Applying TW Federer logic Nadal and Emerson are greater than Laver

The Dark Knight · Jun 12, 2013

Nitish ,

As I said I was doing everything off the top of my head.

Now you say Borg Mcenroe has a three year difference .

Fedal is only 5 years difference and barely because I think Nadal is now actually 28. So the difference is 4 years versus 3 ....am
I right ?

All i care about is slams and i refuse to treat all matches equally because they are not equal ....

And in slams mcenroe leads 2-1 and not 8-2 ( more like 8-0 in my book ).

Connors is older and I'm not sure how much older he was than the rest . I do know however that the older Connors beat the younger Borg on clay at the us open.

Older Connors also beat younger Mcenroe at Wimbledon .

In fact Older Borg beat younger Lendl on clay AND Lend was using a graphite racquet and Borg only a wood......what do you have to say to that one ?

But never before has the te #1 player been soooooo dominated by the #2......not by this margin ......NEVER.

So it's not the age as you can see. The best answer I think for this occurrence is because a guy like ferrero who was #1 in the world was just not strong enough competition. I'm sorry to say but it's obvious .....painfully obvious .

This is why this anomaly exists for the first time on history .

Nitish · Jun 12, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Nitish ,

As I said I was doing everything off the top of my head.

Now you say Borg Mcenroe has a three year difference .

Fedal is only 5 years difference and barely because I think Nadal is now actually 28. So the difference is 4 years versus 3 ....am
I right ?

All i care about is slams and i refuse to treat all matches equally because they are not equal ....

And in slams mcenroe leads 2-1 and not 8-2 ( more like 8-0 in my book ).

Connors is older and I'm not sure how much older he was than the rest . I do know however that the older Connors beat the younger Borg on clay at the us open.

Older Connors also beat younger Mcenroe at Wimbledon .

In fact Older Borg beat younger Lendl on clay AND Lend was using a graphite racquet and Borg only a wood......what do you have to say to that one ?

But never before has the te #1 player been soooooo dominated by the #2......not by this margin ......NEVER.

So it's not the age as you can see. The best answer I think for this occurrence is because a guy like ferrero who was #1 in the world was just not strong enough competition. I'm sorry to say but it's obvious .....painfully obvious .

This is why this anomaly exists for the first time on history .

Regarding borg and mcenroe borg should lead the h2h considering he was young when he retired but they never met on clay,borgs best surface and mcenroes worst.The reason i bring this up is sometimes h2h dosnt tell the whole story.

IMO age difference is a factor.They never met on HC slams till 2009 and fed leads the h2h in wimby if nadal was a baby back then fed is old now.They met on AO in 09 and 12.They havent met at the USO still.You say fed hasnt declined take a look at these links you might reconsider.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453446&highlight=age+distribution
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=464502

Regarding the transition era debate name one great clay courter whom nadal beat at RG,if you look at the clay field its pretty weak.Rafas biggest rival on clay is Fed whose weakest surface is clay and novak whos weakest surface is also clay as of now(has a wimby title).Roger has tied H2H against novak so he cant really be that much better than Fed.The reason the clay field is weak is because of rafas domination sameway the field looked weak back in 03-07.
For the record i dont think Fed is the GOAT and i dont think rafa has surpassed him yet but i think he will in the future.

The Dark Knight · Jun 12, 2013

Nitish said:
IMO age difference is a factor.They never met on HC slams till 2009 and fed leads the h2h in wimby if nadal was a baby back then fed is old now.They met on AO in 09 and 12.They havent met at the USO still.You say fed hasnt declined take a look at these links you might reconsider.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453446&highlight=age+distribution
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=464502

Regarding the transition era debate name one great clay courter whom nadal beat at RG,if you look at the clay field its pretty weak.Rafas biggest rival on clay is Fed whose weakest surface is clay and novak whos weakest surface is also clay as of now(has a wimby title).Roger has tied H2H against novak so he cant really be that much better than Fed.The reason the clay field is weak is because of rafas domination sameway the field looked weak back in 03-07.
For the record i dont think Fed is the GOAT and i dont think rafa has surpassed him yet but i think he will in the future.

As I have shown you age has not been a factor before ....not for domination like this . It's never happened before so why now?

Borg mcenroe had a 3 year age difference and Fedal has a four year age difference . Their slam records were 2-1

Lendl Borg was also a four year age difference and Lendl used a graphite racquet!

Connors Lendl was an 8 year difference !

And so on and so on.

So why does this domination exist for the first time in history ? Age has been a factor before but still no domination like this. So why? Why? Why?

I know it's painful but the truth is it's because Feds competition was just not that great as When Nadal developed into a man and that's the reason Fed has not been able to win in a slam against Rafa since 2008.

By the way 2009 Nadal skipped wimby and guess who is in the final .....our old friend Roddick of course. 2010 the king returns and wins Wimbledon.

Proof enough for me.

Nitish · Jun 12, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
As I have shown you age has not been a factor before ....not for domination like this . It's never happened before so why now?

Borg mcenroe had a 3 year age difference and Fedal has a four year age difference . Their slam records were 2-1

Lendl Borg was also a four year age difference and Lendl used a graphite racquet!

Connors Lendl was an 8 year difference !

And so on and so on.

So why does this domination exist for the first time in history ? Age has been a factor before but still no domination like this. So why? Why? Why?

