Federer CLEARLY the greatest ever now!

A

AndreFan

Banned
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.
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
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

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

CyBorg

Legend
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
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.
 
M

markwillplay

Hall of Fame
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.
 
Medved

Medved

Rookie
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.
 
R_Federer

R_Federer

Professional
markwillplay said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

slicefox

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

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

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Cesc Fabregas said:
Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
“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.
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
Cesc Fabregas said:
Federer has yet to overcome Nadal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

Cenc

Hall of Fame
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

i will make you sound just a little stupid:
can you tell me when exactly did u see budge play live so that u can talk about his movements?
 
JeMar

JeMar

Legend
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, not really.
 
C

Cenc

Hall of Fame
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...


fed lost 3? in the last 365 days yes
i bet you wont spend much time on this board if you continue with this, im just wondering who you are
 
C

Cenc

Hall of Fame
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...


can you please remind me of feds head to head score with nadal? especially in slam finals if possible please
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
Cenc said:
i will make you sound just a little stupid:
can you tell me when exactly did u see budge play live so that u can talk about his movements?
Click to expand...

I will make you sound stupid. I've watched loads of film on Budge and have read others commentary on him. Enough said.
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
Cenc said:
can you please remind me of feds head to head score with nadal? especially in slam finals if possible please
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Much of Nadal's wins over him have been on clay.
Nadal has not been able to win the US Open yet. He lost to Murrey, Roger beat him. Nadal has won one major on hardcourt. Roger has won Eight. Roger beat him two Wimby finals and has won three majors over guys who beat Rafa. Roger also has about 30 more titles than the next nearest person--Rafa.

If Rafa can win a US Open, add a couple more French titles and win another Wimbledon, I'd gladly put Rafa on par or even better than Roger. I like Rafa but facts are facts. Roger has 14 majors, eight more than Rafa. Rafa has plenty of time to catch up, but his knees could not allow that to happen.

I love Nadal. I already feel he's the best clay courter ever. And I loved Borg and watched so many of his matches.
 
A

AndreFan

Banned
Cenc said:
fed lost 3? in the last 365 days yes
i bet you wont spend much time on this board if you continue with this, im just wondering who you are
Click to expand...

Okay, he's lost five grand slam finals. Three French finals, One Australian and One Wimbledon. Rafa is 4-2 against him in slam finals. But don't forget that Roger has beaten the guy who beat Nadal on THREE occasions in slam finals.
 
CyBorg

CyBorg

Legend
GameSampras said:
Was Tilden playing in khakis? LOL
Click to expand...

In 50 years from now, they'll really be playing in khakis and I mean super air-defiant alien-skin khakis.

This revolutionary "pant" technology will change the game is played and fans will look back on this era and make fun of these funny 'shorts' that pros once wore.
 
DoubleDeuce

DoubleDeuce

Hall of Fame
Laver would be as good as a Davydenko today.

Short, too short to be considered anything serious in today's game.

By today's standards, he played good badminton.
 
Arzon

Arzon

Rookie
quick question, does the 14 grand slam titles federer has include the wimbledon he won in 1998?
 
GoaLaSSo

GoaLaSSo

Semi-Pro
Why laver over fed?
Fed has to be at the moment. He must. Watching him play and destroy his opponents is an experience no one should go without.
 
C

Cenc

Hall of Fame
AndreFan said:
Doesn't matter. Much of Nadal's wins over him have been on clay.
Nadal has not been able to win the US Open yet. He lost to Murrey, Roger beat him. Nadal has won one major on hardcourt. Roger has won Eight. Roger beat him two Wimby finals and has won three majors over guys who beat Rafa. Roger also has about 30 more titles than the next nearest person--Rafa.

If Rafa can win a US Open, add a couple more French titles and win another Wimbledon, I'd gladly put Rafa on par or even better than Roger. I like Rafa but facts are facts. Roger has 14 majors, eight more than Rafa. Rafa has plenty of time to catch up, but his knees could not allow that to happen.

I love Nadal. I already feel he's the best clay courter ever. And I loved Borg and watched so many of his matches.
Click to expand...

however nadal has positive h2h even on hardcourt against fed as far as i know right?
and yeah it really doesnt matter that he is owned by player of his OWN era, and you are saying he is the best ever
 
C

Cenc

Hall of Fame
AndreFan said:
Okay, he's lost five grand slam finals. Three French finals, One Australian and One Wimbledon. Rafa is 4-2 against him in slam finals. But don't forget that Roger has beaten the guy who beat Nadal on THREE occasions in slam finals.
Click to expand...

guy who beat nadal is not nadal
 
C

Cenc

Hall of Fame
GoaLaSSo said:
Why laver over fed?
Fed has to be at the moment. He must. Watching him play and destroy his opponents is an experience no one should go without.
Click to expand...

oh god HE MUST BE HE MUST BE WATCHING HIM IS SO EXCITING
grow up people and stop thinking just about what you see now
 
GoaLaSSo

GoaLaSSo

Semi-Pro
Cenc said:
oh god HE MUST BE HE MUST BE WATCHING HIM IS SO EXCITING
grow up people and stop thinking just about what you see now
Click to expand...
Don't be so crabby. i need to grow up? anyone can sit there and criticize. All i'm saying is federer completely dominates his opponents in ways that no one else does. Now that his record backs it up i don't see whats the problem. i'm not even a fan of federer. i wanted nadal to win 2008 Wimbledon and this french. Still i must give it to fed.
 
boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
AndreFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol you are truly funny...Fed has lost 5 slam finals as has already been pointed out to you. He has lost in slam competition to Safin, Djokovic and Ancic as well. so thats 4 guys including Nadal unless I am counting incorrectly? Not to mention being taken the full ride by guys like Haas, Berdych, Del Potro...its not like Fed has steamrolled everyone with bagels, he is not immortal you know.

As for Laver, are you seriously suggesting that Rosewall, Emerson, and Newcombe are worse slam competition than Hewitt, well past prime Agassi, Soderling, Bagdatis (I know I spelled his name wrong), just to name a few? Because if you are I really think you are quite ignorant of things. As for Laver, he also missed several competitive years going Pro, and was not allowed to play grand slams during those years because he gave up his amatuer status, do you not think he could have won more slams in those years?

also, Greatest is not about who could travel back and forth in time and beat other people, it is about performance vs their rivals and taking in other factors, Borg on clay accomplished quite a lot and I think you would be surprised, having watched footage on Borg he would probably do well against Nadal, although you seem to be saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. As for Borg having no Clay court competition, do names like Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas mean anything....they were no sloaches at all on clay and Vilas held the record for most consecutive clay court wins before Nadal. I think you really need a clue Nadal really hs 1 clay rival..whom he owns on the surface, Borg had a handful.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
I do think Roger has surpassed Pete
Replies
0
Views
505
BjornBorg
B
M
In all fairness to Laver and Sampras...
2 3 4
Replies
179
Views
18K
Dedans Penthouse
Dedans Penthouse
R
Greatest display of tennis?
Replies
23
Views
2K
P_Agony
P_Agony
C
ZERO chance Fed loses now
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
Zaragoza
Z
C
Why Federer will be regarded as better than even Pete
2 3
Replies
108
Views
3K
vex
vex
Top