It's funny, Federer is the finalist in 3/4 slams and the title holder in 1/4...

Docalex007 · Apr 21, 2009

It's crazy when you think about it like this. We all see Federer's level of play being very uninspiring these days with many saying he's on a massive downhill slope and playing like crap all the time... yet he is the current finalist or Slam holder in ALL of the Grand Slams at present.

How the heck does he do it? How does he get away with over a year's worth of bad form and unmotivated play yet still come away with A FEW POINTS or GAMES from having 3/4 slams right now?

Is Roger Federer just an entirely different beast when it comes to Grand Slam play?

He's of course got the Grand Slam semi-finals streak still going as of now and to be honest could not see him not at least reaching the semis of a Grand Slam. Federer is a contender for a Slam at EVERY Slam for years and years. It's truly incredible. Even when poor form sets in and slower footwork... he's still a contender EVERY TIME. Hope he gets Wimby and US Open this year... I don't see why not. He's proven that when the Slams come around, he's up for headhunting.

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

It's called greatness! I don't really care that he's got a losing record against Rafa or the wanabees (Djoker, Murray). I mean Rafa has a losing record against Blake who is a much lesser player than Federer. Would that put rafa at the 20th tier of the GOAT-list?

P_Agony · Apr 21, 2009

Docalex007 said:
It's crazy when you think about it like this. We all see Federer's level of play being very uninspiring these days with many saying he's on a massive downhill slope and playing like crap all the time... yet he is the current finalist or Slam holder in ALL of the Grand Slams at present.

How the heck does he do it? How does he get away with over a year's worth of bad form and unmotivated play yet still come away with A FEW POINTS or GAMES from having 3/4 slams right now?

Is Roger Federer just an entirely different beast when it comes to Grand Slam play?

He's of course got the Grand Slam semi-finals streak still going as of now and to be honest could not see him not at least reaching the semis of a Grand Slam. Federer is a contender for a Slam at EVERY Slam for years and years. It's truly incredible. Even when poor form sets in and slower footwork... he's still a contender EVERY TIME. Hope he gets Wimby and US Open this year... I don't see why not. He's proven that when the Slams come around, he's up for headhunting.

You just opened the gate for GameSampras and Nadal's Freak who will now come and say Federer dominated in a weak era, ignoring the facts that even if that was true (which it isn't) Federer still spanked Djokovic and Murray in the recent US Open.

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

Slams are a different animal he said it himself...and yes people do forget...i mean he's the AO runner up..not the ousted Former champ or the one who was supposed to win it but got ousted by Verdasco

But we all know...Federer's accomplishments don't mean anything...we all know his competition was weak and he seduced the Goddess of Luck into giving him 13 Slams, but he's been ticking her off recently...

You see he pissed her off during wimbledon by making it to the final without dropping a set so she punished him by making him lose 9-7 in the 5th, she also wouldn't let him win the AO because he double Bageled DP and Managed to come back from two sets against Berdych

vndesu · Apr 21, 2009

DarthFed said:
Slams are a different animal he said it himself...and yes people do forget...i mean he's the AO runner up..not the ousted Former champ or the one who was supposed to win it but got ousted by Verdasco

But we all know...Federer's accomplishments don't mean anything...we all know his competition was weak and he seduced the Goddess of Luck into giving him 13 Slams, but he's been ticking her off recently...

You see he pissed her off during wimbledon by making it to the final without dropping a set so she punished him by making him lose 9-7 in the 5th, she also wouldn't let him win the AO because he double Bageled DP and Managed to come back from two sets against Berdych

so would that npot be nadal as well?
even if he had no competition he is still considerered one of the greatest.

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

vndesu said:
so would that npot be nadal as well?
even if he had no competition he is still considerered one of the greatest.

Dude....look at my username...

The last two "paragraphs" (can't really call em that) were obviously a joke with some satire mixed in

i thought this gave it away

You see he pissed her off during wimbledon by making it to the final without dropping a set so she punished him by making him lose 9-7 in the 5th

GameSampras · Apr 21, 2009

P_Agony said:
You just opened the gate for GameSampras and Nadal's Freak who will now come and say Federer dominated in a weak era, ignoring the facts that even if that was true (which it isn't) Federer still spanked Djokovic and Murray in the recent US Open.

