The_Punisher
Rookie
well what do you think?
Nope, but just ask any Fed-obsessed fan and they'll say different.
well what do you think?
No, it was a virus called Nadal that is ruining his career.
well what do you think?
People get sick. It happens.
If a recent career was "ruined" by mono it was Ancic.
yea mono ruined it cause with mono he made a sf had 3 runner ups and a major title....really. Try age and now he is facing people five to six years younger than him.
Yes, but just ask any Nadal-obsessed fan and they'll say different.Nope, but just ask any Fed-obsessed fan and they'll say different.
he is the reigning champion at uso, a grand slam!!!
Rafitis monotonically hammering his backhand ?No, it was a virus called Nadal that is ruining his career.
Until September 13, 2009.
He is still consistently making slam final after final and just won the USO. He just cant beat 1 player at the slams because that player got better and Fed didnt. He still destroys the rest of the field outside of Murray in 3 set matches.
Some "decline." Where can I buy some "Decline." I will take "Decline" for 400 Alex.
It it wasnt for Nadal, Fed would still be winning slam after slam. Nadal is better player not that he has hit his prime as opposed to what Fed had to deal with in the finals before like Hewitt, Gonzo, Roddick, etc.
Thats the only difference
When Fed start losing before the slam finals we will talk about "decline." Until then Fed's career is not in a decline
Not really,but I don't expect you to say anything otherwise given your agenda.As for losing before the final,he was mighty close to losing in early rounds in every HC slam since 2008,coincidence? Not likely but don't expect you to acknowledge the fact that Fed was a few points away from losing to Tipsarevic and Andreev and was damn close to losing to Berdych as well.I guess Tipsarevic,Andreev and Berdych all improved so much as well,it's just that you couldn't tell by their results and ranking(or anything actually).
With that said don't you dare now say that Sampras was playing badly at USO in 200-2002 period as he reached 3 USO finals in a row in that period,something he never managed to do in his prime,during the 90s.
if anything has ruined Fed's career its been Nadal becoming a better player on grass and HC. Before Nadal was just a great clay courter. Now he can beat Fed anywhere it seems. Aside from the USO. The difference is Nadal rised to the challenge on Hardcourt and Grass. Fed hasnt rised to the challenge on clay
Not really? Who has Fed lost to at the slams outside of Nadal aside from when he had Mono at the AO 2008? NO ONE!!!. Hes still in his prime. If not for Nadal, Fed is still a 3 out of 4 slam a year player.
Not really,but I don't expect you to say anything otherwise given your agenda.As for losing before the final,he was mighty close to losing in early rounds in every HC slam since 2008,coincidence? Not likely but don't expect you to acknowledge the fact that Fed was a few points away from losing to Tipsarevic and Andreev and was damn close to losing to Berdych as well.I guess Tipsarevic,Andreev and Berdych all improved so much as well,it's just that you couldn't tell by their results and ranking(or anything actually).
With that said don't you dare now say that Sampras was playing badly at USO in 200-2002 period as he reached 3 USO finals in a row in that period,something he never managed to do in his prime,during the 90s.
Fed has his share of problems with players in which was is so called "Prime." 04-07. A young Murray got him at Cincinatti? Nadal got him a few times. Canas got him twice.
He had mono against Tipsy. Berdych and Andreev gave him a bit of a scare yes.. But did he lose? No.
And he is only 27 and has had no major injuries to speak of. Pete was 29-31 years of age in 00-02. It was obvious he wasnt in his prime post 99.
Its not obvious Fed is past his. I look at the end result. No one has gotten Fed at the slams. If he was "passed his prime", you would see more uncharacteristic losses when it mattered most
Only slam results matter according to you so quit babbling about yout young Murray in Cinncinati.Or if you want,we can compare Fed's results outside of slams in 2004-2007 and 2008.Aside from a match against Haas in 2006 AO Fed was never in danger of losing early in any slam and Haas is a former world number 2 and twice semifinalist at AO,a far cry from Tipsarevic,Andreev and Berdych.
An understatement if I ever saw one,they were outplaying Fed and were on the verge of victory but they couldn't hold their nerves and Fed hung in tough.
He was still reaching slam finals and reached 3 USO finals in a row,again according you that means he was playing great.
