‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver

Indigo

Semi-Pro
February 8, 2020

‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver in snub to Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic

Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’ no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve.
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are battling it out to see who finishes their career with most Grand Slam titles, with Federer currently leading the way on 20.
Both Nadal and Djokovic are younger than the Swiss star, though, and expected to surpass his tally before they are done.
However, Laver is having none of it, claiming that racket innovations make it impossible to compare players from different eras, but Federer is the best of his.

“Modern racket technology has definitely made the game easier,” Laver is quoted as saying in the Herald and Times.

“If Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic were playing with wooden rackets, they couldn’t play some of the shots they can execute now.

That’s why comparing players of different eras and claiming particular players’ as the greatest of all time is a pointless exercise.
“All you can really say is that certain players were the greatest of their era and I would put Roger in that category.”
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
yeah he is definitely the greatest among his pigeons of late 90's and early 2000's which constitutes "his era" according to his own fans.......
If you are so certain and truly believe it, why the need to constantly repeat it and sell it as an idea to other people. If anything they would be able to see something so obvious?
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Guess when experts don't say something to your advantage, you ridicule them.
Aren't you the one who keep quoting Federer and experts , about things detrimental to Federer?
I don't know what are you talking about? I just asked my Poster-friend a question. I am not the one "who keep quoting Federer and experts , about things detrimental to Federer?". I just like to bring to TTW attention some interesting statements of pundits and videos, which is the purpose of this forum and I don't believe that it is to anyone's detriment.

Just to add that I am grateful to OP for bringing this interesting article to our attention.

No waaay!!!:happydevil:

Thank you for the response. You are a star.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

Hall of Fame
February 8, 2020

‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver in snub to Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic

Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’ no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve.
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are battling it out to see who finishes their career with most Grand Slam titles, with Federer currently leading the way on 20.
Both Nadal and Djokovic are younger than the Swiss star, though, and expected to surpass his tally before they are done.
However, Laver is having none of it, claiming that racket innovations make it impossible to compare players from different eras, but Federer is the best of his.

“Modern racket technology has definitely made the game easier,” Laver is quoted as saying in the Herald and Times.

“If Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic were playing with wooden rackets, they couldn’t play some of the shots they can execute now.

That’s why comparing players of different eras and claiming particular players’ as the greatest of all time is a pointless exercise.

“All you can really say is that certain players were the greatest of their era and I would put Roger in that category.”

Thank you Laver for saying what I and many others have been saying. This whole GOAT talk is a way to make money, it is a business and they will sell what gets more eyes on the product, however the entire GOAT concept is flawed and Laver echoing that. There is no GOAT.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
So he sees Federer as coming from a different era. A valid argument, from someone who played in multiple eras himself, and who probably possesses the single greatest achievement ever in the 2 CYGS.
 

E46luver

Semi-Pro
Laver would not even make it past Challengers today.
Fed is better than the hacks of all eras.
All pros before 1970 were 4.5 slicers, at best who would get tramped by a D1 5.0 today.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
I don't know what are you talking about? I just asked my Poster-friend a question. I am not the one "who keep quoting Federer and experts , about things detrimental to Federer?". I just like to bring to TTW attention some interesting statements of pundits and videos, which is the purpose of this forum and I don't believe that it is to anyone's detriment.

Just to add that I am grateful to OP for bringing this interesting article to our attention.
Yeah but you keep posting the same quotes over and over again, all pertaining to the same subject: when was Federer’s peak?
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Yeah but you keep posting the same quotes over and over again, all pertaining to the same subject: when was Federer’s peak?
This is providing information to people who are not aware of it. Many times, I see comments referring to pre-2010 as Federer's peak showing that these Posters are misinformed. To bring the right information out I cite Roger Federer himself who is, by far, the most competent person to discuss Roger Federer. After his statement, discussing when was Federer's peak is like discussing when Federer had his best sex. He is the only one who knows that.

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
 
Says someone whose username is literally “Djokovic is the best #1”.
Yes, that is my name. Represents that Djokovic is my favourite and I want him to be the best ever. However I admit as it stands Federer is still on top and the greatest. The gap is narrowing though and Djokovic and nadal have more time ahead to overtake fed.

Nothing is certain either way but laver is saying fed is the greatest no matter what happens is not true. If he gets overtaken then he’s not the best, it’s as simple as that. Djoko and Rafa already have a big case to be greatest but need more majors to underline that.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
This is providing information to people who are not aware of it. Many times, I see comments referring to pre-2010 as Federer's peak showing that these Posters are misinformed. To bring the right information out I cite Roger Federer himself who is, by far, the most competent person to discuss Roger Federer. After his statement discussing when was Federer's peak is like discussing when Federer had his best sex. He is the only one who knows that.

