Greatest Grass Court Player of All Time.

[MTF07]

LOL @ NO DAVIS CUP TITLES.

I thought you were being serious.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

No Calendar slams.. Laver with 2

Not even close to Laver's 200 tournament wins. Not even half way there.

200 tournament wins? Really? That's about as valid as Connors 109 or whatever the number was. There aren't anywhere near as many tournaments today for any player to get close to that number. Never mind the fact that most of those tournaments were probably easier to win than the "easiest" tournaments today.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

most Australian Opens
most U.S Opens
most French Opens (not even top 20 in that probably as probably atleast that many have more than 1 French Open)
most years as the #1 player (people say Sampras has the most, but in reality the most would be Gonzales or Laver, there was just no computer rankings then, either way it isnt Federer)
best year W-L record
longest winning streak
A single Calendar or Non Calendar Grand Slam
most tournament wins
most tournament wins in a year
No Davis Cup title

Quite a large number actually. Then even ones he holds he often shares (eg- most Wimbledons, most Masters), and others he basically only holds due to the format of the game as we know it only starting up 40 years ago (eg- most slams, Gonzales and Rosewall would both have many more had it been Open tennis then like today). As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one.

He does have the longest winning streak on grass and hard court. DC is a team sport. And few items from your lists are decades ago, which you have claimed those numbers isn't comparable to today's standard(i.e. Laver's 200 titles).

Anyway, you're asking Federer to be perfect, which no goat in any sport are perfect themselves. Jerry Rice, Michael Jordan has a long list of records/streaks like Federer, and I'm sure if you dig in you can find other records/streaks that they don't hold. Yet, the consensus they are the greatest to their respective sport.

[Hitman]

I'll go with no GOAT of grass, but greatest grass courts players of their eras. Federer, Sampras, Borg, Laver would certainly be in that list.

I just don't like GOAT claims, and being a Federer fan it would be easy for me to say that Fed is GOAT, with so many numbers to his name. I just don't like comparing eras, things are always changing. I am content with players being the greatest of THEIR time.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

1. There are some guys with some arguable better resumes then Fed (Pancho, Laver, Rosewall to name a few who weren't systematically destroyed by another guy as much as Fed was by his main rival Nadal)

2. Issues with Nadal exploiting Fed since the beginning of his career which has been a huge knock on Fed's career

This thread is about Grass ability. Given that Nadal has only beaten Federer once on grass by the narrowest of margins then well, I disagree with your point 1 above.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by timnz

This thread is about Grass ability. Given that Nadal has only beaten Federer once on grass by the narrowest of margins then well, I disagree with your point 1 above.

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

most Australian Opens
most U.S Opens
most French Opens (not even top 20 in that probably as probably atleast that many have more than 1 French Open)
most years as the #1 player (people say Sampras has the most, but in reality the most would be Gonzales or Laver, there was just no computer rankings then, either way it isnt Federer)
best year W-L record
longest winning streak
A single Calendar or Non Calendar Grand Slam
most tournament wins
most tournament wins in a year
No Davis Cup title

Quite a large number actually. Then even ones he holds he often shares (eg- most Wimbledons, most Masters), and others he basically only holds due to the format of the game as we know it only starting up 40 years ago (eg- most slams, Gonzales and Rosewall would both have many more had it been Open tennis then like today). As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one.

LOL worthy self PWNGe actually.

Considering the fact that the same is valid for the generation before the Open era. And we know from experience, what you think about the records from back then, don't we?

At least you said it, and it can be used in an argument with you.

[PseudoFed]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

My friend Rafa cried when he lost in Wimbledon 2007. Being the humble and benevolent GOAT that I am, I chose to give him the 2008 Wimbledon as a token of friendship. You're welcome, Rafa.

[Sabratha]

It's a toss up between Sampras and Federer.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Come now - being behind 1-2 isn't 'Destroying' Federer as you say. (And that one win is by the slimest of margins).

[Gaudio2004]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

This is rich beyond words. It is one thing to say Federer is underrated on the Former Pro Section, which while I totally disagree, I can atleast believe one having that opinion. However underrated on the General Player Forum where everyday there are 20 threads entitled "Federer is GOAT" "Why Federer is GOAT" "Federer is the bestest and greatest grass, hard, clay, and nails player ever", and where Federer wins every single poll that there ever is. Hahahahahahahahahahahahah funniest statement ever.

The existence of something going against what he is accusing you of (underrating Federer) need not be disregarded or mean the argument is seen as a joke or put aside. It merely shows that others do not underrate Federer or perhaps underrate others. But..

