Federer CLEARLY the greatest ever now!

[AndreFan]

First of all, Sampras got to ONE semi-final in all his attempts at the French. When he got there, he lost sets 3 and 4 to Kafelnikov by 12 games to 1. He never had the skill to succeed on clay that way Fed has. Federer has been to one semi and FOUR French finals, winning one now. Just that alone puts him solidly above Sampras.

Borg could never win the US Open, although he came close. Laver went a bunch of years without winning even one major. Yes, the two calendar slams are incredible, but what about all the other years??? Federer has been MORE CONSISTENT than Laver, has the better serve, better slice, bigger forehand.

Who else??? Budge? Come on. Budge was great but did not possess Federer's athleticism. Connors? McEnroe?? Top 7 of all time for both but did not get to double digit slams. Neither could win the French. Mac got to finals once. Fed has been in FOUR finals.

Lendl?? Top 7 of all time but could not win Wimbledon and was 8-11 in Grand Slam finals compared to Roger's 14-3. Who else???????

Nadal could be in the mix if he can stay healthy and win the US Open at least once. But that's down the road. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT ANYONE CAN MAKE NOW THAT FEDERER IS NOT THE GREATEST EVER. HE WILL PASS PETE FOR MAJOR WINS BUT HAS ALREADY SURPASSED PETE DUE TO HIS CLAY RESULTS. HE'S ALSO WON MORE MASTER'S SERIES EVENTS THAN PETE. BETTER SLICE THAN PETE. BETTER RETURN THAN PETE. BETTER FOREHAND THAN PETE. BETTER DROP SHOTS THAN PETE. BETTER ONE HAND BACKHAND THAN PETE. DON'T EVEN BOTHER GIVING ME THIS PETE OR LAVER BULLCRAP. YOU SOUND STUPID.

[CyBorg]

Quality thread. Welcome to the circus.

[AndreFan]

I don't know why some people will not give Federer his props. Nadal is the greatest clay courter in history, better than even Borg. Fed would have about 3 French Open titles or more by now if not for Rafa, just like Andre would have probably won 4 more majors or more if he didn't have to go against the greatest server of all-time in Sampras.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by AndreFan

I don't know why some people will not give Federer his props. Nadal is the greatest clay courter in history, better than even Borg. Fed would have about 3 French Open titles or more by now if not for Rafa, just like Andre would have probably won 4 more majors or more if he didn't have to go against the greatest server of all-time in Sampras.

lol...Nadal has not passed Borg on clay yet, and I doubt you will find a ton of people who feel he has. As for Fed, he has done more than Pete has, but does that make him GOAT in the minds of everyone...NO. If you think he is now...good. I for one, do not. I put him in the top 3 as of now...but I for one still believe Laver is the GOAT. There will never be general consensus or universal agreement so please don't try. Also..GOAT is not just about slams, which make up 2 months of a near 10 month schedule.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by AndreFan

I don't know why some people will not give Federer his props. Nadal is the greatest clay courter in history, better than even Borg. Fed would have about 3 French Open titles or more by now if not for Rafa, just like Andre would have probably won 4 more majors or more if he didn't have to go against the greatest server of all-time in Sampras.

Your post was humorous, particularly amusing was your certitude expressed with such incessant ignorance.

The Laver part is my favorite - you pose the question about the "other" years in which he didn't win grand slam titles and yet don't even bother to discover why this was so. Why not do some reading and find out?

[AndreFan]

First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3.

Secondly, Federer has only been beaten in big events by ONE guy--Rafa. He's also beaten Rafa in two Wimbledon finals.

Laver lost to guys like Roche, Emerson, Okker, Rosewall, Newcombe. There were five or six guys who beat Laver on multiple occasions. Federer has beaten EVERYBODY when it's counted--accept Rafa in France.

I love Borg and put him in the top 5 ever. But, he did not possess the physical strength of Nadal and would lose to Rafa head to head in their primes. Yes, Rafa has used a more powerful racket, but Rafa is simply stronger physically and consistently puts more pressure on opponents on clay due to incredible spin, depth and placement. There's no way Borg beats Rafa if they squared off in their primes. Yes, Rafa needs two more French Opens to tie him but he's won so many other clay events. Borg never faced a player on clay as good as Roger. Rafa has owned him in Paris. Rafa is simply stronger and more relentless than Borg and in my mind, has clearly established himself as the greatest clay courter ever.