Fed's spanking at the hands of Nadal at multiple slams is much worse than Fed spanking Murray and Djoker at the USO. LOL.

When I look at Fed's results I dont look at a player passed his prime and on the downslope. I look at it and say one player has caught up and Fed cant do anything about it.

thejoe · Apr 21, 2009

^You see what you want to see. It's rather amusing.

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

GameSampras · Apr 21, 2009

thejoe said:
^You see what you want to see. It's rather amusing.

Do u call a player reaching every slam final there is a player past his prime? When Lendl was reaching every slam final did you consider him past his prime? How Borg or Laver?

Its more conveninient for Fed's fans to say Fed isnt in his prime anymore. They have to rationalize Nadal's dominance over Fed somehow. They need a crux to fall back on. But Fed's slam results do not say that he is past his prime. The results show Fed just cant beat Nadal when it matters most. Yet Fed beats everyone else at the slams.

GameSampras · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

Fed is no threat to Pete's legacy IMO anymore. Nadal put an end to that. If anyone is going to be threat it will probably be Nadal if he continues on his dominant path. He will be a threat to Borg, Pete, Tilden, Pancho, Laver etc. Nadal has ruined Fed's legacy and unless Fed can solve this issue, his GOAT legacy will be forever ruined. The h2h against Nadal will forever taint Fed's legacy. If you cant beat your rival you should never be considered even considered to a GOAT candidate. 6-13 is inexcusable against your rival along with losing 3 of the last 4 slam finals to him

vtmike · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

People in USA agree with you too except a few Samprastards

seffina · Apr 21, 2009

I would think Murray would give away all of his victories against Federer for that one loss at the USO. Or that Rafa would rather have the win against Tsonga at the AO than the three wins he has against him.

There's nothing like the slams.

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

GameSampras said:
Fed is no threat to Pete's legacy IMO anymore. Nadal put an end to that. If anyone is going to be threat it will probably be Nadal if he continues on his dominant path. He will be a threat to Borg, Pete, Tilden, Pancho, Laver etc. Nadal has ruined Fed's legacy and unless Fed can solve this issue, his GOAT legacy will be forever ruined. The h2h against Nadal will forever taint Fed's legacy. If you cant beat your rival you should never be considered even considered to a GOAT candidate. 6-13 is inexcusable against your rival along with losing 3 of the last 4 slam finals to him

Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean **** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

You know what some people on this forum lack? common sense

There are these magical things called differences...you see they prevent all of us from being the same..isn't it neat ^_^

Bottom line..Fed isn't sampras, fed isn't laver, fed isn't borg...he's Roger Federer expecting certain things from him because others have done it is so ****ing stupid i can't get past it

It's obvious the guy is not at his peak anymore...but hey...anything to make Samprastards feel better...pete isn't losing any sleep over this..i don't see why his stalkers are

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

seffina said:
I would think Murray would give away all of his victories against Federer for that one loss at the USO. Or that Rafa would rather have the win against Tsonga at the AO than the three wins he has against him.

There's nothing like the slams.

Very sensible post.

vtmike · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean **** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

DarthFed said:
You know what some people on this forum lack? common sense

There are these magical things called differences...you see they prevent all of us from being the same..isn't it neat ^_^

Bottom line..Fed isn't sampras, fed is laver, fed isn't borg...he's Roger Federer expecting certain things from him because others have done it is so ****ing stupid i can't get past it

It's obvious the guy is not at his peak anymore...but hey...anything to make Samprastards feel better...pete isn't losing any sleep over this..i don't see why his stalkers are

P_Agony · Apr 21, 2009

GameSampras said:
Do u call a player reaching every slam final there is a player past his prime? When Lendl was reaching every slam final did you consider him past his prime? How Borg or Laver?

Its more conveninient for Fed's fans to say Fed isnt in his prime anymore. They have to rationalize Nadal's dominance over Fed somehow. They need a crux to fall back on. But Fed's slam results do not say that he is past his prime. The results show Fed just cant beat Nadal when it matters most. Yet Fed beats everyone else at the slams.