As you do not have the self-awareness to understand it yourself, by offering such a poor response you are actually showing that you are indeed misunderstanding what he is saying.

There are several arguments for Federer being the greatest professional grass court player. Several arguments, by professionals themselves (the ones you regard to be better than Federer on a grass court), testify to Federer being head and shoulders above them.

Listen and learn!

One aspect of understanding how truly stunning Federer is to tennis and to sport is that there are so few athletes like Federer in any sport, let alone tennis, for the whole duration of the sport, that for someone like him to pop up, naturally all of the sport is compared and tossed together. Some do not understand him by overrating his skills, some expect superhuman performances from him, you do not understand what puts him above others. And let's face it, he is above everyone else in the sport in just about everything meaningful. Stop underrating him!

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Federer had 4-0 at some point against Nadal in their meetings in Monte Carlo 2008 final and Hamburg 2008 final . He had 17 break points against Nadal in the French Open 2007 final. He was 6-1, 1*-0 ahead in the French Open 2006 final. By your very same argument (and I will use your exact words), Federer came close to beating Nadal in 2008 whilst being injured (mono)... Federer could very well be X-X vs Nadal on clay. (Probably even better if Federer had recorded those victories and gained more confidence)

See how poor of an argument it is?

Federer is head and shoulders above Nadal on grass. That is, if you call modern day Wimbledon "grass" grass. Even then, Nadal has lost to players of the calibre of Lopez, Kohlschreiber, etc, on grass. Federer has lost to Nadal, Tsonga, Berdych, Hewitt in his last grass meetings, players who have all reached or won a Major final, and have all reached the SF of Wimbledon (barring Tsonga, all have reached the final).

The point? Players who have beaten Federer on grass have delivered exceptional performances and were expected to do well. Nadal has lost to those on grass who are not expected to do as well, Lopez, Rosol, Kohlschreiber, just to name a few.

[Gaudio2004]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

most Australian Opens
most U.S Opens
most French Opens (not even top 20 in that probably as probably atleast that many have more than 1 French Open)
most years as the #1 player (people say Sampras has the most, but in reality the most would be Gonzales or Laver, there was just no computer rankings then, either way it isnt Federer)
best year W-L record
longest winning streak
A single Calendar or Non Calendar Grand Slam
most tournament wins
most tournament wins in a year
No Davis Cup title

Quite a large number actually. Then even ones he holds he often shares (eg- most Wimbledons, most Masters), and others he basically only holds due to the format of the game as we know it only starting up 40 years ago (eg- most slams, Gonzales and Rosewall would both have many more had it been Open tennis then like today). As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one.

It is remarkable how awful your arguments are. Granted, everyone has an opinion, but given that you have spent so much time on these forums, one would expect for you to have learned.

Let's begin to reconstruct this awful argument into something.

First, pure numbers (ie how many Slams one has won) do not determine "greatness" or GOATness.

What defines Nadal so well as a clay-courter for example, is certainly (and it will never be) not how many Roland Garros titles he has won. Often he looks short of confidence on clay, faces players who are more tactically astute and can do more on clay than he can, I recall him facing torture on the first 30 minutes of the French Open 2011 final.

What defines him as being the GOAT on clay is how he plays on the surface, how he uses his body, his style of play, how he breaks his opponent down.

That "torture" turned to Nadal being more aggressive and him digging deep and winning a tough match before breaking Federer's concentration and slipping an easy fourth set.

That is how his GOATness is defined on clay - how he breaks players who enter with super tactics.

So already the first 7/8 lines of your argument have gone. A good beginning. And given that Federer has the most match wins in AO/UO (or one of them) and such other statistics can be found, it is an awful argument. I hope you read this again and again until you get it through to your brain; what you have said is not an argument for Federer not being the GOAT. It is poor logic and an example of how not having understanding of a specific topic.

"The ones he holds are shared by others" : Yes, by others in different generations. Some of those generations did not have seven rounds for Majors, some had much less (and some I recall, had just one match). With different equipment, different tactics and such huge globalisation and much more competitors now, it is hard to assess statistical equivalence (ie, 5 now is equal to 5 back then). Laver, Borg, etc, have all said how Federer is better than them and the GOAT of all time.

What can we deduce from this?

When you make statements about others having better (or equal records) than Federer, take a look at those exact players themselves, who have achieved those records and have played. Take a look at what they have said. They all say the same; Federer is the best and better than them.

