At their best, who would win?
- Thread starter Graphiteking
- Start date
No, I mean that GOAT Federer near his prime is capable of only winning one major out of 12. That's a shame!
abmk
Bionic Poster
firstly federer's peak was from 2004-07,
his prime from wimbledon 2003-AO 2010
Saying federer is near his prime now is as insane as saying rosewall was near his prime when he ripped apart by connors in 74 @ the W and the USO
and finally, he has won 2 majors out of the last 12 - AO 2010 and Wimbledon 2012
abmk
Bionic Poster
because he's past his best. His best years were from 2004-07 and prime from wimbledon 2003-AO 2010
He still won wimbledon 2012 and was the only one to stop novak @ a major in 2011 .......he played djoker much better in 2011 than prime nadal did .. and this was a past his prime federer
and of course he won the AO in 2010
this is not an era where it is easy to contend during old age as it was in the laver-rosewall era ... there is a lot more power and defense involved unlike the finesse/touch in those days ...
what does you being a rosewall admirer have anything to do with santana ? Santana and the rest of the sane world would laugh at your suggestion that santana was more talented than federer ...
tell me seriously , I mean, very seriously, around how many matches of federer did you watch circa 2004-07
abmk
Bionic Poster
eh , what ?????? I just mentioned matches where federer's BH/volleys were brilliant in contradiction to your false statement that federer shows his best form with BH/volleys rarely against the best players ... Bitter pill to swallow ?
abmk
Bionic Poster
agreed ... he was brilliant at volleying in Wimbledon 2012 ... some of the finest volleying I've seen at a major since tsonga's performance in the AO 2008 SF vs nadal
Please Bobby, explain me about the uber strong opposition that mighty Ken faced during his peak years. I declare my self an ignorant but i will give it a shot. You are trying to tell us that the field Rosewall played against during his peak years (1961-1964) was much much better than the one Fed had to face (2004-2007). Let`s take a look. This amazing field was composed of past his prime Gonzalez (a part time player by the way), Lew "i can`t play 2 consecutive matches without destrying my back" Hoad, a "fresh" Laver (who by the way when he reached his prime made a snack of Rosewall in 1964). But wait, there is more, how could i forgot Gimeno, Buchholz, Mc Kay, Ayala, Olmedo and many other legends of the game. Extraterrestrial players this last ones, without any doubt. This "dream team" was light years ahead of the one composed by young Nadal (a major force on clay since 2005 and a major force on grass since 2006-7), young Djokovic (a major force on hard since 2007), old (but still competitive) Agassi, peak Safin (watch late 2004-early 2005 Marat and then talk about Hoad), IMO peak Hewitt (2004), peak Roddick, Coria (arguably a better claycourter than Gimeno), Nalbandian, Haas, Blake, Ferrer, Davydenko, Ljubicic, etc. I can see it clearly now, thanks for enlightening me.
In all serioussnes cut the crap. Muscles being such a "flawless" player couldn`t even dominate all his peak years (he was only clear number 1 in 62,63). So again, who took advantage of a weak field?? Honestly, i can`t see Kenny winning his pro slam with one of his main rivals (Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver) in full form. Arguably his peak began around 58-59 but he had to wait untill Gonzalez, Hoad, Sedgman and Segura, lowered their level or gone away.
You are starting to look more and more like an armchair expert who rarely picked up a racquet (if you ever did). I hate to say this (because you seem to
be a knowledgable poster) but you are becoming a bitter troll. A vast majority of experts (old experts too, and you know that) wouldn`t place Rosewall above Federer nowadays. He is in a league of his own (IMO with Laver and Gonzalez and that is it).
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Seeing that there were 5 posts in a row from that blabbering abmk, most likely talking to himself as usual, makes me so relieved I put that squawky Federer addict on ignore.
abmk, it's clear for you: Federer was as long in his prime as he won the majors...
Could you imagine that Federer's low balance since years has something to do with the fact that Nadal and Djokovic (and recently Murray) have improved step by step, players who Federer could handle when they were youngsters?
I was limited in my tennis watching for several years because in Austria they did not broadcast all important matches. But I can assure you that I have seen enough from Federer and his opponents to be able to judge.
You did not understand why I mentioned that I am a Rosewall admirer. Because I wanted to show that I rate Santana very high even though I'm not a Santana admirer as much as I am a Rosewall admirer. Santana was not one of the strongest players in history but they say he had tremendous touch. F. i. he could slice the ball so that came back over the netcord before his opponent could reach it...