So you really think Fed plays like before? Really? Ask yourself that question. Can he hit the ace when he needs to or are those just double faults on break points now? Can he hit countless winners from his forehand or is it simply an unforced errors machine? Can he really run to his right side like he used to and hit a CC winner or is he just hitting it short, too long, or to the middle of the net now?

Federer is a shadow of his former self. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. Why is he reaching final after final? Because he's that good, that even when he plays like crap, he's still better than anyone else, aside of a few people who have figured him out.

ksbh · Apr 21, 2009

IMO, it's not just Federer's overall H2H against Nadal that is runing his legacy. Many great players have had losing H2Hs. I think it's a combination of 2 things that has made a serious blemish on his GOAT claim-

1. Nadal isn't just another player such as say Wayne Ferrera who had a winning H2h (?) against Sampras. Nadal is Federer's peer & main rival and such a record indicates that it's perhaps Nadal that's the better player.

2. Federer's record in grand slam finals against Nadal is 2-5, which included loses on his supposedly 'favorite' surfaces- grass & hard courts.

I have to agree with GameSampras on this one.

The-Champ said:
Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean **** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
It's called greatness! I don't really care that he's got a losing record against Rafa or the wanabees (Djoker, Murray). I mean Rafa has a losing record against Blake who is a much lesser player than Federer. Would that put rafa at the 20th tier of the GOAT-list?

Blake is 3-2 against Nadal with Nadal winning the last 2. I really have no idea how you can compare that with a head to head of 13-6. Obviously those numbers are not telling the same story.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

I don't find the comparison between Federer and Borg relevant at all. Federer may be great but he doesn't have 6 RG titles or 30 titles on clay or several RG-W back to back. I disagree that Fed is greater than Borg, it's just that their achievements are so different, it doesn't seem fair at all to compare them.

P_Agony · Apr 21, 2009

ksbh said:
IMO, it's not just Federer's overall H2H against Nadal that is runing his legacy. Many great players have had losing H2Hs. I think it's a combination of 2 things that has made a serious blemish on his GOAT claim-

1. Nadal isn't just another player such as say Wayne Ferrera who had a winning H2h (?) against Sampras. Nadal is Federer's peer & main rival and such a record indicates that it's perhaps Nadal that's the better player.

2. Federer's record in grand slam finals against Nadal is 2-5, which included loses on his supposedly 'favorite' surfaces- grass & hard courts.

I have to agree with GameSampras on this one.

I think it's more of a matchup thing than Nadal being the better player. Monfils and Del Potro, for example, both have wins over Rafa in 2009. Both have never beaten Federer, and Del Potro actually had a match with Federer this year. Nadal has winning records against the likes of Ferrer, Gonzales, Roddick, Davydenko, but they're hardly dominating records. Federer has much more dominating records against those guys.
Now, guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake - all have winning records over Nadal. Federer has a winning record over all of them.

My point is, Federer dominates the tour more than Nadal IMO, but it's Nadal himself who's the tough matchup for Federer. So it doesn't make Nadal the better player. I wouldn't define any player of being better (that's why I hate the GOAT discussions - you can't really say Sampras is better than Fed or vice versa). I think Nadal is the better mental player while Federer is the more talented player.

icedevil0289 · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
I don't find the comparison between Federer and Borg relevant at all. Federer may be great but he doesn't have 6 RG titles or 30 titles on clay or several RG-W back to back. I disagree that Fed is greater than Borg, it's just that their achievements are so different, it doesn't seem fair at all to compare them.

no but had several W/USO back to back, even though it might have been easier because both are fast surfaces, its still great.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean **** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

Fed is not only 6-13 vs Rafa, he's also 2-6 vs Murray. While I agree it doesn't tarnish his legacy on the whole (slams won, etc), it doesn't mean one can completely ignore it either. Fed is being largely dominated by 2 of his main rivals, not just 1.

icedevil0289 · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Fed is not only 6-13 vs Rafa, he's also 2-6 vs Murray. While I agree it doesn't tarnish his legacy on the whole (slams won, etc), it doesn't mean one can completely ignore it either. Fed is being largely dominated by 2 of his main rivals, not just 1.

ofcourse it does have some effect, but I feel like 13-6 doesn't tell the whole story because many of those wins for rafa was on clay where rafa is far superior to roger. Its definitely not an excuse and I'm trying to make it like it is, but just pointing it out.

