Originally Posted by abmk
poorly written and researched IMO .....first off the fact that he speaks so highly of the 62 slam, even though it was only against amateurs and Rod was probably only the 3rd best player in the world at that time ( behind rosewall and hoad ) .....then ....
But how can you be proclaimed the best player that’s ever lived when you’ve lost a series of matches to another player – in this case, Nadal?
err, what ? so the best player ever has to have a winning record vs everyone ? really ?
Not so, Federer, who often looked decidedly uncomfortable at Roland Garros until he won the French title in 2009. It has been his only triumph there in 14 appearances – a stark difference from Laver’s two triumphs from eight visits.
federer played pretty well at RG in 2005,2006 and 2007 .....just because he won there the first time in 2009 , doesn't mean that was the first time he played well there ......
No. No-one would begrudge Federer if he had a couple of 0-1 or 1-2 H2H scorelines against journeymen. Upsets can and do happen. But for crying out loud, at least be in front of your greatest rival in the H2H count if you want to stake a claim to the undisputed
GOAT instead of getting caned by him most times. Remember, in slams it's 2-8.