[scineram]

Laver it is.

[markwillplay]

here is the thing though, I understand how the case is made for Federer...but...did any of these other guys being considered have an opponant who they played over 15 or more times and have such a losing record against them like Fed and Nadal. It's like Fed is the best ever..but, he could not overcome the Nadal matchup. I know Sampras and others had losing records against players but I don't think they did with that many matches, I could be wrong.

and by the way, I am not a fed hater, or nadal hater either one. I much rather like watching fed play but that is for stye alone. This is just an observation. So strange to have the "best ever" have such a losing record against one guy. I guess it proves that tennis is really a game of matchups.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by AndreFan

First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3

You're embarrassing yourself. At least get the elementary facts straight first.

[Medved]

That's all just sentimental talking about GOAT. Tennis barely even looks like the same sport now as when Borg played.

For me Fed is the best ever. I think he could have been better with a 2HBH, but I know that's not his style.

[BreakPoint]

Federer is 14-5 in GS finals.

[R_Federer]

Originally Posted by markwillplay

here is the thing though, I understand how the case is made for Federer...but...did any of these other guys being considered have an opponant who they played over 15 or more times and have such a losing record against them like Fed and Nadal. It's like Fed is the best ever..but, he could not overcome the Nadal matchup. I know Sampras and others had losing records against players but I don't think they did with that many matches, I could be wrong.

and by the way, I am not a fed hater, or nadal hater either one. I much rather like watching fed play but that is for stye alone. This is just an observation. So strange to have the "best ever" have such a losing record against one guy. I guess it proves that tennis is really a game of matchups.

Federer overcame a tougher opponent than Nadal and his name is HISTORY.

[Dimitrov_Fan]

Federer is the greatest for now, yes.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Originally Posted by R_Federer

Federer overcame a tougher opponent than Nadal and his name is HISTORY.

Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

[R_Federer]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

But history > Nadal as an opponent. And he overcame history today. That was as tough as an opponent you could have today...

[R.Federer]

federer is the greatest

[slicefox]

Federer was greatest after he won his 5th straight US open.

Today's win just puts him miles ahead of anyone else.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

Why? He doesn't have to, that's why.

Borg never overcame McEnroe at the US Open. Does that diminish Borg's greatness because he couldn't beat a certain opponent at a certain tournament? Nope. And Borg never won the US Open (even when it was on clay) while Federer HAS won the French Open. That's ALL that matters.

[AndreFan]

“Now that he’s won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion,” Sampras said. “I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s.”


There you have it. Spoken by Laver's GREATEST admirer. Go back and watch film. Laver was great but did not possess Roger's vast array of shotmaking. He had great hands and feel--but Roger's are better. And Laver did not move as well as Federer. He did not serve as well.

Remember, Federer is at his best on grass and hard court. If you look at his greatest matches ever, Laver simply never played at that level.

MCENROE, SAMPRAS, AGASSI, BECKER and even BORG. They ALL have said that Federer is the greatest ever. It's time for some of you to get your heads out of your butts and face the truth. You really sound like morons.

[AndreFan]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.

No, you're wrong. Federer BEAT Nadal in two Wimbledon finals, beat the guy Nadal lost to in the US Open, beat the guy Nadal lost to this year in France.
He just beat Rafa within the last month on clay.

Rafa has won 6 majors since 2005. In that same span, Federer has won '06 and '07 Australian, '05, '06, '07 and '08 US OPEN, '09 French and '05, '06, and '07 Wimbledon.

So...in the same span of 4 1/2 years that Rafa has emerged on the scene and been so great...FEDERER HAS WON NINE majors to RAFA's SIX. If you want to just look at 2006 and on, it's FEDERER SEVEN, RAFA FIVE. If you want to look at the last 2 1/2 years...it's FEDERER FIVE, RAFA FOUR. If you want to look at 2008 and this year, it's RAFA THREE, FEDERER TWO.

You make no sense. Nadal will always be better than Roger on clay but Federer won his huge clay event when Rafa was present. Roger has nothing to prove anymore. He's the greatest even if he doesn't win a 15th major--which of course he will. He'll end up with 16-18 majors.