Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

BobbyOne said:

As soon as Federer got a prime Nadal as main opponent he mostly lost to Rafa...

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Sorry but yes.Bruguera is far better than Ferrero, Stich beats Hass left and right,Krajicek would do nasty things with Nabanouan, Ivanisevic is a winner which MurraY has yet to prove and Rafter vs the argentinina? HAHAHAHAHA

Fed only had devoted but limited Hewitt and Roddick and talented by inconsistent Safina later Djoker and Nadal

briefly and plainly, imagine I talk about Laver: Hewitt is like Santana,Roddick like Stolle, Safin like old Hoad or old Pancho, and then, Laver faces Newcombe (Nadal) and Roche (djoker)...where do I put Ashe,Rosewall,Kodes,Nasty,Smith,Emerson,Fraser or Gimeno, just to give you some names?

Not to mention up and coming guys named Borg? Connors? Vilas? Tanner?

well, that is the difference between Laver and Fed´s era.Laver era is AT LEAST twice as difficult as Fed which means Laver has 22 majors ( excluded pro majors)...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Yes, if Laver would have had a weak opposition as Federer had, he would also have collected 17 majors (excluded the pro majors).

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

As soon as Nadal got a declining Federer as a main opponent he managed to pick up four non-clay slams. (Over what...four years now?) :roll:

Fed won every non-clay slam except for one from 2004-2007. Rafa was a slam winner beginning in 2005.

Facts, BobbyOne, facts.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Yes, if Laver would have had a weak opposition as Federer had, he would also have collected 17 majors (excluded the pro majors).

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

As far as I know Nadal stands 8:2 against Federer in majors.

Nadal was not yet in his prime in 2005.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Laver would probably fart laughing at the prospect of facing Bagdhatis (TMF loves him), philipousi,Tsonga,Berdych, Roddick...I don´t think he´d win many since he would not be able to get serious...

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

[Opinion]I'm a 5.0, I would have crushed Laver even if he was in his prime.[/Opinion]

According to you, Bobbyone, Laver would still pale in comparison to Rosewall with his 40 slam miminum.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

If Laver was so blattantly owned by his nº2, he´d have 2 choices: retire or suicide

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

As soon as Nadal got a declining Federer as a main opponent he managed to pick up four non-clay slams. (Over what...four years now?) :roll:

Fed won every non-clay slam except for one from 2004-2007. Rafa was a slam winner beginning in 2005.

Facts, BobbyOne, facts.

Click to expand...

Monsieur_DeLarge said:

Previously posted elsewhere:
(and listed alphabetically within each tier)

Tier 1:
Federer, Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2:
Borg, Budge, Kramer, Nadal, Rosewall

So that's my ten, but I'd be loathe to rank them more specifically. If forced, I'd maybe do something like...

1. Federer / Gonzalez / Laver / Tilden
5. Sampras / Borg / Budge / Rosewall
9. Kramer / Nadal

And I sort of want to put Lendl in there as well...


Regards,
MDL

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

I hate to say anything bad about Laver, since no one can help what era they play in or when they were born, but it is likely that Laver would have been in over his head in the current era against most of the players.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I had Rosewall at 34 minimum if always having been an amateur but "only" 25 majors in an always open era.