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
They’re not misinformed. Literally every important statistic puts pre-2010 Fed at his peak; it’s only these dubious statements by Federer (which, as I may remind you, he also made in 2013 when he was losing to players left and right) that you can put up to defend their claim. It’s not that they’re forgetting these statements. People just don’t think they’re useful at all.

Fed says he was at his peak in 2015? Then how was he able to lose to players even weaker than the guys he lost to in 2006? How did Murray end the year ranked higher than this so-called peak Federer? Was it because 2015 Murray, who won zero Slams, is somehow a better player than the “weaker, less experienced” 2006 Federer, who won three Slams?

It’s fine if you believe these quotes end the debate. Upon closer examination of the statistics, however, these statements end up making everything much more confusing.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Yes, that is my name. Represents that Djokovic is my favourite and I want him to be the best ever. However I admit as it stands Federer is still on top and the greatest. The gap is narrowing though and Djokovic and nadal have more time ahead to overtake fed.

Nothing is certain either way but laver is saying fed is the greatest no matter what happens is not true. If he gets overtaken then he’s not the best, it’s as simple as that. Djoko and Rafa already have a big case to be greatest but need more majors to underline that.
That’s fair. I just thought it was pretty funny.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
They’re not misinformed. Literally every important statistic puts pre-2010 Fed at his peak; it’s only these dubious statements by Federer (which, as I may remind you, he also made in 2013 when he was losing to players left and right) that you can put up to defend their claim. It’s not that they’re forgetting these statements. People just don’t think they’re useful at all.

Fed says he was at his peak in 2015? Then how was he able to lose to players even weaker than the guys he lost to in 2006? How did Murray end the year ranked higher than this so-called peak Federer? Was it because 2015 Murray, who won zero Slams, is somehow a better player than the “weaker, less experienced” 2006 Federer, who won three Slams?

It’s fine if you believe these quotes end the debate. Upon closer examination of the statistics, however, these statements end up making everything much more confusing.
I can't argue with Roger Federer about Roger Federer.

If you ask me to explain how he had better statistics in 2005 than in 2015 and he was better player in 2015 than in 2005 that is easy. In 2015 he played much stronger field and although he was better in 2015 his results were worse. Do not confuse level of performance with the outcome of performance. As an example, I am now better scientist than I ever was, but my grant income is lower than 20 years ago as I play stronger field nowadays.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I can't argue with Roger Federer about Roger Federer.

If you ask me to explain how he had better statistics in 2005 than in 2015 and he was better player in 2015 than in 2005 that is easy. In 2015 he played much stronger field and although he was better in 2015 his results were worse. Do not confuse level of performance with the outcome of performance. As an example, I am now better scientist than I ever was, but my grant income is lower than 20 years ago as I play stronger field nowadays.
You’re not a scientist.
 

Xavier G

Professional
Fed's the best of the best and he's up there with Rod himself. Novak might end up achieving more than Roger in the end, as he's younger with seemingly more left in the tank. Rod's words might hurt some fanboys and fan girls, but you gotta roll with it.

Don't live vicariously through tennis players you don't even know.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Yes, that is my name. Represents that Djokovic is my favourite and I want him to be the best ever. However I admit as it stands Federer is still on top and the greatest. The gap is narrowing though and Djokovic and nadal have more time ahead to overtake fed.

Nothing is certain either way but laver is saying fed is the greatest no matter what happens is not true. If he gets overtaken then he’s not the best, it’s as simple as that. Djoko and Rafa already have a big case to be greatest but need more majors to underline that.
Greatest is more than who has the most slams.it factors how much you have influenced the sport and its audience , how much you represent the legacy of the sport , how much embraced are you by colleagues , observers , historians and being able to have a style that transcends eras .
 

Aneto

Semi-Pro
Roger Federer*
GS completados ➡ 79
GS ganados ➡ 20
Porcentaje de GS ganados ➡ 25,3%

*Rafael Nadal*
GS completados ➡ 55*
GS ganados ➡ 19
Porcentaje de GS ganados ➡ 34,5%

*Novak Djokovic*
GS completados ➡ 54*
GS ganados ➡ 17
Porcentaje de GS ganados ➡ 31,5%
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I suppose you have a unique gimmick, I’ll give you that.
One interesting thing that you might not believe is that one of my research areas is ageing. You know that I offered bets on TTW to people who questioned me, bit no-one was brave to accept. I can tell you that I am a Professor at the University, Editor of a scientific journal and have published >100 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. These are facts.
 
