35 facts that prove Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever

[La Grande]

Federer is the only the first man in the last 45 years to appear in four grand slam finals in the same year.

Federer has won 90 more grand slam matches (285) than the next active player, Rafael Nadal (195). He also has 52 more wins than the No.2 player on the all-time list, Jimmy Connors.

Federer once had a streak of 105 points without an unforced error.

He's never retired from a match

Federer's ranking records: Most weeks at number No.1 (302), most consecutive weeks at No.1 (237), most weeks in the top two (455) and most consecutive weeks in the top two (346) [/quote}

Federer has won seven differen tournaments at least five times.

Federer put up a 166-8 mark on hard courts from 2003-06

Federer has won three grand slams in a single year three times, the rest of the ATP has done it three times total.

That's eight of em.

Nice small article.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/rog...nnis-player-ever-goat-wimbledon-us-open-stats

 

[Talker]

Here we go again......

But I can't help it. How about 18/19 finals.

Didn't know about the 105 points though, he probably ran around the backhand.

 

[La Grande]

Here we go again......

But I can't help it. How about 18/19 finals.

Didn't know about the 105 points though, he probably ran around the backhand.

Haha yup, it's extraordinary

 

[Krish872007]

I think we've had this thread before but that hard courts record - why not use the 111-2 record fro AO 2005 (end) to Indian Wells 2007?
And one more:
76-1 on grass (2003 to Halle 2010)

 

[La Grande]

I didn't write the article

 

[90's Clay]

A few reason he isn't.

1. Never won a calendar slam
2. Doesn't have the record years at #1
3. Could NEVER handle his main rival (Especilally on the big stage). Couldn't even maintain a positive h2h vs. his main rival on his best surface (Hards)
4. Inflated his resume due to a garbage crap era of 2004-2007 with NO great player around in their prime
5. Exposed once great players finally hit their prime etc.
6. Hasn't even won HALF the overall number of titles that Laver did

 

[Krish872007]

Good to read that brief from 70's Hard (-On) - it seems that the points "for" far outweigh the points "against", which is always 'positive' news for an ATG.

 

[Cam24]

A few reason he isn't.

1. Never won a calendar slam
2. Doesn't have the record years at #1
3. Could NEVER handle his main rival (Especilally on the big stage). Couldn't even maintain a positive h2h vs. his main rival on his best surface (Hards)
4. Inflated his resume due to a garbage crap era of 2004-2007 with NO great player around in their prime
5. Exposed once great players finally hit their prime etc.
6. Hasn't even won HALF the overall number of titles that Laver did

Here we go again
1. Laver & Budge won their calendar slams when most of the tournaments were on grass, less payout, prestige, and the game was much different (less grinding). Arguably impossible nowadays and almost certainly for those players imho
2. Harder nowadays with slower surfaces, less serving dominant
3. The question at hand is the GOAT, not Greatest against Nadal
4. There were many great players i.e. Gonzalez, Roddick, Blake, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. Just because Federer overshadowed them doesn't mean they were talentless chokers.
5. Not sure what that means
6. Laver played against the same guys all the time, learned their weaknesses, and the game back then was more straightforward (similar to #1)

 

[AngieB]

The author of the USAToday blog is #ChrisChase who knows little to nothing about tennis, but has clearly befriended the heavily user-edited #Wikipedia. My best advice for him would be to fact-check before publishing. He is by no means a tennis expert of anything. His reputation in the sports world isn't stellar either.

#AngelaOfArizona (AOA)​

 

[Gary Duane]

A few reason he isn't.

3. Could NEVER handle his main rival (Especilally on the big stage). Couldn't even maintain a positive h2h vs. his main rival on his best surface (Hards)

No one is arguing Nadal's dominance on clay.

Fed's best surface was grass, and Nadal could not beat him on that surface until 2008, as you know.

On HC they only met 5 times before 2008, I believe.

Tennis Masters Cup S 2006 and 2007, both won by Fed.

Miami 2004 and 2005, split.