You never understood my distinction between always open majors and always amateur majors. It is a big difference. But Laver would be behind Rosewall in both cases as some agree because Laver had a much shorter career as a top player.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Federer was not in his prime in 2008 and beyond. Federer was second best to one player on one surface. That is it. Use it however you want, but don't make it into more than it really is.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Here's the facts.
2004 Miami USA Hard 32 NADAL 6-3 6-3
2005 French Open FRA Clay SF NADAL 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3
2005 Miami USA Hard FR FEDERER 6-2 7-6(4) 6-7(5) 3-6 1-6
2006 Tennis Masters Cup CHN Hard SF FEDERER 4-6 5-7
2006 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR FEDERER 0-6 6-7(5) 7-6(2) 3-6
2006 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2006 Rome ITA Clay FR NADAL 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
2006 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)
2006 Dubai UAE Hard FR NADAL 2-6 6-4 6-4
2007 Tennis Masters Cup CHN Hard SF FEDERER 4-6 1-6
2007 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR FEDERER 6-7(7) 6-4 6-7(3) 6-2 2-6
2007 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2007 Hamburg GER Clay FR FEDERER 6-2 2-6 0-6
2007 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 6-4 6-4
2008 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR NADAL 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 6-1 6-3 6-0
2008 Hamburg GER Clay FR NADAL 7-5 6-7(3) 6-3
2008 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 7-5 7-5
2009 Madrid ESP Clay FR FEDERER 4-6 4-6
2009 Australian Open AUS Hard FR NADAL 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2010 ATP World Tour Finals GBR Hard FR FEDERER 3-6 6-3 1-6
2010 Madrid ESP Clay FR NADAL 6-4 7-6(5)
2011 ATP World Tour Finals GBR Hard FEDERER 3-6 0-6
2011 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2011 Madrid ESP Clay SF NADAL 5-7 6-1 6-3
2011 Miami USA Hard SF NADAL 6-3 6-2
2012 Indian Wells USA Hard SF FEDERER 3-6 4-6
2012 Australian Open AUS Hard SF NADAL 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4

Every player of course, no matter how terrific they are has some questions surrounding their resume. The thing that has always disturbed me about Federer is how even a young Nadal, who was not nearly the player he was to be was able to defeat Federer on hard court and battle him on a grass court. Yes I understand about the matchup problem but that's a part of the sport.

For example Jimmy Connors was able to dominate a young Borg. Connors was able to dominate a young Lendl. Borg and Lendl weren't in their primes yet and were streamrolled by the great Connors.

Yet Federer who you would think would streamroll a young Nadal on fast surfaces was not able to.

Before people complain I do think Federer has GOAT credentials but it's a problem when you analyze the history.

Did Federer really decline in 2008 at the very young age of 27 or was it Nadal improving that may it seem that he declined? Clearly Nadal has never dominated to the extent Federer did? What are the answers?

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Yep, Federer was owned so completely by Nadal that he was unable to break nearly every open era record.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Here's the facts.
2004 Miami USA Hard 32 NADAL 6-3 6-3
2005 French Open FRA Clay SF NADAL 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3
2005 Miami USA Hard FR FEDERER 6-2 7-6(4) 6-7(5) 3-6 1-6
2006 Tennis Masters Cup CHN Hard SF FEDERER 4-6 5-7
2006 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR FEDERER 0-6 6-7(5) 7-6(2) 3-6
2006 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2006 Rome ITA Clay FR NADAL 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
2006 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)
2006 Dubai UAE Hard FR NADAL 2-6 6-4 6-4
2007 Tennis Masters Cup CHN Hard SF FEDERER 4-6 1-6
2007 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR FEDERER 6-7(7) 6-4 6-7(3) 6-2 2-6
2007 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2007 Hamburg GER Clay FR FEDERER 6-2 2-6 0-6
2007 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 6-4 6-4
2008 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR NADAL 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 6-1 6-3 6-0
2008 Hamburg GER Clay FR NADAL 7-5 6-7(3) 6-3
2008 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 7-5 7-5
2009 Madrid ESP Clay FR FEDERER 4-6 4-6
2009 Australian Open AUS Hard FR NADAL 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2010 ATP World Tour Finals GBR Hard FR FEDERER 3-6 6-3 1-6
2010 Madrid ESP Clay FR NADAL 6-4 7-6(5)
2011 ATP World Tour Finals GBR Hard FEDERER 3-6 0-6
2011 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2011 Madrid ESP Clay SF NADAL 5-7 6-1 6-3
2011 Miami USA Hard SF NADAL 6-3 6-2
2012 Indian Wells USA Hard SF FEDERER 3-6 4-6
2012 Australian Open AUS Hard SF NADAL 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4

Every player of course, no matter how terrific they are has some questions surrounding their resume. The thing that has always disturbed me about Federer is how even a young Nadal, who was not nearly the player he was to be was able to defeat Federer on hard court and battle him on a grass court. Yes I understand about the matchup problem but that's a part of the sport.

