Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

Lack of touch shots? Fed?

Yes, zagor, you have read rightly.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

federer has a clearly better volley than borg ... borg was just helped at a lot at wimbledon by the ball just dying on his stop volleys ...the same thing @ flushing got punished quite a bit ....


lack of touch shots ? lack of touch shots ??????????????????


HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

ok, I can't stop laughing .......... will someone please help me ...........

lack of versatility ??????????????

yeah, right ???????? rod laver was an insane fellow to say federer could do anything on a tennis court ............. I mean what does he know about tennis


pc1,

this is a guy you think has knowledge of tennis ?????? now, seriously ?

krosero

I know you are too polite and nice and all ....... but honestly, to me, BobbyOne seems a lost cause ......

abmk, Your arrogance is world class.

Federer could do anything on a tennis court. It's just a pity that he did not show it too often against top players, especially within of the last three years.

Hardly a GOAT candidate...

[NatF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_F...ranked_players

Yep, Federer's record against the top players is so bad...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NatF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_F...ranked_players

Yep, Federer's record against the top players is so bad...

NatF, Yes Roger's record against the top players is not great since Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have reached their peak.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NatF, Yes Roger's record against the top players is not great since Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have reached their peak.

He has a leading h2h with Djokovic, leads Nadal off clay and has a slightly negative head to head with Murray who's peak was actually 2012, Federer won 3 of their 5 meetings in 2012.

Federer has also declined since they got better. The fact you're too thick headed to accept that their better head to heads are also contributed to by Federer's marked decline doesn't help your cause.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NatF

He has a leading h2h with Djokovic, leads Nadal off clay and has a slightly negative head to head with Murray who's peak was actually 2012, Federer won 3 of their 5 meetings in 2012.

Federer has also declined since they got better. The fact you're too thick headed to accept that their better head to heads are also contributed to by Federer's marked decline doesn't help your cause.

Murray reached his peak only in the second half of 2012.

Federer declines at 29? A bit too early for a GOAT candidate....

[NatF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Murray reached his peak only in the second half of 2012.

Federer declines at 29? A bit too early for a GOAT candidate....

Murray reached his peak when it works for your argument? You're a biased old fool. Put Rosewall at 29 in this era and he'd be squashed by the likes of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. At the top of the game even a small decline can mean the difference between winning close matches and losing them.

Length of a career is only one criterion for a GOAT anyway. Besides that Federer is still competed and is currently holding Wimbledon, you know, the most prestigious tennis trophy of them all? The one Rosewall never won...

[zagor]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Murray reached his peak only in the second half of 2012.

Oh my, isn't that convenient.

So he wasn't at his peak when Fed beat him in Wimbledon final but was at his peak 2 weeks later in the Olympics final, how very interesting.

Tell me, is Murray's peak level much better than Fed's as well? I personally think he should rank higher than Fed on your official peak play + longevity list now, time to update it.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by zagor

Oh my, isn't that convenient.

So he wasn't at his peak when Fed beat him in Wimbledon final but was at his peak 2 weeks later in the Olympics final, how very interesting.

Tell me, is Murray's peak level much better than Fed's as well? I personally think he should rank higher than Fed on your official peak play + longevity list now, time to update it.

I'd put Benneteau on that list too

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federer had several years without strong Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Murray, del Potro...

Murraya and Del Potro being clearly inferior to Gerulatis and Tanner as far as record has kept on proving.I´d say their are like Mecir and Korda.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, Your arrogance is world class.

Federer could do anything on a tennis court. It's just a pity that he did not show it too often against top players, especially within of the last three years.