I know it's painful but the truth is it's because Feds competition was just not that great as When Nadal developed into a man and that's the reason Fed has not been able to win in a slam against Rafa since 2008.

By the way 2009 Nadal skipped wimby and guess who is in the final .....our old friend Roddick of course. 2010 the king returns and wins Wimbledon.

Proof enough for me.

Yes of course but they never met on clay,remove clay from fedal its 3-2.If feds era as so weak how come weak era roddick made a slam final and sem final beating strong era murray and strong era djoko in AO.By the way weak era rodickk leads the h2h against novak.If you say novak was weak before 2011 then rafa too won during a weak era.And whats your point with connors-lendl ,lendl leads 22-13

Ralph · Jun 12, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Fed is claimed to be the goat because he has more slams than anyone in history.

Therefore following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12 slams on three surfaces while Laver has 11 slams on 2 surfaces .

Furthermore Emerson should also be considered greater than Laver as Emerson has more slams .....according to TW Federer logic .

I really care not at the content of your post here, per se, but have noticed yet again that it is ANOTHER thread regarding how good Federer isn't, or is overrated, or doesn't deserve his accolade.

Why do you spend so much energy in a negative manner, continually trying to make people agree with you, when it clearly doesn't work? There is so much negative energy from you most of the time. It only succeeds in worsening your own mental health.

Federer fans will believe that which they want to, and more often than not those that will agree with you will be anti-Fed fans regardless, and not all of them Ralph fans. Even if you do end up posting a thread worthwhile, it will lose so much effectiveness as you're tainted as just a hater. You're shooting yourself in the foot almost.

ScottleeSV · Jun 12, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
So why does this domination exist for the first time in history ? Age has been a factor before but still no domination like this. So why? Why? Why?

I know it's painful but the truth is....

The truth is, Nadal is much better on clay than Federer, and as they've met more times on this surface, the h2h is skewered. It's really not much more complicated than that.

Clay meetings = 15
Grass = 3
Indoor hard = 4

etc etc etc.

That's the main factor. To a lesser extent, age has also contributed. Nadal is closer to 5 years younger than Federer (not 4 as you stated). That's half a decade.

The Dark Knight · Jun 12, 2013

ScottleeSV said:
The truth is, Nadal is much better on clay than Federer, and as they've met more times on this surface, the h2h is skewered. It's really not much more complicated than that.

Clay meetings = 15
Grass = 3
Indoor hard = 4

etc etc etc.

That's the main factor. To a lesser extent, age has also contributed. Nadal is closer to 5 years younger than Federer (not 4 as you stated). That's half a decade.

I agree it's not complicated but sadly you are wrong .

I do not treat all matches equal because they are not equal . That's a fact.

I'm looking at the slams because that's all that matters.

Almost half of Nadals wins in the slams came on non clay actually .

Of Nadals 8 slam wins against fed 3 of them came on hards and grass.

So therefore your clay theory is wrong .

Rather the only clear explanation is the painful truth that Feds competition was subpar. It's hard pill to swallow.....but it is nevertheless true.

ScottleeSV · Jun 12, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
I'm looking at the slams because that's all that matters.
.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Come back when Nadal has 17.

The Dark Knight · Jun 12, 2013

Nitish said:
Yes of course but they never met on clay,remove clay from fedal its 3-2.If feds era as so weak how come weak era roddick made a slam final and sem final beating strong era murray and strong era djoko in AO.By the way weak era rodickk leads the h2h against novak.If you say novak was weak before 2011 then rafa too won during a weak era.And whats your point with connors-lendl ,lendl leads 22-13

Why should you remove clay? Why not remove grass....then it's 7-0 !!

The Dark Knight · Jun 12, 2013

ScottleeSV said:
Now we're getting somewhere!

Come back when Nadal has 17.

And here we go again .

The robotic TW Fed argument . That's all you guys really have .

But by that logic Nadal is the the is greatest to ever play the sport .....even better than Laver. By the way by that logic laver could be 6 on the list as Emerson has more slams than Laver .

But the truth is that everyone considers Laver better . So the number of slams has never been the only criteria.

mellowyellow · Jun 12, 2013

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.... You mean their are not greater than Laver?

qwertre · Jun 12, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
And here we go again .

The robotic TW Fed argument . That's all you guys really have .

But by that logic Nadal is the the is greatest to ever play the sport .....even better than Laver. By the way by that logic laver could be 6 on the list as Emerson has more slams than Laver .

But the truth is that everyone considers Laver better . So the number of slams has never been the only criteria.

Nope. But it is a damn important criterion. Also, your argument about how "almost half" of Nadal's slam wins have been on grass or hard? 3/8 is not really "almost half." The fact is still that the clay majority skews the record, like it or not. Nadal is the CGOAT, we've established that. No need to keep going over it from different perspectives.

mightyrick · Jun 12, 2013

Ralph said:
Federer fans will believe that which they want to, and more often than not those that will agree with you will be anti-Fed fans regardless, and not all of them Ralph fans. Even if you do end up posting a thread worthwhile, it will lose so much effectiveness as you're tainted as just a hater. You're shooting yourself in the foot almost.

Here's the issue, I have. Most Federer fans on this board classify you instantly as "anti-Fed" just because you don't believe he's the GOAT.