For example Jimmy Connors was able to dominate a young Borg. Connors was able to dominate a young Lendl. Borg and Lendl weren't in their primes yet and were streamrolled by the great Connors.

Yet Federer who you would think would streamroll a young Nadal on fast surfaces was not able to.

Before people complain I do think Federer has GOAT credentials but it's a problem when you analyze the history.

Did Federer really decline in 2008 at the very young age of 27 or was it Nadal improving that may it seem that he declined? Clearly Nadal has never dominated to the extent Federer did? What are the answers?

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Here's the facts.
2004 Miami USA Hard 32 NADAL 6-3 6-3
2005 French Open FRA Clay SF NADAL 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3
2005 Miami USA Hard FR FEDERER 6-2 7-6(4) 6-7(5) 3-6 1-6
2006 Tennis Masters Cup CHN Hard SF FEDERER 4-6 5-7
2006 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR FEDERER 0-6 6-7(5) 7-6(2) 3-6
2006 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2006 Rome ITA Clay FR NADAL 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
2006 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)
2006 Dubai UAE Hard FR NADAL 2-6 6-4 6-4
2007 Tennis Masters Cup CHN Hard SF FEDERER 4-6 1-6
2007 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR FEDERER 6-7(7) 6-4 6-7(3) 6-2 2-6
2007 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2007 Hamburg GER Clay FR FEDERER 6-2 2-6 0-6
2007 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 6-4 6-4
2008 Wimbledon GBR Grass FR NADAL 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 6-1 6-3 6-0
2008 Hamburg GER Clay FR NADAL 7-5 6-7(3) 6-3
2008 Monte Carlo MON Clay FR NADAL 7-5 7-5
2009 Madrid ESP Clay FR FEDERER 4-6 4-6
2009 Australian Open AUS Hard FR NADAL 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2010 ATP World Tour Finals GBR Hard FR FEDERER 3-6 6-3 1-6
2010 Madrid ESP Clay FR NADAL 6-4 7-6(5)
2011 ATP World Tour Finals GBR Hard FEDERER 3-6 0-6
2011 French Open FRA Clay FR NADAL 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2011 Madrid ESP Clay SF NADAL 5-7 6-1 6-3
2011 Miami USA Hard SF NADAL 6-3 6-2
2012 Indian Wells USA Hard SF FEDERER 3-6 4-6
2012 Australian Open AUS Hard SF NADAL 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4

Every player of course, no matter how terrific they are has some questions surrounding their resume. The thing that has always disturbed me about Federer is how even a young Nadal, who was not nearly the player he was to be was able to defeat Federer on hard court and battle him on a grass court. Yes I understand about the matchup problem but that's a part of the sport.

For example Jimmy Connors was able to dominate a young Borg. Connors was able to dominate a young Lendl. Borg and Lendl weren't in their primes yet and were streamrolled by the great Connors.

Yet Federer who you would think would streamroll a young Nadal on fast surfaces was not able to.

Before people complain I do think Federer has GOAT credentials but it's a problem when you analyze the history.

Did Federer really decline in 2008 at the very young age of 27 or was it Nadal improving that may it seem that he declined? Clearly Nadal has never dominated to the extent Federer did? What are the answers?

In a way it's sort of like the Steffi Graf/Monica Seles problem.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Here's the facts.
Every player of course, no matter how terrific they are has some questions surrounding their resume. The thing that has always disturbed me about Federer is how even a young Nadal, who was not nearly the player he was to be was able to defeat Federer on hard court and battle him on a grass court. Yes I understand about the matchup problem but that's a part of the sport.