Greatest is more than who has the most slams.it factors how much you have influenced the sport and its audience , how much you represent the legacy of the sport , how much embraced are you by colleagues , observers , historians and being able to have a style that transcends eras .
Djokovic and Nadal have done that just as much as Federer had. They all have a different styles and in different ways they have left legacies which will last forever. Now all that’s left is who has the most important records at the end.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
One interesting thing that you might not believe is that one of my research areas is ageing. You know that I offered bets on TTW to people who questioned me, bit no-one was brave to accept. I can tell you that I am a Professor at the University, Editor of a scientific journal and have published >100 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. These are facts.
Burden of proof is on you.

All signs point to a troll with a gimmick.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Djokovic and Nadal have done that just as much as Federer had. They all have a different styles and in different ways they have left legacies which will last forever. Now all that’s left is who has the most important records at the end.
They do not . For starters , they don’t get one third the endorsements Fed gets
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Burden of proof is on you.

All signs point to a troll with a gimmick.
I can easily prove it to you if you accept a bet of 20K GBP. You do understand that the betting sum is relatively high as revealing identity has it's risks and I would not do it for less. If you are interested, we will go step by step (with solicitors). First step would be that both of us can legally sign such a bet (that you are not under aged etc.).
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I can easily prove it to you if you accept a bet of 20K GBP. You do understand that the betting sum is relatively high as revealing identity has it's risks and I would not do it for less. If you are interested, we will go step by step (with solicitors). First step would be that both of us can legally sign such a bet (that you are not under aged etc.).
So you have no proof then. Ok troll.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Thank you Laver for saying what I and many others have been saying. This whole GOAT talk is a way to make money, it is a business and they will sell what gets more eyes on the product, however the entire GOAT concept is flawed and Laver echoing that. There is no GOAT.
What if I quote you saying Fed is goat at this moment, but you will say same for any other player who get more slams? :giggle:
Changed your mind?
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Yes, because Laver would be afraid that they will change the name of the tournament if he didn't proclaim Federer the greatest of his era.... :rolleyes:
No, they wouldn't even call that "tournament" after him if he dont say what he say as broken record...

Haven't he said recently that Murray could get cygs? That's what I call ... Expert...
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
What if I quote you saying Fed is goat at this moment, but you will say same for any other player who get more slams? :giggle:
Changed your mind?
I have said if I was ever forced to pick a GOAT, if I really had to, then it would be Federer because of the slam count since that is thing everyone is using, but everyone here knows that for the past ten years, yes, even when Federer had 16 slams and Djokovic had one, I have always said that you cannot compare eras. I don't consider Laver to be GOAT either.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
No, they wouldn't even call that "tournament" after him if he dont say what he say as broken record...

Haven't he said recently that Murray could get cygs? That's what I call ... Expert...
So, Laver is on the take then.
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
I don't know about others but I did read few things in internet security and what one poster (@ABCD) is doing is called phishing.

It's an attempt to contrive information out by subtle literal or visual oriented methods.


@KINGROGER it's highly recommended to not disclose anything directly or by hints.


Apologies to @ABCD if I am wrong.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
I have said if I was ever forced to pick a GOAT, if I really had to, then it would be Federer because of the slam count since that is thing everyone is using, but everyone here knows that for the past ten years, yes, even when Federer had 16 slams and Djokovic had one, I have always said that you cannot compare eras. I don't consider Laver to be GOAT either.
I remember what you wrote because I thought same my self... Too bad you deleted old account to quote you...
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
I’m a Sampras fan first.
Federer fan second. I like Nadal.
But Djokovic has the best mental strength from any player I have seen in my lifetime. He deserves credit for that.
Sampras for me was underrated because his achievements were about beating his target at the time - who knows what he would he achieve in a time when he had more to aim at.
Federer is clearly the best all rounder ever.
Nadal, a player who has as much heart and gusto as all of them and win by pure attrition.
Djokovic is a machine who will not give up and is focussed on achieving his goal - to be the ultimate GS winner.

I agree with Laver - GOAT is a pointless exercise, but it keeps debate around a pint or two pretty fun :)
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I don't know about others but I did read few things in internet security and what one poster (@ABCD) is doing is called phishing.

It's an attempt to contrive information out by subtle literal or visual oriented methods.


@KINGROGER it's highly recommended to not disclose anything directly or by hints.


Apologies to @ABCD if I am wrong.
You are totally wrong. I have an honest discussion with a fellow Poster. I certainly can't take any advantage of general information (occupation etc.) that he would provide.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
I remember what you wrote because I thought same my self... Too bad you deleted old account to quote you...
About the problems of comparing eras? It is true, and Laver mentions it in his post above.

Anyways, regarding quotes, those that have been here a long time will clearly know what I have been saying from start.
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
You are totally wrong. I have an honest discussion with a fellow Poster. I certainly can't take any advantage of general information (occupation etc.) that he would provide.
Sorry then.
My Spidey sense is failing embarrassingly these days.
 
Top