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Fed is not only 6-13 vs Rafa, he's also 2-6 vs Murray. While I agree it doesn't tarnish his legacy on the whole (slams won, etc), it doesn't mean one can completely ignore it either. Fed is being largely dominated by 2 of his main rivals, not just 1.

Oh...quiet will you? :roll:

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
ofcourse it does have some effect, but I feel like 13-6 doesn't tell the whole story because many of those wins for rafa was on clay where rafa is far superior to roger. Its definitely not an excuse and I'm trying to make it like it is, but just pointing it out.

He isn't superior on Clay

He's not even human on clay..or maybe he is...That 2-6,6-2,6-0 is a pretty convincing win...SOMETHING must have clicked that day

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Blake is 3-2 against Nadal with Nadal winning the last 2. I really have no idea how you can compare that with a head to head of 13-6. Obviously those numbers are not telling the same story.

losing record is a losing record. one could argue that Blake is not in his prime anymore, otherwise it would've been 5-0?

i

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
no but had several W/USO back to back, even though it might have been easier because both are fast surfaces, its still great.

It's great but it's similar to what Sampras achieved, it has nothing to do with what Borg did. Also to me RG-W is the only true back to back in slams. W and USO are 2 months apart and have masters in between, so they're not really close in time. Also W and USO are both fast surfaces. There is a bigger contrast between RG and W, which is why lots of players have done well in the double W- USO (McEnroe, Connors...) whereas only Borg has managed the RG-W feat several times.

icedevil0289 · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
It's great but it's similsr to what Sampras achieved, it has nothing to do with what Borg did. Also to me RG-W is the only true back to back in slams. W and USO are 2 months apart and have masters in between, so they're not really close in time. Also W and USO are both fast surfaces. There is a bigger contrast between RG and W, which is why lots of players have done well in the double W- USO (McEnroe, Connors...) whereas only Borg has managed the RG-W feat several times.

true, it is amazing. Plus it was much harder back then because the surfaces were vastly different compared to what they are now. Still fed has created his own records that are very significant as well.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
ofcourse it does have some effect, but I feel like 13-6 doesn't tell the whole story because many of those wins for rafa was on clay where rafa is far superior to roger. Its definitely not an excuse and I'm trying to make it like it is, but just pointing it out.

Sure but that's Federer's flaw (in his legacy) because his main rival managed to defeat him on grass and hard (slams) while Fed couldn't find any way on clay. That is exactly where Fed appears as the weaker one in the rivalry.

JediMindTrick · Apr 21, 2009

Docalex007 said:
It's crazy when you think about it like this. We all see Federer's level of play being very uninspiring these days with many saying he's on a massive downhill slope and playing like crap all the time... yet he is the current finalist or Slam holder in ALL of the Grand Slams at present.

How the heck does he do it? How does he get away with over a year's worth of bad form and unmotivated play yet still come away with A FEW POINTS or GAMES from having 3/4 slams right now?

Is Roger Federer just an entirely different beast when it comes to Grand Slam play?

He's of course got the Grand Slam semi-finals streak still going as of now and to be honest could not see him not at least reaching the semis of a Grand Slam. Federer is a contender for a Slam at EVERY Slam for years and years. It's truly incredible. Even when poor form sets in and slower footwork... he's still a contender EVERY TIME. Hope he gets Wimby and US Open this year... I don't see why not. He's proven that when the Slams come around, he's up for headhunting.

Federer is the god of tennis, so reaching the final in all the slams and winning just one is frankly a weak result.

icedevil0289 · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Sure but that's Federer's flaw (in his legacy) because his main rival managed to defeat him on grass and hard (slams) while Fed couldn't find any way on clay. That is exactly where Fed appears as the weaker one in the rivalry.

I wish I had something to counter that, but sadly I don't. You're right.