For example Jimmy Connors was able to dominate a young Borg. Connors was able to dominate a young Lendl. Borg and Lendl weren't in their primes yet and were streamrolled by the great Connors.

Yet Federer who you would think would streamroll a young Nadal on fast surfaces was not able to.

Before people complain I do think Federer has GOAT credentials but it's a problem when you analyze the history.

Did Federer really decline in 2008 at the very young age of 27 or was it Nadal improving that may it seem that he declined? Clearly Nadal has never dominated to the extent Federer did? What are the answers?

In a way it's sort of like the Steffi Graf/Monica Seles problem.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Plaese, elaborate.Laver would be nice enough to do it for you...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Nadal and Djokovic used to beat GOAT Federer even though Roger was yet in his prime...

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Thank you for a post where you don't hate on one particular player!

There is no problem with playing the hypothetical game with your favorite player, especially when they were not given a "fair shake" at winning open majors. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Click to expand...

smoledman said:

pc1 can't even get the H2H results in the correct order.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Who is saying that Federer has no problems in his resume? As to the Graf/Seles problem, are you suggesting that Federer wouldn't have had as big of a problem if someone were to stab Nadal in the back?

It is obvious that Nadal troubled Federer even when he was a kid. I saw it, was upset about it back then, and still don't understand it. Despite that, Federer still put together an extremely impressive four years, and is still playing at a high level today when he is past his prime and Nadal and Djokovic are in their's.

What would happen if Nadal met Federer at his peak in a non-clay slam? I don't know, because it never happened.

As I first started watching tennis in the late 80's, I don't often come to this forum except to reply to people who are obviously bashing a player just because he has captured everyone's attention.



What Laver has said on the subject is good enough for me. He isn't so arrogant to be 100% sure of what was going to happen when you discuss situations that will never happen.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Who is saying that Federer has no problems in his resume? As to the Graf/Seles problem, are you suggesting that Federer wouldn't have had as big of a problem if someone were to stab Nadal in the back?

It is obvious that Nadal troubled Federer even when he was a kid. I saw it, was upset about it back then, and still don't understand it. Despite that, Federer still put together an extremely impressive four years, and is still playing at a high level today when he is past his prime and Nadal and Djokovic are in their's.

What would happen if Nadal met Federer at his peak in a non-clay slam? I don't know, because it never happened.

As I first started watching tennis in the late 80's, I don't often come to this forum except to reply to people who are obviously bashing a player just because he has captured everyone's attention.



What Laver has said on the subject is good enough for me. He isn't so arrogant to be 100% sure of what was going to happen when you discuss situations that will never happen.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Federer just bageled Djokovic and and beat him at Wimbledon at 31. What is your point?

Click to expand...

kiki said:

2008 was not Fed´s prime? he was 26, right?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I'm baffled: Is Federer not in his prime now or is he yet in his prime??

You should know that Djokovic is weaker now than he was before.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Death punishing for him?

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Right, if we're going by results, then it wasn't Fed's peak (or prime), although it was part of his physical prime.

He lost to Djoko and Nadal in slams that year at the age of 26 to 27. He just beat Djokovic in a slam at 31 when Djokovic was only 25. If the former counts against Federer, the latter should count for him.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Death punishing for him?

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

I didn't say that people said that Federer has nothing wrong with his resume. I am simply writing that it's something that is still a little blemish and as a person who tries to analyze tennis stats and history I look to see what are the possible reasons.

Notice I wrote I do think Federer is a GOAT candidate.

My response was that you wrote Federer was declining in 2008 and I'm not sure of that.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Most biassed post ever.You triple the addition of TMF,ABMK,fed rulz ALL TOGETHER...

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Right, you should know that I don't mean that you are bashing Federer.

As I have heard fans of Nadal use to discuss Nadal, if you were watching Federer closely, you would know that he wasn't the same in 2008. It wasn't just in the matches against Djokovic and Nadal.