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
No, it's NOT undisputed. It only exists in the minds of nostalgic and few jealous posters who are here with an agenda.
In one of the posts you mentioned Hewitt, Safin and Roddick as weak opposition. Do you know that Hewitt and Safin have both winning head to head against the legendary Pete Sampras? If you have seen Roddick in the early days he wouldn't have said that nonsense.
Here is the catch 22 situation. Hewitt and Safin had better head to head than Sampras. Sampras was past his prime and lost to them. Howevrer in the last 12 majors, Roger was also past his prime..
The weak era theory has been slapped on the face by Roger becoming number one in this year..
ARFED, It's a question who is a troll and who not.
Just two points. Rosewall beat Gonzalez at Paris when Pancho was still in his prime (at least he claims that he was No.1 then).
Coria a better claycourter than Gimeno? No comment.
Feather
Legend
So do you mean to say Federer is in his prime in 2012? Then I know how much you have seen Federer play.
So if Federer is in his prime when he won last major then Sampras is also in his prime when he won the last major, US Open 2002. Hewitt and Safin have a winning H2H against a "prime" Sampras. How are they weak players if they have a winning H2H against Sampras? :wink:
Federer won AO 2012, and in the last 12 majors he has won two. Olympics is NOT a major. I know it serves to suit your agenda to make it one out of 12 but sorry, it's NOT a major. The final is player five setters but that doesn't even remotely make it a major. Twisting the facts to prove a point sounds very cheap. It's also to be noted that you omit the major he won and selectively opt for the last ones.
It's either one out of 11 or 2 out of 12
Feather
Legend
Go watch some videos in youtube and find out what Federer was in 2004-2007. A guy who has played 14 years on tour and with all the mileage is expected to be in his prime by a veteran who claims to have seen Tennis from the 60s.
I have a question for you.
We are all ignorant Federer worshipping idiots. Rod Laver said that Federer is the closest to a GOAT. Rod cannot obviously say that he is the best of all time. It sounds arrogant. So let us assume that he was being humble when he didn't say he is the best. Laver is number one. Why did he say Roger is the closest to number one? I am sure he would have known better about all these guys who you so nostalgically harp about. Why Laver didn't say that Pancho, Hoad, Rosewall or Tilden is better than Roger? I can understand the reasons due to which he cannot say he is the best but why he didn't say that the others are better than Roger?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Indeed, as PC1 would say, I'm sure Laver forgot more about tennis then most of us know about it
.Laver also doesn't strike me as the type to say what people want to hear in front of the camera nor as an attention seeker (like say Cash or Wilander), humble definitely but also straightforward, for example he did say he'd pit himself against anyone with a wood and (my favourite) called Nadal's attempt at winning 4 slams in a row in 2011 AO a mini-slam.
That said, there's another side to the coin, Fed himself always praises past greats and doesn't put himself above them (yet a few of his fans here often do), I mean he didn't break down and cry when Laver handed him the trophy in 2006 because he thought that in Laver's days a BH constituted for a grandpa push slice and that the game has evolved so much that Laver would be another Santoro today (or similar nonsense).
Feather. It could be that Laver referred to the strength of the players and meant that Federer, with his modern equipment, could be stronger than the players of the past.
You probably agree with me (and not with Dan) that those lists of the players mostly refer to playing strength. Thus the very high estimation of Hoad by Laver, Rosewall and other former players.
It's interesting that Rosewall ranks Federer "only" at fourth place. Is he inferior in ranking than Laver? I think we should rate those lists as subjective ones.
Frew McMillan, the commentator of Eurosport, uses to deny that Federer is the GOAT. A non-expert?
Last edited:
Indeed, as PC1 would say, I'm sure Laver forgot more about tennis then most of us know about it
Laver also doesn't strike me as the type to say what people want to hear in front of the camera nor as an attention seeker (like say Cash or Wilander), humble definitely but also straightforward, for example he did say he'd pit himself against anyone with a wood and (my favourite) called Nadal's attempt at winning 4 slams in a row in 2011 AO a mini-slam.
That said, there's another side to the coin, Fed himself always praises past greats and doesn't put himself above them (yet a few of his fans here often do), I mean he didn't break down and cry when Laver handed him the trophy in 2006 because he thought that in Laver's days a BH constituted for a grandpa push slice and that the game has evolved so much that Laver would be another Santoro today (or similar nonsense).
zagor, you seem to be more reasonable than a few other posters here.
forzamilan90
Legend
Indeed, as PC1 would say, I'm sure Laver forgot more about tennis then most of us know about it
Laver also doesn't strike me as the type to say what people want to hear in front of the camera nor as an attention seeker (like say Cash or Wilander), humble definitely but also straightforward, for example he did say he'd pit himself against anyone with a wood and (my favourite) called Nadal's attempt at winning 4 slams in a row in 2011 AO a mini-slam.