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
I don't find the comparison between Federer and Borg relevant at all. Federer may be great but he doesn't have 6 RG titles or 30 titles on clay or several RG-W back to back. I disagree that Fed is greater than Borg, it's just that their achievements are so different, it doesn't seem fair at all to compare them.

Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.

icedevil0289 · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.

one could compare borg's run at the USO similar to fed's run at the french. I believe borg had a some final appearances there, but never managed to clinch it.

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
I wish I had something to counter that, but sadly I don't. You're right.

HC is up in the air but he's they've beaten each other once and only once on their respective "surfaces"

Sure one was a slam and one was a masters but they have both stopped each others records

No need to succumb

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
true, it is amazing. Plus it was much harder back then because the surfaces were vastly different compared to what they are now. Still fed has created his own records that are very significant as well.

Yes he has and I think his records are very similar to Sampras's: longevity at #1, a very high number of slams won, best results being at W and USO, no RG title.
There are also differences of course, Sampras won his first slam at 19, he was more precocious, he was less good on clay and he was never quite as dominant as Federer during his prime years but his career at the top was exceptionally long. Sampras had completely dominant head to heads with his main rivals (Agassi, Courier...)
However despite their differences, I find the similarities in achievements and general profile are striking.

GameSampras · Apr 21, 2009

P_Agony said:
So you really think Fed plays like before? Really? Ask yourself that question. Can he hit the ace when he needs to or are those just double faults on break points now? Can he hit countless winners from his forehand or is it simply an unforced errors machine? Can he really run to his right side like he used to and hit a CC winner or is he just hitting it short, too long, or to the middle of the net now?

Federer is a shadow of his former self. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. Why is he reaching final after final? Because he's that good, that even when he plays like crap, he's still better than anyone else, aside of a few people who have figured him out.

Fed a shadow of his former self? Gimme a damn break. He beats 98 percent of the freakin field today. And he is reaching every slam final that comes around. I didnt say Fed was at his peak. But he certainly isnt passed his prime. Look at his slam results before you start this Fed is a shell of his former self garbage. Players who are shells of themselves dont reach multiple grand slam finals. It just doesnt happen Im sorry

DarthFed · Apr 21, 2009

GameSampras said:
Fed a shadow of his former self? Gimme a damn break. He beats 98 percent of the freakin field today. And he is reaching every slam final that comes around. I didnt say Fed was at his peak. But he certainly isnt passed his prime. Look at his slam results before you start this Fed is a shell of his former self garbage. Players who are shells of themselves dont reach multiple grand slam finals. It just doesnt happen Im sorry

Are you god in disguise? It's wonderful to meet you ^_^

Seriously..Fed hasn't been in his prime since late 07

It just doesn't happen? well it is..as i said earlier

Bottom line..Fed isn't sampras, fed isn't laver, fed isn't borg...he's Roger Federer expecting certain things from him because others have done it is

Every player is unique there's no universal law saying that out of form players consistently make Slam finals

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
one could compare borg's run at the USO similar to fed's run at the french. I believe borg had a some final appearances there, but never managed to clinch it.

Borg had 4 finals at the USO! He was quite competent on hard court and carpet actually but sadly that USO title escaped him until the end.

seffina · Apr 21, 2009

icedevil0289 said:
I wish I had something to counter that, but sadly I don't. You're right.

But the fact that Rafa had those chances to defeat Roger on clay are because Roger has been good enough to meet Rafa in the finals (and one semi) of these events for the last four years. If some such as Sampras or others current players like Blake who have a winning record against Nadal had been good enough on clay, they might have had losing records against the top clay players as well. That's one counter argument.

I'll disagree with P_Agony when he says that Nadal isn't as dominant against his opponents as Roger. I think they both are quite dominant. You say Rafa has lost to Del Potro and Monfils, but that doesn't mean anything because he has also beaten them countless times and almost as bad as Roger has as well (Nadal's 4-1 against both). That would be like saying Roger isn't as dominant against Stan because he lost to him once when Rafa has never lost to him. Their strengths are different and Rafa wins in a different manner than Roger. Rafa has a winning record against everyone in the top ten and lopsided (dominant) record against the number two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ten ranked players. Davy's the only one that is within a match of him. I would say that's pretty dominant. Federer was equally dominant during his heyday.

ksbh · Apr 21, 2009

Overall, I agree except for the bold part. Nadal is the more talented player, IMO. He's a 'thinking' player on the court, always scheming about the next shot. Exceptional points craftsman. The best I've seen since Pete Sampras.