We can sit here and praise him constantly, call him Tier #1, call him one of the greatest... etc... etc. But it doesn't matter. Unless we say Fed is #1... we're "anti-Fed".

qwertre · Jun 12, 2013

mightyrick said:
Here's the issue, I have. Most Federer fans on this board classify you instantly as "anti-Fed" just because you don't believe he's the GOAT.

We can sit here and praise him constantly, call him Tier #1, call him one of the greatest... etc... etc. But it doesn't matter. Unless we say Fed is #1... we're "anti-Fed".

I totally agree! Most of the time, I argue for Fed because he's certainly higher on my list than Nadal, but I don't say he's the GOAT purely because of the cross-era conjectures and ridiculous comparisons that one has to make to definitively settle the debate.

Ralph · Jun 12, 2013

mightyrick said:
Here's the issue, I have. Most Federer fans on this board classify you instantly as "anti-Fed" just because you don't believe he's the GOAT.

We can sit here and praise him constantly, call him Tier #1, call him one of the greatest... etc... etc. But it doesn't matter. Unless we say Fed is #1... we're "anti-Fed".

It might have been the 'danger of text' in my post, but please note that I didn't call him such and am not calling him the GOAT - I don't believe he, or anyone else, can be...For reasons stated in many threads elsewhere. Please also note that I stated 'most of' the people in agreement with the OP tend will 'most likely' be of similar ilk. He's preaching to the converted as is, who already sing from his hymn sheet, hence my post.

qwertre said:
I totally agree! Most of the time, I argue for Fed because he's certainly higher on my list than Nadal, but I don't say he's the GOAT purely because of the cross-era conjectures and ridiculous comparisons that one has to make to definitively settle the debate.

Precisely. My point to the OP wasn't to say that Federer IS the GOAT, it's purely because I'm fed up of seeing his continual bashing of Federer to no avail.

TheTruth · Jun 12, 2013

mightyrick said:
Here's the issue, I have. Most Federer fans on this board classify you instantly as "anti-Fed" just because you don't believe he's the GOAT.

We can sit here and praise him constantly, call him Tier #1, call him one of the greatest... etc... etc. But it doesn't matter. Unless we say Fed is #1... we're "anti-Fed".

Right. Not thinking he's the GOAT doesn't make you anti-Fed or a hater.

mike danny · Jun 12, 2013

TheTruth said:
Right. Not thinking he's the GOAT doesn't make you anti-Fed or a hater.

well i do not beleive he is the goat either. but bashing means he played in a weak era with no evidence whatsoever, he was lucky to not face player x, he was a weak era benefactor, a turkey and so on. this is bashing. i agree the h2h against nadal is a blemish on his legacy but he is not the goat because of it not because of the weak competition. if the weak competition was the thing he should not lead djokovic in the h2h and murray in the slam h2h. his only problem is nadal. but it is mainly a match-up issue. heck if federer benefited form a weak era how come he was the only one to defeat the strong era terminator djokovic in 2011 and in a slam while the strong era goat nadal could not. something just does not fit here

mike danny · Jun 12, 2013

i mean that incredible match against djokovic should be proof enough that he simply won slams because he is that good. not the goat but just that good. he is although a goat contender just not the official goat untill both him and rafa retire. and as a goat contender he would win 10+ slams in any era. not 17 but still 10+ meaning double digit number of slams. this is how the goat contenders separate themselves form all-time greats: they have the ability to win 10+ slams in any other era like federer, nadal, sampras, laver and others

mike danny · Jun 12, 2013

plus it is not easy to keep winning slams with 2 all-time greats competing with you. sampras never had to deal with something like this, not prime, not even post prime. so federer has a tougher task because he has to keep doing this while in his 30's. sampras at his age was washed up and titleless and not because of strong competition. so i do not think there should be any doubt that federer is greater than sampras. federer has surpassed sampras. now let's see if nadal will surpass him

Bobby Jr · Jun 12, 2013

I implore reasonable people reading this thread to ignore The dark Knight. He/she has shown form over a long period of time at being nothing but a willing ignoramus who parades his/her ignorance as being some sort of remotely credible alternative theory on who is the greatest tennis play of the open era.

See post 28 for a basic explanation of the sort of tomfoolery he/she is about and how easy it is to debunk such amateur-level argument.

The credible discussion on this topic is long since over. Every additional post by The Dark Knight is nothing but the rantings of some fool sitting behind a keyboard gleefully laughing at the response the posts get.

kiki · Jun 12, 2013

tennisaddict said:
Woulda, coulda , shoulda...

true experts know it is true

TheTruth · Jun 12, 2013

mike danny said:
well i do not beleive he is the goat either. but bashing means he played in a weak era with no evidence whatsoever, he was lucky to not face player x, he was a weak era benefactor, a turkey and so on. this is bashing. i agree the h2h against nadal is a blemish on his legacy but he is not the goat because of it not because of the weak competition. if the weak competition was the thing he should not lead djokovic in the h2h and murray in the slam h2h. his only problem is nadal. but it is mainly a match-up issue. heck if federer benefited form a weak era how come he was the only one to defeat the strong era terminator djokovic in 2011 and in a slam while the strong era goat nadal could not. something just does not fit here

Players get bashed on here all the time. That's the nature of internet forums. The problem is people bashing other players then crying bloody murder when anyone disagrees with their love for Federer.