That said, there's another side to the coin, Fed himself always praises past greats and doesn't put himself above them (yet a few of his fans here often do), I mean he didn't break down and cry when Laver handed him the trophy in 2006 because he thought that in Laver's days a BH constituted for a grandpa push slice and that the game has evolved so much that Laver would be another Santoro today (or similar nonsense).
Fed is humble when talking about his place in history. He's said that he doesn't feel he is better than Lendl for example but really we all know Lendl isn't even in the same class
forzamilan90
Legend
Bobby Federer didn't win AO 2012
confused He won Wimbledon this Year. I thought you said you watched matches.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
BobbyOne, allow me to not quote differents points (tedious work) you made on which I want to give you my view.
Regarding Fed's backhand, you said that it was inferior to his forehand and that it did broke sometimes against Djokovic. You are right. His backhand is his weaker side relative to his forehand. That doesn't make it weak overall. Also, remember the point made by Forzamilan (if y recall) that he uses it close to the baseline, which is risked. Beside, the match I hinted you is a past-prime Fed against an absolute peak Djokovic on his worst surface. Therefore, it would be too much to expect no mistake. The canonical match to demonstrate what Fed can do with his backhand is the 2006 WTF final against James Blake. In this match, Fed was in is peak on his favourite surface against an inferior opponent. I couldn't find the complete match, but there is a selection of Fed's backhands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2OcNKr011E
Regarding the failure from Rosewall to win Wimbledon, let me make clear that I don't hold it against him. I only used this exemple as a rethorical argument because I thought that you had a double standard. I am one person who will never blame a player for reaching a slam final, or even a semi-final. Actually I hold in higher esteem 5 finals loss than only one win in only one final appearance. In my view, there is numerous aleas that can prevent a player, or allow him, to win a final, "regardless" of their true worthiness. But it is no hazard to reach 5 finals. I prefer consistency to flamboyance.
Regarding the weak era argument. It comes form the fact that Fed's early rivals faded after 2005-2006. They are thus considered as weak players mostly because of their past-2005 resume. I claim that their 2005-current form says nothing of their pre-2005 form, at least for Hewitt and Roddick. Hewitt lost to the eventual slam winner in each slam he entered in 2005 (he missed RG) and could probably remain a top player the following years without all his injuries. Roddick made stupid choice regarding his game plan form 2005, when he stopped to hit his forehand as hard as he can. Observation of his pre-2005 game and of his post-2005 game tell a lot about his decline. He still managed to lead the H2H with Djokovic 6-5, every matches happening in 2007 and after. Hewitt has a 4-6 H2H with Nadal. His victories happened before that Nadal reached his full potential on hard and grass, but he was already a wothy player in 2005, winning 2 master 1000 and reaching the miami final. 5 of Nadal's win happened on clay.
Of all opponents Fed beated in slam final before 2007, only Gonzales and Baghdatis could be seen as weak opposition, as it was in both case their first slam final, which can cause a weaker performance due to pressure.
Finally regarding the assessing of the prime or peak level of players, this can't be made by looking at result, but only by looking actual level of play. It would be a nonsense to say that Federer is still in his prime because he was able to win a slam in 2012, just as it is to say that Agassi was still in his prime in 2003 for the same reason. Looking at Fed today, it is obvious that he is slower than before, which prevent him from hitting as many forehands winners than before (trunk rotation plays a huge role).
It is also unfair to ask players from differents eras to have a similarly shaped carreer. Players in the 50's 60's could play much longer than now, where most players retire in early 30 (Roddick, Gonzales, Ferrero, etc.). The length of the careers has more to do with the structural playing conditions of an era than with the individual athletes. And Agassi in an exception.
