his most uncomfortable that year considering he played 2 five setters and lost other sets to PH Mathieu and Acasuso.
Steve0904 is offline   Reply With Quote