People bash Nadal too, saying he's just a claycourter, disappears after the first half of the year, on PEDs, cheats to win, bullies and intimidates ballboys, umpires, and other players, is the devil incarnate, will never win any off clay majors, etc.

H2H and the claims you've made are very tame compared to the things said on this forum about Nadal.

However, I disagree about it not being a weak era, because in my opinion it was. There was a transitional period left by the exits of Sampras and Agassi and in the interim Hewitt stepped in. Then Roger, at almost 23 took over the reins. Since Roger was 23 that means Rafa was 18 and Novak and Andy 17. No one in their right mind should expect these inexperienced players to overcome Federer's experience and tour wisdom. So, Fed got a lot of majors during that period while the young boys were still cutting their teeth.

He should lead all of them in the h2h as he had more experience than them over a long period of time. He just never had that luxury with Nadal. He beat Novak in that one match, but since 2009 is 3-8 vs. Novak, so that one match does not trump all.

Leading Murray in grand slam matches is cherrypicking to make Federer come out on top. Nadal leads Federer 8-2 in grand slam matches so should we discount Federer's other eight wins in his h2h? The h2h is not divided to assign superiority. It is all inclusive. Murray still leads his h2h with Federer. You can't split the h2h's, a common problem on this board.

This is similar to the clay skews the results argument. People want so bad to eliminate clay, but they don't want to eliminate the WTF. I think that's what doesn't fit. People are constantly trying to move the goalposts to ensure that their guy comes out on top.

We have to deal with the realities and kick all the suppositions to the curb.

mike danny · Jun 12, 2013

TheTruth said:
Players get bashed on here all the time. That's the nature of internet forums. The problem is people bashing other players then crying bloody murder when anyone disagrees with their love for Federer.

People bash Nadal too, saying he's just a claycourter, disappears after the first half of the year, on PEDs, cheats to win, bullies and intimidates ballboys, umpires, and other players, is the devil incarnate, will never win any off clay majors, etc.

H2H and the claims you've made are very tame compared to the things said on this forum about Nadal.

However, I disagree about it not being a weak era, because in my opinion it was. There was a transitional period left by the exits of Sampras and Agassi and in the interim Hewitt stepped in. Then Roger, at almost 23 took over the reins. Since Roger was 23 that means Rafa was 18 and Novak and Andy 17. No one in their right mind should expect these inexperienced players to overcome Federer's experience and tour wisdom. So, Fed got a lot of majors during that period while the young boys were still cutting their teeth.

He should lead all of them in the h2h as he had more experience than them over a long period of time. He just never had that luxury with Nadal. He beat Novak in that one match, but since 2009 is 3-8 vs. Novak, so that one match does not trump all.

Leading Murray in grand slam matches is cherrypicking to make Federer come out on top. Nadal leads Federer 8-2 in grand slam matches so should we discount Federer's other eight wins in his h2h? The h2h is not divided to assign superiority. It is all inclusive. Murray still leads his h2h with Federer. You can't split the h2h's, a common problem on this board.

This is similar to the clay skews the results argument. People want so bad to eliminate clay, but they don't want to eliminate the WTF. I think that's what doesn't fit. People are constantly trying to move the goalposts to ensure that their guy comes out on top.

We have to deal with the realities and kick all the suppositions to the curb.

federer has gotten older it is obvious why djokovic leads him. and actually since 2009 he is 9-11 against novak. the fact is he is older so the h2h will only get worse. but the point is tell me why sampras's era is not weak? he did not have 2 all-time greats to compete with either in his prime. he had agassi but he did not meet him consistently in the latter stages of slams like federer is with nadal, novak and murray. plus it was one guy who at one point dissapeared for almost 2 years. besides him who was not even a huge obstacle he did not have to deal with any all-time great. actually agassi had just 3 slams before winning another 5 in that weak era. so sampras's main rival was also a weak era benefactor. see i can play this game too. the guy at his peak had just 3 slams for crying out loud

90's Clay · Jun 12, 2013

We are doing a disservice to the TRUE GOATS like Pancho, Rosewall and especially Laver if we only go by Slam record.

How many cracks at the slams did Roger have again? Yea way more than Pancho and Laver. Could you imagine how many slams Roger would have grabbed if was banned from Playing the majors for 7-8 years like Laver in the middle of his prime?

ROFLMAO

Cup8489 · Jun 12, 2013

TheTruth said:
Right. Not thinking he's the GOAT doesn't make you anti-Fed or a hater.

But.. you ARE anti Fed.

Guys Like MichaelNadal are ok. They are fans of rafa but appreciate what Federer has brought to the table as well, and form their opinions in more clear and logical ways than yourself and TDK.

Both of you are simply Fed haters.

TheTruth · Jun 12, 2013

mike danny said:
i mean that incredible match against djokovic should be proof enough that he simply won slams because he is that good. not the goat but just that good. he is although a goat contender just not the official goat untill both him and rafa retire. and as a goat contender he would win 10+ slams in any era. not 17 but still 10+ meaning double digit number of slams. this is how the goat contenders separate themselves form all-time greats: they have the ability to win 10+ slams in any other era like federer, nadal, sampras, laver and others

That match was incredible and Federer is that good. I think that's what a lot of people don't understand when a person is critical of Fed. His talent would have landed him majors, regardless, no one is disputing that. But, citing 17 as a number also doesn't tell the whole story. There are other factors that contribute as well.