Regarding Fed's backhand, you said that it was inferior to his forehand and that it did broke sometimes against Djokovic. You are right. His backhand is his weaker side relative to his forehand. That doesn't make it weak overall. Also, remember the point made by Forzamilan (if y recall) that he uses it close to the baseline, which is risked. Beside, the match I hinted you is a past-prime Fed against an absolute peak Djokovic on his worst surface. Therefore, it would be too much to expect no mistake. The canonical match to demonstrate what Fed can do with his backhand is the 2006 WTF final against James Blake. In this match, Fed was in is peak on his favourite surface against an inferior opponent. I couldn't find the complete match, but there is a selection of Fed's backhands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2OcNKr011E
Regarding the failure from Rosewall to win Wimbledon, let me make clear that I don't hold it against him. I only used this exemple as a rethorical argument because I thought that you had a double standard. I am one person who will never blame a player for reaching a slam final, or even a semi-final. Actually I hold in higher esteem 5 finals loss than only one win in only one final appearance. In my view, there is numerous aleas that can prevent a player, or allow him, to win a final, "regardless" of their true worthiness. But it is no hazard to reach 5 finals. I prefer consistency to flamboyance.
Regarding the weak era argument. It comes form the fact that Fed's early rivals faded after 2005-2006. They are thus considered as weak players mostly because of their past-2005 resume. I claim that their 2005-current form says nothing of their pre-2005 form, at least for Hewitt and Roddick. Hewitt lost to the eventual slam winner in each slam he entered in 2005 (he missed RG) and could probably remain a top player the following years without all his injuries. Roddick made stupid choice regarding his game plan form 2005, when he stopped to hit his forehand as hard as he can. Observation of his pre-2005 game and of his post-2005 game tell a lot about his decline. He still managed to lead the H2H with Djokovic 6-5, every matches happening in 2007 and after. Hewitt has a 4-6 H2H with Nadal. His victories happened before that Nadal reached his full potential on hard and grass, but he was already a wothy player in 2005, winning 2 master 1000 and reaching the miami final. 5 of Nadal's win happened on clay.
Of all opponents Fed beated in slam final before 2007, only Gonzales and Baghdatis could be seen as weak opposition, as it was in both case their first slam final, which can cause a weaker performance due to pressure.
Finally regarding the assessing of the prime or peak level of players, this can't be made by looking at result, but only by looking actual level of play. It would be a nonsense to say that Federer is still in his prime because he was able to win a slam in 2012, just as it is to say that Agassi was still in his prime in 2003 for the same reason. Looking at Fed today, it is obvious that he is slower than before, which prevent him from hitting as many forehands winners than before (trunk rotation plays a huge role).
It is also unfair to ask players from differents eras to have a similarly shaped carreer. Players in the 50's 60's could play much longer than now, where most players retire in early 30 (Roddick, Gonzales, Ferrero, etc.). The length of the careers has more to do with the structural playing conditions of an era than with the individual athletes. And Agassi in an exception.
Forza, At least I can agree here that Federer is in a higher class than Lendl, at least what achievements concerns.
Last edited:
forzamilan90
Legend
I assume you mean Lendl in the 2nd part of that sentence
Bobby Federer didn't win AO 2012
Forza, My mistake. I meant he won the AO of 2010, the last major before his premature losing streak began. I do know that Federer won this year's Wimbledon, a great effort.
Forza, Yes, again my error. I'm seriously ill these days. I'm sorry.
forzamilan90
Legend
Get better. We need you in top form for these discussions
Flash O' Groove,
Thanks for your arguments. I agree with many of them. I fully agree when you write you prefer consistency over flamboyance. Maybe that's one reason why I admire Rosewall even more than Laver whom I also admire more than all other players past and presence.
Federer's backhand: I saw many bh mistakes of him since many years, not only since he lost his prime level.
Thanks, Forza, not only for your wish for a good recovering but also for your statement that you (all) need me in top form for the "severe" discussions.
I believe: In 20 years from now, if we all then are alive yet, we will laugh about our hard-fought clashes on talk tennis from 20 years ago.....
forzamilan90
Legend
Bobby as per your reply to Flash, so you do admit he's not at prime level anymore? Ergo no reason why he "should" be racking up majors as you suggested (29-31 age frame) on a previous post
Forza, two contra arguments.
Federer's downturn began at 28 which is a bit "early" for such a praised GOAT contender. 28 is mostly within of the best years of a great tennis player.
Some extraordinary players have won more than only one major after their prime, see Rosewall or Connors. Laver is a special case: Was his 1969 GS in or after his prime?
But perhaps Federer will yet win one or two majors.
forzamilan90
Legend
That's the thing even if you want to say ok he won only one major after his prime, Fed is still an active player and considering he'll play until 2016 most likely his final major count is still speculative (would be nice if he can hit the 20 mark). The final chapter on his career hasn't been written just yet.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Bobby, comparing Connors, Rosewall and Federer carreer duration is not fair because the structural playing conditions of the game have changed. Connors is an exception of longevity. We don't have enough distance yet to know how long a carreer can last under the current condition. We have to wait to see how Nadal, Djokovic and Murray can perform in their 30's to know if it is normal to be "old" at 30, or if Federer lacks of longevity.