That is my opinion. The facts are that his 2008 was his worst season since 2003 and the start of him not winning as often.

As for Djokovic, Federer has shown that he has more than enough talent to hang with Djokovic even when he is past his prime. Federer has always had the Nadal problem.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

2008 Fed, at 26 is the best possible Roger Federer.That is the best year for athletes, other than swimmers...

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

I understand what you mean.

Click to expand...

piece said:

Here's Federer's winning percentages for the years 2004-2008 (inclusive).

2004 - 92.5%
2005 - 95.3%
2006 - 94.8%
2007 - 88.3%
2008 - 81.5%

Notice the sharp drop-off in 2007, then again in 2008. Federer actually had a winning record against Nadal over the course of 2007, so this drop should not be attributed to Nadal. Likewise in 2008, though Federer lost four times to Nadal, we should not attribute the decline in his winning percentage solely to Nadal's apparent improvement because Federer also lost four times to Nadal in 2006 yet had his second best year ever by winning percentage.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Yet it wasn't his best year.



Thank you. I am not here to proclaim Federer as the goat. I am only trying to get people to stop bashing him at every opportunity.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

I've actually done some analysis of those years and I think I do know the reasons but I won't say for now.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Yet it wasn't his best year.



Thank you. I am not here to proclaim Federer as the goat. I am only trying to get people to stop bashing him at every opportunity.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I'm "bashing" Federer only when people, for instance almost all posters on GeneralPPD, overrate Roger as the ultimate GOAT, not considering that Federer played in a weak era, that 17 majors is very good but not overwhelming in comparison to Rosewall and Laver and that the GOAT should have a better backhand than he actually has...

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Is it a fault of Fed to play in such a weak era? not¡¡¡

But, anyhow, it is a factor that has to be strictly weightned when talking about GOATS¡¡¡

Fed´s era weakness is just comparable, over the last 50 years, with the Emerson/Santana/Stolle strenghold of the amateur players in the middle 60´s...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I'm "bashing" Federer only when people, for instance almost all posters on GeneralPPD, overrate Roger as the ultimate GOAT, not considering that Federer played in a weak era, that 17 majors is very good but not overwhelming in comparison to Rosewall and Laver and that the GOAT should have a better backhand than he actually has...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I'm "bashing" Federer only when people, for instance almost all posters on GeneralPPD, overrate Roger as the ultimate GOAT, not considering that Federer played in a weak era, that 17 majors is very good but not overwhelming in comparison to Rosewall and Laver and that the GOAT should have a better backhand than he actually has...

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Is it a fault of Fed to play in such a weak era? not¡¡¡

But, anyhow, it is a factor that has to be strictly weightned when talking about GOATS¡¡¡

Fed´s era weakness is just comparable, over the last 50 years, with the Emerson/Santana/Stolle strenghold of the amateur players in the middle 60´s...

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

So, you are saying that because GeneralPPD is full of ****s, you should also act like a **** here in former pro player talk?



Of course, everything is game. The disturbing thing is that you bring up the weak era argument like it is a fact, when it is not.

Everything in tennis is relative to the players you play. Your weak era could be a strong era with a couple of extreme outliers or it could really be a weak era.

Laver et al. could have been an extremely weak era with a player who was somewhat of an outlier but with much more parity in general.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no way to be sure about these things. All you can say is that "I've watched said players" and I know they were greats. This isn't a fact.

A fact would be something like, there are more players in the possible pool to play professional tennis now than there were in the 60's and 70's.

Now, in general, in sports where performance is measured directly, this larger pool will mean that greater athletes will emerge. The average athlete will become better along with the top athletes with respect to a smaller pool. It is possible that Laver was as good as a Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic, but it is less likely.

Now, in my opinion, this shouldn't be held against Laver, because he couldn't help any of these things, but to try and say the reverse of what is likely true is kind of pathetic.

Click to expand...