I must add though that for whatever reason, it''s only against Federer that we get to see Nadal's absolute tennis briliance.

P_Agony said:
I think it's more of a matchup thing than Nadal being the better player. Monfils and Del Potro, for example, both have wins over Rafa in 2009. Both have never beaten Federer, and Del Potro actually had a match with Federer this year. Nadal has winning records against the likes of Ferrer, Gonzales, Roddick, Davydenko, but they're hardly dominating records. Federer has much more dominating records against those guys.
Now, guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake - all have winning records over Nadal. Federer has a winning record over all of them.

My point is, Federer dominates the tour more than Nadal IMO, but it's Nadal himself who's the tough matchup for Federer. So it doesn't make Nadal the better player. I wouldn't define any player of being better (that's why I hate the GOAT discussions - you can't really say Sampras is better than Fed or vice versa). I think Nadal is the better mental player while Federer is the more talented player.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.

I don't kow if he was a midget but he made 4 USO finals. I guess you could draw a comparison with Federer's 3 RG finals. Does that make a midget out of him too?

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

seffina said:
But the fact that Rafa had those chances to defeat Roger on clay are because Roger has been good enough to meet Rafa in the finals (and one semi) of these events for the last four years. If some such as Sampras or others current players like Blake who have a winning record against Nadal had been good enough on clay, they might have had losing records against the top clay players as well. That's one counter argument.

I'll disagree with P_Agony when he says that Nadal isn't as dominant against his opponents as Roger. I think they both are quite dominant. You say Rafa has lost to Del Potro and Monfils, but that doesn't mean anything because he has also beaten them countless times and almost as bad as Roger has as well (Nadal's 4-1 against both). That would be like saying Roger isn't as dominant against Stan because he lost to him once when Rafa has never lost to him. Their strengths are different and Rafa wins in a different manner than Roger. Rafa has a winning record against everyone in the top ten and lopsided (dominant) record against the number two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ten ranked players. Davy's the only one that is within a match of him. I would say that's pretty dominant. Federer was equally dominant during his heyday.

Great post from you as usual! I would like to qualify your remarks though by pointing out that Federer has had several lopsided head to heads against him in his career. At some point (around 2003 and 2004), Federer was 2-7 vs Hewitt, 1-5 vs Henman and 1-5 vs Nalbandian. Of course he overturned those head to heads during his prime but now he is 6-13 vs Rafa and 2-6 vs Murray. Nadal has never had a lopsided losing head to head vs anybody, nobody has ever led Nadal by 5 or 6 or more matches, so at this point and I totally agree that things could change later but at this point Nadal has been more consistently dominant over the rest of the field than Federer has been over the course of his career.

Tennis_Bum · Apr 21, 2009

GameSampras said:
Do u call a player reaching every slam final there is a player past his prime? When Lendl was reaching every slam final did you consider him past his prime? How Borg or Laver?

Its more conveninient for Fed's fans to say Fed isnt in his prime anymore. They have to rationalize Nadal's dominance over Fed somehow. They need a crux to fall back on. But Fed's slam results do not say that he is past his prime. The results show Fed just cant beat Nadal when it matters most. Yet Fed beats everyone else at the slams.

You know Fed is past his prime, as far as tennis age is concerned. Sampras got to slam finals 200US, 2001US and 2002US. I would consider him past his prime then too. In 2000 he lost Safin, 2001 lost to Hewitt and 2002, his familiarity with Agassi, he won. Had it been Hewitt in the final 2002 as opposed to Agassi, I am not so sure the result would be a win for Sampras in 2002. Then again, there is no way to prove it either. My hunch is that Hewitt was returning so well in 2001 and won the match rather easily against Sampras, so had Hewitt met Sampras in the final I would guess Hewitt would win. But it's only a guess.