By the way, winning is not the only thing that matter. While he can't dominate as earlier, he as still a 34 quarterfinal streak in slam, he has reached a record of 32 slam semi-finals, and continue to win master 1000 and WTF. He is clearly still a strong competitor, especially in the consistency department.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, except BobbyOne is concentrating only on "winning" majors when it comes to federer... even connors did that only for a period of 10 years (1974-1983 ) ....... same as federer has already ( 2003-2012 )
Flash, I can agree at least with a part of the first paragraph and with the whole second.
Gruezi to Switzerland or should I rather say Salut...
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, federer also used to want to win basel badly ( before he actually did in 2006 ) .... doesn't mean it becomes a major or anywhere close to it ... Olympics is still well below the Year Ending Championships ( which federer won in 2010 and 2011 ) , let alone majors ...
abmk, Maybe I'm concentrating to Roger's 17 major wins because they are mentioned very often by Federer fans as a proof of his greatness.
I'm aware that Federer keeps some other record feats.
abmk, the day when you firstly are not praising Federer's feats will be a special day.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, prime years for a player, means he should be able to produce his best tennis or close to it consistently ...
that is only one factor .......... Can you not think that federer's decline with age is a MUCH MUCH bigger factor ?
even now federer can bagel djoker, nadal and when he turned the clock around in the final 2 sets of the wimbledon final, murray while playing well, couldn't keep up
what makes you think that nadal is better than federer on any surface off clay ?
djokovic on any surface except may be slow HC ...even in 2011, past his prime federer beat him @ RG and had MPs vs him @ USO
(djoker got 1 set in 3 meetings at the USO from 2007-09 )
I don't quite think so .... if that is indeed the case, either your tennis observations skills aren't good enough or you are very biased against federer ...
anyways go ahead, let us see how many matches of federer you can mention and describe where he played well ......
yeah and federer has both power and touch ..... its not even close ...
now if someone mentions mac's touch, feel and finesse ( throw in his wicked lefty serve ) , yeah, now that is real exceptional .....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
except that post doesn't contain any praise of federer ......
Secondly, I've praised plenty of players depending on the context ...
I think that we should refer to REAL matches that actually took place rather than a FANTASY match, which is subjective in the extreme.
The result of the GOAT match was played in Kooyong in January 1958;
Hoad df. Gonzales 4-6, 9-7, 11-9, 18-16.
Both players agreed that this was the GOAT match.
treblings
Hall of Fame
Nadal and Djokovic not stronger than the current Federer? I then wonder who the players have been who prevented Roger from winning 10 majors in the last three years...
Dan, fine that you again are posting. I recently was engaged with some Federer stuff. It's just time to discuss the Hoad stuff again...
I think there are several matches better than 1958 Kooyong, among them Laver/Rosewll at the 1966 US Pro, Laver/Rosewall 1964 and 1967 Wembley finals, Rosewall/Laver 1972 Dallas finals, maybe Borg/McEnroe 1980 W.
meaning they agreed that the two of them were the best in the world?
treblings, perhaps for that year but I doubt they meant all-time.
Graphiteking
Rookie
Maybe we, the younger generation, get caught up in the now of the tennis world. Similar to the younger kids that think Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan in their prime. I've never seen clips of Gonzalez or Hoad. So I can't base my conclusion on them. I've been a Fed fan for years, but I love how Djokovic competes and wears his emotions on his sleeve. I'm 36 so I have seen a lot of tennis. Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, Conners and etc are all great but for one match, in their prime, its Fed.
treblings
Hall of Fame
they might have agreed that it was their best match against each other up to that point. i´d be surprised if they thought it was the best match ever
forzamilan90
Legend
The "now" mentality you mentioned is true...to an extent. In the case of Lebron he hasn't even come close to matching Jordan's career yet. The basketball community overall would never place Lebron alongside Jordan at this point..trophies simply aren't there yet (Jordan is incredibly revered still, unmatched)
In Fed's case the now mentality is irrelevant considering he owns the open era record book by a considerable margin. He's also got the stats, the trophies everything to back up such claims. The hype here is fully justified. Now if some kids were saying that right now Novak>Fed when that doesn't make sense when his numbers ain't even remotely close, then we can say yeah them kids don't know jack.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Fairly obvious that I was talking about peak federer , not current day federer ....
Similar threads