The end result is that Fed was on the brink of losing to players who would have a hard time getting a set off from in HC slams a few years back.If Andreev and Berdych kept their nerves and Fed didn't hang tough he would dump out of both USO and AO early,something he was never in danger of before in any slam.
Sampras was not as good in 00-02 as Fed is at only 27 years of old in the years 08-09. Thats a fact. No one in their right mind would say Sampras at 29-31 years of age was in his prime. Yes he was making headway at the USO. Look at him at Wimbeldon post 29 years of age. He was needing 5 sets to get by bums. He lost to George Basil in 2002. Who the hell is Basil? Sampras was way removed from his prime by 01-02. Historically Pete's prime ended in 98 or 99. Fed has made 19 straight semi appearances at the slams has last to.. ONE PLAYER!!.. ONE PLAYER!!!!.
And Djokovic is what,invinsible?
Okay,agre to disagree,this isn't going nowhere.If you think that a 2004-2007 Fed would be on the brink of losing(not just a tight match,he was on the "edge" and was saved by his mental toughness and his opponent's nerves)to Andreev,Tipsarevic and Berdych in any slam then fine,you're entitled to your opinion.I would consider your opinion more valid if I didn't know you'd say anything to downgrade Fed because he's close to your idol's slam record.
Another thing,stop calling Nadal "just" a great claycourter when he reached 2 Wimbledon finals in 2006-2007,it's downright ridiculous.
Well he put the beatdown on Djoker and Murray both in a row at the USO. Did Fed look like he was in a decline then? I dont think he is the week in week out phenomenon he was. But he doesnt have to be. He is at the point in his career that winning the GS record is all that should matter and taking some wins back from Nadal. Winning Cincinatti or Dubai shouldnt be on his short list of "things to do". But at the same time Djoker and Murray, Nadal are better players now than Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Nalbandian ever were. All fed has to do now is win 2 more GS titles, and get his revene on Nadal a couple times, Maybe win an RG doing so and he should be the GOAT statisctially. And I dont even like the guy. LOL
In theory agree with that although they still have some proving to do,Murray especially who I think was unlucky to run into a red hot Verdasco at AO while being sick that day as well(which I believe he was),I still expect great things from Murray in this and next few years despite AO loss but Djokovic on the other hand needs to get back on track,he's not improving,if anything he's stagnating(he played better in first half of 2008),if he continues on that reute other young guns will pass him by.You should add Tsonga to your list,who I think has plenty of potential and will be a slam winner one day if his health holds up.
I don't think I'll ever think of Fed as the GOAT but I'll put him as being greater than Sampras if he breaks Pete's slam record "and" gets a few more wins over Nadal in slam finals.If he breaks Pete's record and doesn't beat Nadal in a slam final ever again I'll still consider Sampras to be the greater player.This is all regardless of the fact that Fed is my favourite player of all time,whether I or anyone else like to watch his game or not should have no bearing of whether he's the GOAT or not.
Personally, if Fed can win the French and defeat Nadal at the slams while doing so. I would probably put him as GOAT if not right up there. I didnt get to experience the Laver-Borg phenenon but if he overtakes Petes GS record and wins the French. I dunno how u can put Pete ahead of Roger in terms of careers to be honest.
So Fed should be right there with Laver. But Laver never had to beat someone the calibor of Nadal on clay. So if Fed can do that I dunno how u can go against that. Borg couldnt win the USO, Pete couldnt win the french. If Fed can beat arguably the great claycourter to ever live, Fed should be GOAT really, It would be difficult to argue against those results
Well yes,but what are the chances of that happening? It will be an uphill battle for Fed to beat Nadal even at Wimbledon and USO/AO this and the next few years let alone FO where it will be mission impossible.Personally,if Fed somehow manages to reclaim Wimbledon this year by beating Nadal in the final it would do much to boost his legacy.But he ain't getting into any kind of GOAT discussion if he doesn't beat Nadal on a big stage again as far as I'm concerned,I love his tennis but the GOAT standards should be harsh,we're talking about the best ever here.
Maybe Nadal will not be a 100 percent for the French? IF so that could spell good news for Roger. Apparently Nadal is having knee problems again