Hardly a GOAT candidate...

actually he has on quite a few occasions even though he was past his best since AO 2010 ...

you just didn't watch AO 2010 F, RG 2011 SF, wimbledon 2012 SF & F, YEC 2010, YEC 2011 RR vs nadal, cincy 2012 final vs djoker, IW 2012 vs nadal etc etc ......

you know what, I've been too polite with you considering your blatant dumbness ...............

you have no effin' clue about how good federer is ...saying federer doesn't have touch is like saying rosewall sucked at volleying or laver's BH sucked .... that's how dumb it is ......

here's a start :

a lesson in drop shots :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Ny-rKQSlk

oh and I assure you, he's shown enormous no of touch shots throughout his career ...

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by kiki

Murraya and Del Potro being clearly inferior to Gerulatis and Tanner as far as record has kept on proving.I´d say their are like Mecir and Korda.

for now...i think both end up multiple slam winners, especially confident in Muray achieving that

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NatF

Murray reached his peak when it works for your argument? You're a biased old fool. Put Rosewall at 29 in this era and he'd be squashed by the likes of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. At the top of the game even a small decline can mean the difference between winning close matches and losing them.

Length of a career is only one criterion for a GOAT anyway. Besides that Federer is still competed and is currently holding Wimbledon, you know, the most prestigious tennis trophy of them all? The one Rosewall never won...

The fool says: Murray reached his peak after Wimbledon. For several years before he was an "almost champion". Now he can compete with any player in the world.

The Rosewall not winning W. argument lets me wonder who of us is a fool...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Is this an example of why kids should stay off drugs?



You make it pretty clear that you know nothing about Federer.

I knew you wouldn´t be able to get over that.You shouldn´t read things for adults.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Murraya and Del Potro being clearly inferior to Gerulatis and Tanner as far as record has kept on proving.I´d say their are like Mecir and Korda.

lol, wut ?

delpo won the USO beating fed/nadal back to back ....

murray's record is so much superior to gerulatis or tanner ( who only won one major in enormously weakened AO fields ) ........its a no contest ....

mecir was highly talented, but lacked the mental strength to win a major ....

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

Oh my, isn't that convenient.

So he wasn't at his peak when Fed beat him in Wimbledon final but was at his peak 2 weeks later in the Olympics final, how very interesting.

Tell me, is Murray's peak level much better than Fed's as well? I personally think he should rank higher than Fed on your official peak play + longevity list now, time to update it.

zagor, Murray overcame his psychologic weakness after W. Or do you think that Federer declined within of two weeks???

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I'm disappointed that the Federer fanatics not only dominate the General PP Discussion but partly also the Former PP Talk where one could have expected the posters do know about tennis history.....

They try to hijack the post and cannot stand losing.Like Federer himself ( and unless Laver or Rosewall) they are bitter losers ( when they don´t break into tears like their icon).Look at Nadalqueen reactions...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, Murray overcame his psychologic weakness after W. Or do you think that Federer declined within of two weeks???

no, you clueless, he was very good mentally in both AO 2012 SF where he pushed novak to 5 sets and in the wimbledon final as well .... just that novak & federer were better than him .....( also, he was able to close down tsonga who was going great guns in the 3rd & 4th set in 4 sets in the wimbledon SF when it looked like it was going to 5 )

[NatF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

The fool says: Murray reached his peak after Wimbledon. For several yaers before he was an "almost champion". Now he can compete with any player in the world.

The Rosewall not winning W. argument lets me wonder who of us is a fool...

He competed with Federer at Wimbledon, he just lost. I guess you don't peak until you beat Federer on a big stage?

You're still the fool. Federer has no touch? lol. Atleast try and pretend like you've watched some modern tennis. He didn't win the biggest prize in the sport, am I wrong? Because I'd only be a fool if I was wrong...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

lol, wut ?

delpo won the USO beating fed/nadal back to back ....

murray's record is so much superior to gerulatis or tanner ( who only won one major in enormously weakened AO fields ) ........its a no contest ....

mecir was highly talented, but lacked the mental strength to win a major ....

Gerulaitis won the WCT finals, a major.Del Potro and Murray no.

Tanner took Borg to five sets at the Wimbledon Final.And won Melbourne devastating legendary Guillermo Vilas in the final.