Finally, we clean up by looking what your last part is really saying. And when you look at back it, you will realise how stupid it is. Specifically, I will quote:

"As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one."

He is not the "Michael Phelps" of tennis, he is the Roger Federer of tennis.

Similarly, Michael Phelps is not the "Roger Federer" of swimming, by the same argument.

The quoted is related to the following statements/questions

* Is Michael Phelps the sole definition of GOATness in a sport?
* Swimming and tennis are similar in how athletes are skilled, therefore we can compare the skills of athletes of totally different sports.
* You cannot object to Federer being the GOAT of tennis - first you must compare him to someone superb in a different sport, and see if Federer objectively, somehow by comparing, passes the tests that Phelps has passed in swimming.

More can be involved and I can make it more silly. Simply put, GOATness is an abstraction, the second our silly minds start putting a concrete example (which is bias, as we do not want a different concrete example) to be associated to this specific abstractness, we then cannot ever see a different example being that abstraction.

In simple talk; because Phelps is the GOAT of swimming in my mind, Federer cannot be the GOAT of tennis, he must first pass what Phelps has done in swimming in a somehow comparable way to tennis.

It is just silly; read and learn. I have never seen such an awful argument.

EDIT: I rarely post, I just had to explain and respond to such an imbecilic post.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Well, if you're going to play that game, Federer could be 4-1 or 5-1 against Nadal on grass if he had played him in 2003, 2004, 2005... i.e. some of Federer's peak years on grass.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

It's a toss up between Sampras and Federer.

Federer dominated the grass in this era and Pete dominated on fast grass of the 90s. However, if they were to meet 20 times with 10 each on slow and fast grass, Fed would win most of the 20 meetings. Because of Fed proved that he can play on fast grass plus serve/volley. I believe Fed's chance of beating Sampras on fast grass is a lot greater than Sampras beating Fed on slow grass. There's no serve/volley player that could touch Roger on grass, however there were baseliners that have beaten Sampras or at least gave him fit on grass. Also, the matchup favors Federer, who thrives against serve/volley players. The win/loss record would be like 12-8 in favor of Federer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

There's no serve/volley player that can touch Federer.

Also, the matchup favors Federer, who thrives against serve/volley players. The win/loss record would be like 12-8 in favor of Federer.

Absurd comments since there is absolutely no proof of that. Federer has never faced a top serve and volley player in his career (no one match against old Sampras is not enough) so there is no evidence whatsoever there is no serve/volley player who can touch Federer. Not prime Federer, but Patrick Rafter is 3-0 vs Federer, and Tim Henman has an almost tied H2H with Federer, and beat Federer in back to back matches in late 2003 and early 2004 when Federer was already starting his prime and Henman was 30.
Those are lightweight serve and volley players without the overall firepower of Sampras or Becker, nor the skill level or athleticsm of Edberg.

Even more comical though is the idea you can conclude somehow Federer thrives against serve/volley players. How can you know this when Federer hasnt even faced serve/volley players (other than the ones mentioned he fared mediocre against). I can see someone saying that for Hewitt who exceled vs serve and volley players from 99-2002, but not Federer. It is a guess at best for Federer.

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

Purely my opinion, but I reckon Sampras at his best ('99?) would have beaten Federer in 2003, 2009, and 2012. Federer at his best ('05-'07) would have beaten Sampras in 1993 and 2000. I also reckon Federer's best was slightly better than Sampras', but that Pete's average standard during his reign was slightly higher than Roger's.

I couldn't pick between them, not on grass. I'm quite happy to say they're as good as each other and leave it at that.


Regards,
MDL

[helloworld]

There are 3 contenders; Federer, Sampras, and Laver. I still think Pete at his best has the highest level of play on grass ever. He was peerless during his reign, and the main reason was because of the serve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UZztuyjbU8

[NadalAgassi]

Why is nobody mentioning Gonzales. The guy was the best grass courter in the World for about 9 years, basically all the years he was best player he was best grass courter (which is mostly all that was played on back then) .

[urban]

Gonzalez had most of his triumphs on indoor courts, for instance his 8 US pros at Cleveland. I assume that he would have won a ton of US champs on Forest Hills grass. At Australian and British lawn i am not that sure. Segdman and Hoad would have challenged him severely there in the 50s.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Federer is underrated on the former pro player talk forum AND on this general player forum.

Laver maybe underrated on this forum, but on the former player pro talk forum, he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Actually, The Rocket is far better than sliced bread.