I guess that's why people argue this ad nauseum, because there are two sides to every coin.

Cup8489 · Jun 12, 2013

90's Clay said:
We are doing a disservice to the TRUE GOATS like Pancho, Rosewall and especially Laver if we only go by Slam record.

How many cracks at the slams did Roger have again? Yea way more than Pancho and Laver. Could you imagine how many slams Roger would have grabbed if was banned from Playing the majors for 7-8 years like Laver in the middle of his prime?

ROFLMAO

It doesn't matter. Federer is still in the conversation regardless of what happened in the past. I will give you that Laver could possibly have a significantly greater level relative to his era than Federer, but who's to say Federer wouldn't have also been able to work even harder to win even more majors if Laver himself had set a higher barometer?

It's circular reasoning. suffice that they are both at the very top of the list. Pancho perhaps as well, and I will say that based on his ridiculously good game, rather than his results persay. But Federer is on the same level as them, historically. This isn't disputable. Could it have been different? Sure.

It wasn't.

TheTruth · Jun 12, 2013

mike danny said:
federer has gotten older it is obvious why djokovic leads him. and actually since 2009 he is 9-11 against novak. the fact is he is older so the h2h will only get worse. but the point is tell me why sampras's era is not weak? he did not have 2 all-time greats to compete with either in his prime. he had agassi but he did not meet him consistently in the latter stages of slams like federer is with nadal, novak and murray. plus it was one guy who at one point dissapeared for almost 2 years. besides him who was not even a huge obstacle he did not have to deal with any all-time great. actually agassi had just 3 slams before winning another 5 in that weak era. so sampras's main rival was also a weak era benefactor. see i can play this game too. the guy at his peak had just 3 slams for crying out loud

Djokovic still doesn't lead Fed overall in the h2h, but he is getting closer. You cannot say it's because Federer is now older, because many of his wins came when they were younger, so it all balances out. I haven't seen the 9-11 statistic, but it can't be right. That would mean that they have played 20 times in the last four years.

Sampras's era was not considered weak because players did not bow down and worship other players then. It was ludicrous to think that your competition would be saying he's so good it's ok to lose to him.

He did not have two rivals at the same time as Fed has, but he and Agassi met pretty consistently as attested to by their 34 meetings.

I'm not playing a game. I really don't care what Pete did back in the 90's, or who is the GOAT. This is a new day and I have left the past behind. I simply don't think Fed is the GOAT, because to me no such thing exists.

I don't think Fed is the GOAT and you say you don't think Fed is the GOAT, so we actually agree on that part.

I do think there was a weak period, though. And a similar one will exist depending on when the Top 4 leave the game. It's not anybody's fault, but there is always a time lapse when the big dogs leave the game, and the new people have to step in and fill their shoes.

TheTruth · Jun 12, 2013

Cup8489 said:
But.. you ARE anti Fed.

Guys Like MichaelNadal are ok. They are fans of rafa but appreciate what Federer has brought to the table as well, and form their opinions in more clear and logical ways than yourself and TDK.

Both of you are simply Fed haters.

Show me a post of mine that shows hatred for Fed. Not thinking he's the GOAT? Believing in a weak era? That's not showing hatred.

On the contrary, I think you are one of the biggest Fed worshippers on this board who gets angry at anyone who doesn't bow down to Fed. That's your problem.

I don't compromise. I have every right to my opinion and I will continue to state it as I see fit.

Guys like Dragonblaze are more than ok, because unlike you, they don't go around calling people haters who don't agree with them.

You've been doing this for years and it hasn't changed one thing. Don't read my posts if they offend you, that's all I can say,

.

mike danny · Jun 12, 2013

TheTruth said:
Djokovic still doesn't lead Fed overall in the h2h, but he is getting closer. You cannot say it's because Federer is now older, because many of his wins came when they were younger, so it all balances out. I haven't seen the 9-11 statistic, but it can't be right. That would mean that they have played 20 times in the last four years.

Sampras's era was not considered weak because players did not bow down and worship other players then. It was ludicrous to think that your competition would be saying he's so good it's ok to lose to him.

He did not have two rivals at the same time as Fed has, but he and Agassi met pretty consistently as attested to by their 34 meetings.

I'm not playing a game. I really don't care what Pete did back in the 90's, or who is the GOAT. This is a new day and I have left the past behind. I simply don't think Fed is the GOAT, because to me no such thing exists.

I don't think Fed is the GOAT and you say you don't think Fed is the GOAT, so we actually agree on that part.

I do think there was a weak period, though. And a similar one will exist depending on when the Top 4 leave the game. It's not anybody's fault, but there is always a time lapse when the big dogs leave the game, and the new people have to step in and fill their shoes.

the statistic is correct. they have met 20 times in the last 4 years. 5 times in each of those years. go see for yourself if u do not believe me. by that logic you wrote after this era is weak as well because the rest of the players actually bend over for tge top 4 so this is a weak era too. the era federer played in was still not the weakest of all. he still had to consistently face the same players in the latter stages of slams in hewitt and roddick so he did actually had to face consistent guys who also happened to be grand slam champions. after that he had to deal with the new generation in 2007. so 2006 was his only weak year. the others were pretty acceptable in terms of playfield.