So back to Fed, yes, I think he's past his prime but that doesn't mean he can't occasionally pull out some amazing tennis to get to final at slam. Of course, one final at 2009AO doesn't make a trend and he has played really some crappy tennis lately. I would not be surprised if Fed would not make any slam final this year.

It wouldn't shock me a bit if Fed decided to retire considering the way he's been playing. He lacks so much commitment and passion that he displayed in the past. Of course, I could be wrong the way I see Fed right now. I hope he proves me wrong but I think the way that he looks right now, I would chalk him in as done. Sad but he doesn't give tennis any hints that he has any life left to fight anymore.

Could I be wrong about Fed? Hope so.

The-Champ · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
I don't kow if he was a midget but he made 4 USO finals. I guess you could draw a comparison with Federer's 3 RG finals. Does that make a midget out of him too?

Well, everyone claims that Björn was one of the mentally strongest player ever but couldn't win the USO. Federer however is criticized for being a mental midget because he couldn't beat rafa at the French. I'm just pointing out the double standards.

neither is a mental midget. You don't win that many slams by being mentally weak.

Tennis_Bum · Apr 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Great post from you as usual! I would like to qualify your remarks though by pointing out that Federer has had several lopsided head to heads against him in his career. At some point (around 2003 and 2004), Federer was 2-7 vs Hewitt, 1-5 vs Henman and 1-5 vs Nalbandian. Of course he overturned those head to heads during his prime but now he is 6-13 vs Rafa and 2-6 vs Murray. Nadal has never had a lopsided losing head to head vs anybody, nobody has ever led Nadal by 5 or 6 or more matches, so at this point and I totally agree that things could change later but at this point Nadal has been more consistently dominant over the rest of the field than Federer has been over the course of his career.

Again, if you factor out the clay matches, I know it's not fair but if you do, then Fed's record against Nadal is not very lopsided.

Who has not had lopsided record against Nadal on clay. Fed played well enough to get to finals on clay and lost all matches except for one that he played out of his mind in Hamburg to win in 3, he clubbed Nadal 6-0 on clay. Of course, he forgot how he did and hasn't played like that on clay since.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
losing record is a losing record. one could argue that Blake is not in his prime anymore, otherwise it would've been 5-0?

i

Not true, a 2-3 losing record is NOT the same as a 2-7 losing record. In 1 case, a lot of encounters have happened and the results were lopsided in the favor of 1 clearly dominating the other, in the other case it's a close head to head (with only a few encounters) and a 1 match difference.
Sorry but the implication of those about the rivalry is not the same at all, not even remotely.

Tennis_Bum · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Well, everyone claims that Björn was one of the mentally strongest player ever but couldn't win the USO. Federer however is criticized for being a mental midget because he couldn't beat rafa at the French. I'm just pointing out the double standards.

neither is a mental midget. You don't win that many slams by being mentally weak.

Fair statement about Fed's mental, but what's going on with the guy lately? Where is the drive, the passion, the commitment and the will to grind as long as it takes to win just a point?

If he can't play like that then might as well retire unless he is just doing it for the money, which I understand. But if he wants to win slams, then he has to really put in the sweat and blood on the court. He's not doing that, well at least, I am not seeing that lately.

veroniquem · Apr 21, 2009

The-Champ said:
Well, everyone claims that Björn was one of the mentally strongest player ever but couldn't win the USO. Federer however is criticized for being a mental midget because he couldn't beat rafa at the French. I'm just pointing out the double standards.

neither is a mental midget. You don't win that many slams by being mentally weak.

There are many big differences between Borg's situation and Federer's situation. Borg didn't have one opponent that beat him 13 times and completely overwhelmed him. In the case of Federer, it's not just losing the RG finals that attracted the derogatory remarks about his mental, it's the fact that there was 1 opponent against whom he was helpless: first he had no answer for clay, then grass was taken from him, then hard. He lost his last 5 matches against Nadal, all crucial, all big finals on 3 different surfaces, he hasn't beaten Rafa since 2007. That has got to hurt.
Very different from Borg who just happened to be less efficient in one particuliar slam, regardless of who the opponent was.

It's funny, Federer is the finalist in 3/4 slams and the title holder in 1/4...

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Professional

Legend

Professional

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Similar threads