2006 Dubai won by Nadal.

That's 5 meetings in 4 years. Nadal suprised Fed at Miami, but after that only won at Dubai.

Impressive? Yes. But dominating? Absolutely not. And Nadal was a non-factor on HC slams.

4. Inflated his resume due to a garbage crap era of 2004-2007 with NO great player around in their prime

Weak Era argument is weak.

 

[90's Clay]

Try again bud. 23-10, 9-2 in slams IS dominating any way you look at it

 

[Sentinel]

A few reason he isn't.

1. Never won a calendar slam
2. Doesn't have the record years at #1
3. Could NEVER handle his main rival (Especilally on the big stage). Couldn't even maintain a positive h2h vs. his main rival on his best surface (Hards)
4. Inflated his resume due to a garbage crap era of 2004-2007 with NO great player around in their prime
5. Exposed once great players finally hit their prime etc.
6. Hasn't even won HALF the overall number of titles that Laver did

Rafa fans were ready to declare Rafa as the GOAT a couple years back when they expected him to win AO 2014. They are also waiting for RAfa to cross 17 slams , no wait, equal 17 slams so they can call him the GOAT. No reference/comparison to Rod Laver there!

But in Roger's case, they bring up Laver.
Very strange.

 

[Gary Duane]

Try again bud. 23-10, 9-2 in slams IS dominating any way you look at it

Well, BUD, any idiot can go on making the same claim over and over in an OCD way without addressing one point made by someone else. Try again, BUD.

 

[Gary Duane]

Rafa fans were ready to declare Rafa as the GOAT a couple years back when they expected him to win AO 2014. They are also waiting for RAfa to cross 17 slams , no wait, equal 17 slams so they can call him the GOAT. No reference/comparison to Rod Laver there!

But in Roger's case, they bring up Laver.
Very strange.

This is a very strange place. The moment you bring up logical points you run afoul of fanboys. It happens weekly to me.

If I say that Nadal dominated Fed from the start, on clay, then that will be twisted around to seem to say that Nadal was still only an OK player on clay because he didn't face the "amazing" competition on clay of the 90s. And therefore this is another way of proving how average Fed was, because he could not beat Nadal on clay.

Nadal was mostly simply not around to challenge Fed on HCs until 2008. Which is actually pretty logical, because he was only 22 when he started to change that, and Roger was 27. That's the normal time for the balance to swing.

On grass and HCs there was a switch from the older, dominating player to the young gun winning as the older guy hit around 27-28.

What is lopsided is the same thing that was lopsided for everyone for most of the past 10 years. Nadal was a player we've never seen before on clay. Only this year did he start to look mortal on the red stuff.

Only a total moron will only quote the numbers, 23-10, without carefully thinking about when and where those matches happen. But there are a lot of morons in this forum.

 

[KineticChain]

old people like the idols they grew up with. they don't like to admit things change for the better sometimes (condescending winky face)

 

[Sentinel]

All I am saying is that use the same criteria for both players, if you want to get into a GOAT debate.

If double calendar slam is the criteria, then the GOAT is Laver and no one else. Not Fed, Not Nadal.

If majors is the criteria, then it is Fed, until someone crosses 17. One cannot hop between criteria to suit one's convenience.

"Fed is not the GOAT since Laver had a double calendar slam. But if Nadal gets 18 slams then he is the GOAT since he has the most majors."

I have actually recently quoted people saying this. Unfortunately, these are the people who drive most conversations here, create the most threads and get into flame wars.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

All I am saying is that use the same criteria for both players, if you want to get into a GOAT debate.

If double calendar slam is the criteria, then the GOAT is Laver and no one else. Not Fed, Not Nadal.

If majors is the criteria, then it is Fed, until someone crosses 17. One cannot hop between criteria to suit one's convenience.

"Fed is not the GOAT since Laver had a double calendar slam. But if Nadal gets 18 slams then he is the GOAT since he has the most majors."

I have actually recently quoted people saying this. Unfortunately, these are the people who drive most conversations here, create the most threads and get into flame wars.

These people also go by the name of AngieB and THUNDERVOLLEY!