Prisoner of Birth
Banned
No because he could only win 7 matches in a row at wimby :twisted:
Yeah, and that makes him the best in that one Grand Slam tournament, and that's why he won it.
No because he could only win 7 matches in a row at wimby :twisted:
Because he was the best player in just that one Grand Slam tournament?
I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.
Yes and he is nr. 1 in it, at 31, we've heard it.No he has much more competition than he used to.
"This is the golden era"
Yes and he is nr. 1 in it, at 31, we've heard it.
Probably. Perhaps he would have a couple less in his prime, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. And then he would be raking in more now, because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out.Maybe but would he have had as many slams?
Its not maybe.Maybe but would he have had as many slams?
Probably. Perhaps he would have a couple less in his prime, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. And then he would be raking in more now, because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out.
Glad you agree.
I think he would.but he would probably not be considered the goat...
Probably. Perhaps he would have a couple less in his prime.
I think he would.
And I think he would not. You like this dance? ......let's just agree to disagree.....
Truth is I miss the rivalry more than anything !
Yeah yeah, because Rafa got hammered by Rosol at Wimby, and flunked out for the rest of the year? Yawn...Wasn't banned vphuck.....just bored.
Yeah yeah, because Rafa got hammered by Rosol at Wimby, and flunked out for the rest of the year? Yawn...
Back to bash some more of Fed, huh? Some pleasure are hard to take away.
I command thee, Discuss!
Sure . It's quality versus quantity.....
Fed supporters are convinced that Fed is the goat because of his 17 slams.
But Nadal supporters say that since Rafa beat Fed in most of his slams that his quality is better and that Nadal did it in a stronger era.
I agree with the later statement....
By analogy.......
I personally would rather be married to Brooklyn Decker than married to Mirka even though there is more of Mirka. ;-)
.
Sure . It's quality versus quantity.....
Fed supporters are convinced that Fed is the goat because of his 17 slams.
But Nadal supporters say that since Rafa beat Fed in most of his slams that his quality is better and that Nadal did it in a stronger era.
I agree with the later statement....
By analogy.......
I personally would rather be married to Brooklyn Decker than married to Mirka even though there is more of Mirka. ;-)
.
I personally would rather be married to Brooklyn Decker than married to Mirka even though there is more of Mirka. ;-)
.
Only an idiot would take 11 Grand Slams (there will be more, though) over 17.
I'd take Federer's career over Nadal's in a heartbeat and I think just about any pro would as well
I'd take Federer's career over Nadal's in a heartbeat and I think just about any pro would as well
The Dark Knight thinks that as time moves on people will look at the field and the quality but in reality its all about the STATS!!! and in that federer is the clear winner!! More Prize Money, More Ranking points, More wins, More GS
The Dark Knight thinks that as time moves on people will look at the field and the quality but in reality its all about the STATS!!! and in that federer is the clear winner!! More Prize Money, More Ranking points, More wins, More GS
Not true.....
Who's stats were better .....Borg or Mcenroe?
No one cares.....what they remember is that they had the greatest match of all time.......actually now the second best .
What everyone will remember is that Nadal beat Federer in his own house in the greatest match of all time . An epic!
No one remembers that Emerson had more grand slams than Laver either . Laver is considered by EVERYONE the better player.
Quality over quantity
See Federer has the biggest fan base in the tennis world so its not going to be like that. Federer is not going to be remembered as the guy who lost the wimby 2008 final but rather the guy who has the most succesful tennis career of ALL TIME and the likely GOAT!! Due to the face that he has the biggest fan base. Nadal on the other hand will be remembered as the clay GOAT and the guy who the epic match. Sampras was considered goat before fed because he had the most slams so basically all it comes down to is slams plus weeks at number 1 or YE number 1 all 3 federer leads against nadal and leads 2 against sampras
Federer will never get rid of the blemish on his record,,,,,.he just could not beat Nadal.
...except when he did, has, and still will in the future. Nadal will beat Fed in the future, too, just thinking logically at least. But in your sensationalist irrational mindset, Federer has "never" beaten Nadal, and so accomplishments don't matter, only who could see in the dark longer for a match.
More money,...the only reason. Only to you. At this stage, both Fed and Rafa have more money than their grand-grand-grand (to the X) kids can ever spend out.Well 17 slams does = more $$$$ . That would be the only reason .
However if $$$$ were not the issue I would take Nadals 11 slams over Feds 17 any day .......especially winning the "greatest match of all time ".