TheTruth · Jun 12, 2013

mike danny said:
the statistic is correct. they have met 20 times in the last 4 years. 5 times in each of those years. go see for yourself if u do not believe me. by that logic you wrote after this era is weak as well because the rest of the players actually bend over for tge top 4 so this is a weak era too. the era federer played in was still not the weakest of all. he still had to consistently face the same players in the latter stages of slams in hewitt and roddick so he did actually had to face consistent guys who also happened to be grand slam champions. after that he had to deal with the new generation in 2007. so 2006 was his only weak year. the others were pretty acceptable in terms of playfield.

That I didn't know. I saw an article that said that Fed was 2-15 in the last years vs. the Top 4. If I have time I'll look it up.

If you consider the last five years weak, OK. I never said Fed's era was the weakest of all. I said it was weak and I still believe that having lived through that time in tennis.

Roddick and Hewitt were in that transitionary period (I already said that) and won their slams during that period before Fed began to reign.

He has had to deal with the new generation since 2007. That was never in question. The transitionary period was from 2000-2006.

BobbyOne · Jun 12, 2013

mellowyellow said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.... You mean their are not greater than Laver?

mellowyellow, At the most one player: Rosewall.

BobbyOne · Jun 12, 2013

90's Clay said:
We are doing a disservice to the TRUE GOATS like Pancho, Rosewall and especially Laver if we only go by Slam record.

How many cracks at the slams did Roger have again? Yea way more than Pancho and Laver. Could you imagine how many slams Roger would have grabbed if was banned from Playing the majors for 7-8 years like Laver in the middle of his prime?

ROFLMAO

90's Clay, Laver was banned for 5 years, Rosewall for 11 years, Gonzalez for 18 years.

MichaelNadal · Jun 12, 2013

Cup8489 said:
But.. you ARE anti Fed.

Guys Like MichaelNadal are ok. They are fans of rafa but appreciate what Federer has brought to the table as well, and form their opinions in more clear and logical ways than yourself and TDK.

Both of you are simply Fed haters.

cc0509 said:
He is an example of good poster--he is a vigorous Nadal fan but he is able to be reasonable and more importantly intelligent most of the time (something many Nadal fans or fans in general can't seem to master.)

Thanks guys

jg153040 · Jun 13, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Fed is claimed to be the goat because he has more slams than anyone in history.

Therefore following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12 slams on three surfaces while Laver has 11 slams on 2 surfaces .

Furthermore Emerson should also be considered greater than Laver as Emerson has more slams .....according to TW Federer logic .

Tell me something. Why do a lot of Nadal fans and Federer haters still call Fed the goat?

I mean, if he's not, what reason could those guys have for calling Fed goat?

Nadal himself calls Fed the goat. He says Slams and weeks being nr.1 is the most important.

mike danny · Jun 13, 2013

TheTruth said:
That I didn't know. I saw an article that said that Fed was 2-15 in the last years vs. the Top 4. If I have time I'll look it up.

If you consider the last five years weak, OK. I never said Fed's era was the weakest of all. I said it was weak and I still believe that having lived through that time in tennis.

Roddick and Hewitt were in that transitionary period (I already said that) and won their slams during that period before Fed began to reign.

He has had to deal with the new generation since 2007. That was never in question. The transitionary period was from 2000-2006.

and still roddick and davydenko the transitional champions are leading the h2h against djokovic and nadal defeating them in their 20's. you see why i do not buy the weak era theory? and they were not accidents. they even had losing streaks to davydenko and roddick. the point is the rise of competition was not the only factor in fedeter's results. for some reason his level of play completely fell apart. look at rafa this year and look at roger at his age. his level of play was not the same like in his peak. i can argue that this made his competition look so strong. only at wimby 2008 i saw a glimpse of tge old federer in the last 3 sets. still roger won almost half of his slams after the transitional period. he won 8 slams and nadal 10. he won just 2 more and he is 5 years younger. so federer clearly was not just a transitional great

SLD76 · Jun 13, 2013

mike danny said:
and still roddick and davydenko the transitional champions are leading the h2h against djokovic and nadal defeating them in their 20's. you see why i do not buy the weak era theory? and they were not accidents. they even had losing streaks to davydenko and roddick. the point is the rise of competition was not the only factor in fedeter's results. for some reason his level of play completely fell apart. look at rafa this year and look at roger at his age. his level of play was not the same like in his peak. i can argue that this made his competition look so strong. only at wimby 2008 i saw a glimpse of tge old federer in the last 3 sets. still roger won almost half of his slams after the transitional period. he won 8 slams and nadal 10. he won just 2 more and he is 5 years younger. so federer clearly was not just a transitional great

If fed was a transitional goat then what is rafa who was barely 2 years ranked number one, and not consecutively.

And while djoker has clearly been the best since 2011, even he hasn't dominated the field like fed did in his prime and he only has old fed and post peak nadal to deal with.