Clearly that is worth more than Feds Wimbledon over Philopusis.
I personally do not believe that all grand slam finals are created equal.
More money,...the only reason. Only to you. At this stage, both Fed and Rafa have more money than their grand-grand-grand (to the X) kids can ever spend out.
You and a few Rafa's fans on this forum seem to miss this point: # of slams matter. Who gives a rat's ass about who you face in a final (of GS). All it means is you and your opponent on that very particular day SUCCESSFULLY made through the previous 6 matches. Your opponent can be Mr. X, Y, or Z. It doesn't matter. You beat him. You win. Trophy is yours to keep forever. In this case, Fed has 17 to keep, and Rafa, only 11.
You kept bringing up Philippoussis and Hewitt, and Roddick to diminish Fed's achievements. If they were so weak, then where was your Rafa in each of this particular tournament when either of your weak player faced Fed in the GS final?
Name the year, the tournament and do a side-by-side comparo between these weak players and your Rafa (when Fed won these finals). Go ahead. Curious to see your comparo. Either Rafa got kicked out ealier, got injured, or didn't even play.
Your 11>17 argument is so laughable. So are "weak era", "greatest match of all time (when Rafa won)", "not a matchup issue", "Rafa is a beast", and so on and so forth....Keep spinning them...
where's the comparo?Fed has those slams because Rafa wasn't there.
Bouhoo, Rafa wasn't there! LOL.Fed has those slams because Rafa wasn't there.
Bouhoo, Rafa wasn't there! LOL.
See, for any Fed fan, they at least can say that Fed made it to the FO final 6 times and lost square and fair to Rafa. At least Fed made it to the final (Key sentence here in case you miss it).
In your case, Rafa wasn't there in each of those final where your weak player faced Fed. So if they were weak, Rafa must be even weaker for not being there. Your logic, isn't it right?
Nope.
Rafa style of game is very physical. He plays hurt....he played hurt at the FO and then skipped Wimbledon .
His doctors told him at age 18 that he would never be able to play tennis again but he just fights on.
Rafa battles his war torn body as well as his opponents. But we all know deep down that Nadal is the better player. You know it , I know it and everyone knows it.......admitting is a different story.
Fed has those slams because Rafa wasn't there.
Bouhoo. Bouhoo...Nope.
Rafa style of game is very physical. He plays hurt....he played hurt at the FO and then skipped Wimbledon .
His doctors told him at age 18 that he would never be able to play tennis again but he just fights on.
Rafa battles his war torn body as well as his opponents. But we all know deep down that Nadal is the better player. You know it , I know it and everyone knows it.......admitting is a different story.
No in my mind....he has never really beaten Nadal.
History really only remembers the slams.....for example the only thing that is remembered about Chang is that he beat Lendl at the FO ( with a cramp and an underhanded serve!)...... No one cares about anything else he has done.
So only slams matter.....and yeah Fed beat Nadal when he was labeled a clay court specialist......but in my mind those two wins did not really mean all that much as he was still developing as a player.
The same holds true for rafter beating Federer on clay hard and grass. No one places much value on that because Federer was a developing player as was Nadal.
Huh, what part of your answer above explains all the GS finals that Fed won without having Rafa on the other side of the net? Is it a rule in tennis that Fed has to pamper Rafa and take him by the hand all the way to the final in each tournament they play?Rafa style of game is very physical. He plays hurt....he played hurt at the FO and then skipped Wimbledon .
His doctors told him at age 18 that he would never be able to play tennis again but he just fights on.
Rafa battles his war torn body as well as his opponents.
(Before I take my morning cup of coffee) I take 11 GS titles over 17 any time, any where, any how.I know this will change soon but it's ridiculous that
Federer (17) = Nadal + Djokovic + Murray (11+5+1)
(Before I take my morning cup of coffee) I take 11 GS titles over 17 any time, any where, any how.
(After my cup of coffee)Christ, how moron did I just sound? Hope no one heard what I said!
Bouhoo. Bouhoo...
Where's the comparo that I asked? Too ashamed to show? Show it and explain to us how Rafa, being such a superior, stronger player (in your mind) than Hewitt, Roddick, Philippoussis, wasn't there in these finals? Explain to us how a weaker player got through the 6 matches of a GS to face Fed, whereas the invicible Rafa was nowhere to be found in such tournament? Go ahead, I'm listening.
For all your talk about Rafa being so much stronger than Fed, where was he in all these finals? Why let the weaker players take his place?
Bouhoo, bouhoo... Cry on, TDK.