TheTruth · Jun 13, 2013

mike danny said:
and still roddick and davydenko the transitional champions are leading the h2h against djokovic and nadal defeating them in their 20's. you see why i do not buy the weak era theory? and they were not accidents. they even had losing streaks to davydenko and roddick. the point is the rise of competition was not the only factor in fedeter's results. for some reason his level of play completely fell apart. look at rafa this year and look at roger at his age. his level of play was not the same like in his peak. i can argue that this made his competition look so strong. only at wimby 2008 i saw a glimpse of tge old federer in the last 3 sets. still roger won almost half of his slams after the transitional period. he won 8 slams and nadal 10. he won just 2 more and he is 5 years younger. so federer clearly was not just a transitional great

That's why we're here to share our different opinions. We're not always going to agree. If you think it wasn't a weak era, OK. I don't know what else to say. My opinion is still the same.

jg153040 · Jun 13, 2013

TheTruth said:
That's why we're here to share our different opinions. We're not always going to agree. If you think it wasn't a weak era, OK. I don't know what else to say. My opinion is still the same.

What is your opinion on this clay era? I mean Djokovic is the only threat to Nadal, and he made final only once.

Also Soderling was the only one able to beat Nadal at RG?

How many multiple RG champions did Nadal beat on clay?

mike danny · Jun 13, 2013

TheTruth said:
That's why we're here to share our different opinions. We're not always going to agree. If you think it wasn't a weak era, OK. I don't know what else to say. My opinion is still the same.

of course you are entitled to your opinion. you have this right. i was just showing you why i do not believe the era was weak. heck transitional champion roddick reached a slam final while strong era djokovic couldn't in 2009. transitional champion haas defeated strong era djokovic at wimbledon. so many things show the holes in this theory. but then again you are entitled to your opinion. but admit that nadal also won in a transitional clay period. heck his only rival was federer who did not even win before nadal's rise and whose weakest surface is clay. still even today there is no truly great and natural clay courter.

FEDERERNADAL13 · Jun 13, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
I'm not trying to prove anything . I'm trying to work together to arrive at a conclusion.

There is no reason to get angy or use words like crap.

Clay court is settled . Nadal is better...we both agree.

What's left is the hard court slams and Wimbledon

Now lets take all excuses away for both sides.....just for a minute ok?

I'm asking you Cup ....what do you think? Who would win .....

On grass at Wimbledon and at the hards? As of right now......

I'll tell you what I believe.....

Right now hands down Federer is the better player on grass. No question about it .....why? Because of the roof......I don't think Nadal will even get to the finals .

No excuses....I'm not bringing up the roof as an excuse.....it is what it is and Federer is clearly the better player on grass today.

As good of a player Fed is indoors ....Nadal is outdoors.

As of today....with the roof Federer is almost as dominant as Nadal is on clay. Fed beat the sheet out of joker last year......

But Fed has to bank on rain , because his 5 set match percentage has never been more than about 55%. But you still have to give the advantage to Fed as of today at Wimby.

That leaves the hard courts of the AO and USO.......who is better Cup? What do you think?

As to the records....that let's give the definition of "greatest".....but who is the "best".....that's a different question......don't you think?

Interesting opinion here!

I was wondering, why is it you say that the best player is the one who would win against the other guy most, without taking in to consideration the rest of the tour?

If I was going to decide who was the best between two players, I wouldn't simply try to figure out who would win between them, because tennis is a sport against a whole tour, not just one guy.

If someone was 10-3 against the tour, but 0-3 against one guy (who was 3-10) who would you consider the best between them?

TheTruth · Jun 13, 2013

mike danny said:
of course you are entitled to your opinion. you have this right. i was just showing you why i do not believe the era was weak. heck transitional champion roddick reached a slam final while strong era djokovic couldn't in 2009. transitional champion haas defeated strong era djokovic at wimbledon. so many things show the holes in this theory. but then again you are entitled to your opinion. but admit that nadal also won in a transitional clay period. heck his only rival was federer who did not even win before nadal's rise and whose weakest surface is clay. still even today there is no truly great and natural clay courter.

This is a contradiction. You are not willing to accept that we have different opinions. You're trying to persuade me by getting me to "admit" your opinion.

That's not having a conversation. I see nothing wrong with you thinking whatever you'd like. I have not tried to sway you in any way. I'm simply stating my opinion and respecting your right to your opinion.

mike danny · Jun 13, 2013

TheTruth said:
This is a contradiction. You are not willing to accept that we have different opinions. You're trying to persuade me by getting me to "admit" your opinion.

That's not having a conversation. I see nothing wrong with you thinking whatever you'd like. I have not tried to sway you in any way. I'm simply stating my opinion and respecting your right to your opinion.

the weak era thing it is just an opinion not a fact. if it was a fact than nadal also played in a weak clay era. show me a link where an all-time great said that federer had weak competition. most of them.just said that he cannot beat nadal not that he had weak comp

The Dark Knight · Jun 13, 2013

FEDERERNADAL13 said:
Interesting opinion here!

I was wondering, why is it you say that the best player is the one who would win against the other guy most, without taking in to consideration the rest of the tour?

If I was going to decide who was the best between two players, I wouldn't simply try to figure out who would win between them, because tennis is a sport against a whole tour, not just one guy.

If someone was 10-3 against the tour, but 0-3 against one guy (who was 3-10) who would you consider the best between them?

You make a valid point as well and it is am important consideration .

Please understand I do not treat all tournaments equal since they are not equal. I also reject the ranking system but that's for another conversation .

Basically slams are really all that matters in the end . No one cares that Boris Becker was never year end #1 but that Roddick was year end #1. Becker is considered greater or greater than #1 Marcello Rios . All that matters in the end is the slams.

Now in the slams Nadal and Federer mainly met in finals .....how did they get to those finals? By beating everyone else.

Also a lead against the rest of the field is one thing but a h2h against other greats is far more important.

Nadal is the only player of the big four that has a lead over everyone while Federer has a losing record to half of the big four.

Finally Nadal and Federer did not play against the same field for some time . Remember that Ferrero was the #1 ranked player on the planet when Fed started his run.

The Dark Knight · Jun 13, 2013

mike danny said:
the weak era thing it is just an opinion not a fact. if it was a fact than nadal also played in a weak clay era. show me a link where an all-time great said that federer had weak competition. most of them.just said that he cannot beat nadal not that he had weak comp

It's a fact by process of elimination .

Lets look at the eras .....

This era is known as the golden era....all eras before that were something else.

The 90's are accepted as one of the toughest eras of tennis .

The 70's was the tennis book and known as the golden age of tennis.

80's were also one of the greatest eras as well......

Now what do we hear about 2002- 2006 ? Anything ? I read in Wikipedia that Sampras' retirement caused a vacuum of talent in the top ten after his retirement .

I certainly don't hear any banter or anything about those years . No one really talks about it because it was a transitional time .

mike danny · Jun 13, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
It's a fact by process of elimination .

Lets look at the eras .....

This era is known as the golden era....all eras before that were something else.

The 90's are accepted as one of the toughest eras of tennis .

The 70's was the tennis book and known as the golden age of tennis.

80's were also one of the greatest eras as well......

Now what do we hear about 2002- 2006 ? Anything ? I read in Wikipedia that Sampras' retirement caused a vacuum of talent in the top ten after his retirement .

I certainly don't hear any banter or anything about those years . No one really talks about it because it was a transitional time .

federer still won almost half of his majors after this so called teansitional era so ge has proven himself. like i said only 2006 was weak the others were pretty acceptable. oh and btw you said 90's, 80's and 70's not just a 4 year period. federer's era will be remembered as the 2000's. i also do not remember 1998-2001 being so strong either. if so how come sampras won wimbledon in 2000 without having to face a single top 20 player? and rios at no.1? pls.... not all of sampras's years were tough del with it

mike danny · Jun 13, 2013

also federer will be remembered as the guy who had to deal with 3 generations of players including the rising youngsters. nadal does not have that just yet. a new generation means new games you have to handle. nadal knows the games of all his rivals because there is no younger generation to challenge him. federer had to go through thr youngsters and still managed to surpass the record by quite a margin.

Nathaniel_Near · Jun 13, 2013

mike danny said:
also federer will be remembered as the guy who had to deal with 3 generations of players including the rising youngsters. nadal does not have that just yet. a new generation means new games you have to handle. nadal knows the games of all his rivals because there is no younger generation to challenge him. federer had to go through thr youngsters and still managed to surpass the record by quite a margin.

Good post and key point. All these players know the score but have nobody else to look out for at the moment chasing them down from behind from the next gen.

Raz11 · Jun 13, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
It's a fact by process of elimination .

Lets look at the eras .....

This era is known as the golden era....all eras before that were something else.

The 90's are accepted as one of the toughest eras of tennis .

The 70's was the tennis book and known as the golden age of tennis.

80's were also one of the greatest eras as well......

Now what do we hear about 2002- 2006 ? Anything ? I read in Wikipedia that Sampras' retirement caused a vacuum of talent in the top ten after his retirement .

I certainly don't hear any banter or anything about those years . No one really talks about it because it was a transitional time .

Flawless logic...

That isn't how process of elimination works. How do you even measure how tough an era is? Just because there is more competition doesn't make it more tough, just more competitive. It is alright if you think it was weak but you have no strong evidence to suggest that.

Surface conditions were much faster during that time which is also why it was harder to be consistent then. There is no evidence to suggest that Nadal, Djokovic or Murray would be just as successful during that era. Nadal's best performance on hard was QF before AO became plexicushion. Sure he has gotten better but was that because of the changes in the surfaces or just because he got better? It is probably somewhere in the middle but we will never know. In the end, it comes down to opinions being no more valid than the next. You can start listing names during that time and compare them to Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but you can't compare the performances of the top players now to the performances of the top players back in 2004 - 2006 and state it as a fact.

jg153040 · Jun 13, 2013

Raz11 said:
Flawless logic...

That isn't how process of elimination works. How do you even measure how tough an era is? Just because there is more competition doesn't make it more tough, just more competitive. It is alright if you think it was weak but you have no strong evidence to suggest that.

Surface conditions were much faster during that time which is also why it was harder to be consistent then. There is no evidence to suggest that Nadal, Djokovic or Murray would be just as successful during that era. Nadal's best performance on hard was QF before AO became plexicushion. Sure he has gotten better but was that because of the changes in the surfaces or just because he got better? It is probably somewhere in the middle but we will never know. In the end, it comes down to opinions being no more valid than the next. You can start listing names during that time and compare them to Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but you can't compare the performances of the top players now to the performances of the top players back in 2004 - 2006 and state it as a fact.

Of course it's flawed logic. This is the only way a person can explain Feds superior results. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about. Math is math.

I really don't like those excuses. Ifs and buts. Conditions and rules are the same for everyone and Fed distanced himself from others the most. Anything else is just baseless speculation.

Applying TW Federer logic Nadal and Emerson are greater than Laver

Legend

Professional

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads