AO Sportscasters say Fed can never be GOAT
- Thread starter Holly
- Start date
tennis-hero
Banned
I think Andy Murray will be taking both out pretty soon
IF rafa was going to win a HC slam, it was always going to be the AO
but yeah, how can Rog be the GOAT when he constantly gets owned by Rafa, he has always had problems with that son of a...... uhhh, with that talented spaniard
IF rafa was going to win a HC slam, it was always going to be the AO
but yeah, how can Rog be the GOAT when he constantly gets owned by Rafa, he has always had problems with that son of a...... uhhh, with that talented spaniard
R_Federer
Professional
Well Federer has also beaten Nadal on all surfaces (clay, grass, hard court).
Look lets look at it rationally I dont know how many of you agree but as of now this is how I have it:
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. 4. You can pick in any order Sampras and Bjorg.
So now to get to be GOAT Federer has to pass Laver. How can he do that? He of course needs 1 French Open...I know Laver did calender slams like crazy but 1 career Slam for Federer should be enough to put him over Laver considering he has more Slams and other records.
BUT Nadal of course stands in his way at RG. ITs very hard to see Federer beat Nadal there but I guess you never know with sports...maybe now there is absolutely no pressure on Federer to win there after he got destroyed last year. Maybe that helps? I dont know...he needs to catch some sort of luck there or else Nadal will not let him get that title, with which GOAT comes.
Look lets look at it rationally I dont know how many of you agree but as of now this is how I have it:
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. 4. You can pick in any order Sampras and Bjorg.
So now to get to be GOAT Federer has to pass Laver. How can he do that? He of course needs 1 French Open...I know Laver did calender slams like crazy but 1 career Slam for Federer should be enough to put him over Laver considering he has more Slams and other records.
BUT Nadal of course stands in his way at RG. ITs very hard to see Federer beat Nadal there but I guess you never know with sports...maybe now there is absolutely no pressure on Federer to win there after he got destroyed last year. Maybe that helps? I dont know...he needs to catch some sort of luck there or else Nadal will not let him get that title, with which GOAT comes.
Bhagi Katbamna
Legend
Nadal has a serious shot at being regarded as the best ever. He has 6 GS at the age of 22 on all surfaces.
cokebottle
Banned
Haha you are crazy.
1. Laver
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Tilden
5. Gonzales
6. Budge
7. maybe Federer
Federer isnt even close to some GOAT. I almost feel like I should rank Nadal above him already as he is already making it clear he is the greater player with his constant ass whoopings of Federer the Nancy Boy.
R_Federer
Professional
Okay....makes no sense how you put Sampras over Federer if Federer gets to #14...
cokebottle
Banned
Where is Federer's 14th slam though? I dont see it. Why assume for sure there will be a 14th or 15th when he cant seem to beat Nadal, and is starting to lose to Murray as well. For all we know it might never happen.
Even if he gets 14 though Sampras would have the edge since he has more titles at Wimbledon, the biggest slam, and he has the 6 years straight ending #1, plus he had much tougher competition than Federer.
R_Federer
Professional
Sampras' 14th took a while too. Its a matter of when not if. And no Sampras would not have the edge...Federer has 5 straight titles at both Wimbledon and US Open and if you have to be good at every surface to be considered a great then surely Federer is greater than Sampras. I mean 3 straight French Open finals. Can you tell me how many Sampras had? Sorry I forgot.
How can Fed be better than Nadal ? You do realize that Nadal leads the rivalry 13-6....right?
GameSampras
Banned
Pete was a bully, he'd attack Nadal like no other. Bombs away, net rushing and massive, penetrating forehands
Pete would show eveyone how to attack Nadal. Pete's game would be a nightmare for Rafael. Best serve ever, very quick, so athletic and effective at the net. His forehand was destructive and very penetrating
Fed cant do this to Nadal. Its too bad Pete wasnt around, to show Roger how its done
Pete would show eveyone how to attack Nadal. Pete's game would be a nightmare for Rafael. Best serve ever, very quick, so athletic and effective at the net. His forehand was destructive and very penetrating
Fed cant do this to Nadal. Its too bad Pete wasnt around, to show Roger how its done
Last edited:
Pete was never that good on clay while Nadal has now won a grandslam on every surface.
And on the new slower grass at wimbledon.....Nadal would have crushed Pete.
egn
Hall of Fame
Okay I might agree that Fed is not goat, but Tilden I am sorry Fed has a more impressive career, Gonzales was better than all three Samp, Borg, Fed and Tilden. Same probably for Budge. It is hard to compare pre open era to open era because it was different structure and format. Secondly constant ass whoopings. French Open 08..thats one? Care to pull up constant ass whoopings, 5 set matches are not ass whoopings. Nobody has disparaged Chris Evert for her h2h against Martina Navratilova. Open era wise Fed is not the best, but than each of the three greats in the open era have their flaws. Borg dtiched early, Sampras had a weak clay court game and Fed couldn't tackle Nadal. Fed's career is not over yet he can still try to pull the h2h against Nadal even, highly unlikely but if he can get it to something like Nadal 13 - his 10 nobody would care, becuase than it was close. However Fed can not be GOAT if he can't beat his biggest threat.
GameSampras
Banned
LOL... Sure on clay.. Nowheres else. Rafa would struggle to even win a set on Pete. Pete would be a NIGHTMARE MATCHUP for Nadal on carpet, grass, and Hard. Also, Pete was mentally tough and a big point, big match player. Way more mentally tough than Roger is or ever was in these types of situations.
Agassi maybe the best returner in the history of the game and best return of serve hands down struggled with Pete's serve. Imagine Pete serving against Nadal. It would be a BLOODBATH
HAPPYforTHEvictory
Banned
Well in 2009, Roland Garros is a lock for Nadal, he won't lose that (2008 was his most flawless claycourt tennis ever). Wimbledon is a major chance for Nadal to win because Federer is the only guy who seems to challenge him there (and Nadal led him 2-sets to love before the rain came last year). So Nadal's calender year grand slam is really all about the US Open, the place he made semi-final at last year and led Murray 2-0 in the 4th set. Nadal has a great chance at this. Winning the first 3 is very likely, and winning the 4th isn't much of a stretch considering he made the semi last year 
egn
Hall of Fame
What judges greatness on hardcourts? Fed has a better winning percentage, more titles and more slams. I would just love for some logical explanation as in to what makes Sampras better on hardcourts than I will give you the pass. Fed also holds the longest winning streak on the surface...please explain.
Second of all it was 8 straight years lets use the real facts here.
I respect longievity but he was not number 1 all thirteen of those years and Sampras had his fair share of ups and downs, he had years where he struggled and where he was beatdown, he is not a god.
However Sampras and Borg have one plus Federer lacks they beat all their rivals. However Borg did vanish before Mac could go ahead of him in head to head and Sampras did not have a young newcomer to take his place..but Fed still never could tackle Nadal and thats a huge problem.
HAPPYforTHEvictory
Banned
Nadal was only a teenager at that point, so things were a lot easier for Federer
And there really was nobody to hurt Federer. Agassi was the most dangerous player yet he was aged in his mid30s. Hewitt, Safin (talented but inconsistent), Nalbandian, Roddick....weak era
egn
Hall of Fame
Well in 2009, Roland Garros is a lock for Nadal, he won't lose that (2008 was his most flawless claycourt tennis ever). Wimbledon is a major chance for Nadal to win because Federer is the only guy who seems to challenge him there (and Nadal led him 2-sets to love before the rain came last year). So Nadal's calender year grand slam is really all about the US Open, the place he made semi-final at last year and led Murray 2-0 in the 4th set. Nadal has a great chance at this. Winning the first 3 is very likely, and winning the 4th isn't much of a stretch considering he made the semi last year
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, anything can happen. At the start of his this AO everyone was saying it was Andy Murray's for sure..look what happened. A lot can change from year to year lets wait until clay court season starts before you preech Calendar Year slam, take it one tourney at a time.
seffina
G.O.A.T.
Yup.
I think Federer is the greatest of his era so far. An era that is not over yet. But I don't care to compare him to the greats of eras bygone. Those posts are fun and all, but they're nothing more than speculation.
zagor
Bionic Poster
So? He isn't the GOAT then(it's probably Laver or Borg).Who cares anyway? Wish people here would focus more on actual tennis being played than be obsessed with this GOAT nonsense.No matter what great-internet-keyboard-tennis "experts" and "gurus" here say about Fed or what insults they come up with(chump,mentally weak,overrated etc.)the fact remains that the guy is a great,great player,anybody who knows anything about tennis(which is about the half of the people here,the other half is clueless)fully realizes that fact.He isn't GOAT? Okay,whatever,he isn't.Just focus on actual tennis,we still might be in for an exciting year if Fed comes back strong from this tough loss and Murray,Djokovic,Tsonga and Verdasco spice things up and challenge both Fed and Nadal.
Last edited:
R_Federer
Professional
+1 I never understood why this GOAT thing was such a hot topic for tennis. It isnt the same for other sports not even individual ones.
I think Federes inabilily to beat Nadal certainly brings some question marks about his place as GOAT.
Sampras didnt have this issue with anyone, with a stronger field imo......he may not have been able to beat Agassi all the time but he did most of the time and I think Roger 6-13 head to head is very poor.....
Sampras didnt have this issue with anyone, with a stronger field imo......he may not have been able to beat Agassi all the time but he did most of the time and I think Roger 6-13 head to head is very poor.....
DunlopMax200G
Rookie
FED Becomes GOAT 2 Ways
1. Wins 15 GS
or
2. Wins F.O.
1. Wins 15 GS
or
2. Wins F.O.
R_Federer
Professional
Well the head to head is like even if you take out clay nah? Just saying...though ya Fed definitely needs to improve that.
activentures
Rookie
Federer is far from a spent force. He should have won today and at Wimbledon 08 where he was poor, and will be joint favourite for Wimby this year and favourite on the faster US open courts. Last year he was not himself and I think depite his loss today he looked more like his old self up until the final. Hi style of play also takes less toll on his body than Nadal's. On the other hand, Nadal is a machine, 5 years younger, the clear favourite for another French crown, trying hard to defend Wimbledon and trying to make his first US final. That's what makes it so intriguing!! The tennis these two have produced against each other is in a different class to anything the game has seen or probably expected to. This year will be fascinating. I expect Nadal to win the French and Fed to win Wimbledon and the US. I'd like him to win the French and Nadal the US for a bit of variation, but regardless for them to take 2 GS's each making 2010 even more exciting. They are a gift to tennis and world sport in general. I just hope they continue to contest GS finals and Fed can start winning a few more to make it truly the greatest rivalry sport has ever seen. TENNIS IS THE WINNER!!!
seffina
G.O.A.T.
Agree as well. It's just ridiculous how much this GOAT talk colors everything.
I'm also excited about the new players coming into their own. Matches like Gasquet/Gonzo and Verdasco/Nadal are what makes tennis worth watching for me. I can't wait to see Tsonga on grass and Monfils on clay. See how Verdasco maintains his form. See if Rafa can defend Wimbledon. See how Murray will react to his earlier than expected exit. So many great stories in today's mens tennis.
Last edited:
HAPPYforTHEvictory
Banned
Nadal played a better match than Federer in 2007 Wimbledon but got a quad injury in the 5th set, suddenly dropped his level from that point onwards. I felt that was the most unlucky moment of Nadal's career. He was controlling everything and his groundstrokes were a lot crisper in 2007 Wimbledon Final. His slice serve was added in 2008 and that probably got him home, but overall Nadal's best form on grass was 2007 Wimbledon, so I'm thinking he can play a lot better in 2009 Wimbledon than 2008
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Courier says fed cant be in the Goat talks while Nadal has a dominant record over him. Nadal won 5 of their 7 slam finals. Fed has to turn this around if he wants to be considered in the Goat talks.
Its losing so many BIG finals to a major rival that is hurting him here. He also only won 2 of 7 masters series finals v Nadal
Its losing so many BIG finals to a major rival that is hurting him here. He also only won 2 of 7 masters series finals v Nadal
Nadal is already two things. The best runner of all time, even better than Borgie, and most determined player of all time. Truly horrible to play against.
And FEDERER should have won today? How do you figure that. I didn't feel he was going to win today, at any point. Yes he blew a lot of break points, but Nadal actually raised his game dramatically every time. So I don't think Federer SHOULD have won.
I think Federer will give tennis Slams one more big shot, at Wimbledon, and then he is done. Never, to win another SLAM, he is getting too old for this Grand Slam toll. Too bad, as he was the prettiest stroker of all time to be sure. And he HAS to stop that grandstanding poof crying, it really took away a LOT of Nadals pleasure at winning. Nadal is such a class act, he actually felt sorry for FED.
And FEDERER should have won today? How do you figure that. I didn't feel he was going to win today, at any point. Yes he blew a lot of break points, but Nadal actually raised his game dramatically every time. So I don't think Federer SHOULD have won.
I think Federer will give tennis Slams one more big shot, at Wimbledon, and then he is done. Never, to win another SLAM, he is getting too old for this Grand Slam toll. Too bad, as he was the prettiest stroker of all time to be sure. And he HAS to stop that grandstanding poof crying, it really took away a LOT of Nadals pleasure at winning. Nadal is such a class act, he actually felt sorry for FED.
Fedheads brought this on themselves with all this talk of GOAT. If the GOAT exists, we won't know until their career is over. (Personally, I don't see it existing unless someone manages two GS and at least fifteen titles)
But Federer has never declared himself GOAT, as far as I know, so it doesn't matter what some commentators have to say about. They're fickle anyway, because of course if he does somehow get 15 this year, they will all be chanting his name again.
But Federer has never declared himself GOAT, as far as I know, so it doesn't matter what some commentators have to say about. They're fickle anyway, because of course if he does somehow get 15 this year, they will all be chanting his name again.
Speedygonzalez
Rookie
Federer is 27 and Rafa is 22. He cannot beat Rafa now, so what? Is that so strange given the stages of their carreer? What about the other 13 slams? Rafa has a mental edge over Federer. At the start of each meeting Rafa already has an advantage because he is in Federer's head.
seffina
G.O.A.T.
Those that do are idiots. They type before they think.
Speedygonzalez
Rookie
What is wrong about showing emotions? It is just how he felt at that moment, I don't believe there is any intention of Federer to take pleasure away from Nadal's win. If Nadal would feel less happy about it, it is a shame but that is how he is. I think both know that.
I agree with Aabye. The sports writers change their minds after every major. You are only as good as your last tournament, you played. The problem with Federer is, that he is craving too much for the praise of the press. I heard him always talking to the press during this major: about himself, about history, about Laver, about the small talk with Sampras, about himself, about Djokovic's retirement, about Murrays favorite status, about himself, about the womens ranking, about himself. Federer is building up such high expectations, that he crumbles under them. I didn't hear that from Nadal; he went a bit under the radar of the press, gives only gracious responses and focusses alone on training and improving his game.
anointedone
Banned
CyBorg
Legend
The goat thing is pretty much out of the question now.
There may be some similarities here with Rosewall, whose peak ended suddenly when Laver just started to dominate the sport and H2H.
But remember how long Rosewall hung around and he still kept winning majors - not with regularity, but picking up whatever he could get.
The problem is that Nadal is no Laver. Just a nightmare matchup for Roger in general.
No, Roger isn't even close to the best of all-time. Forget about the numbers, for a second and watch the match. Roger, while probably as skilled a man as any in tennis history, is not a great strategist. Nadal is one of the more adaptable players I've ever seen; he has great intuition and ability to play many different different ways and shift seamlessly from one to another.
Federer doesn't know how to do this. He can play only one way; the strategy he picks ahead of time he always sticks to - even when it doesn't work. Yesterday with the backhand returns, he simply didn't do enough and yet was stubborn, refusing to make changes. It cost him again.
I just don't see how a player with such severe limitations in strategy and game sense can be considered as the greatest of all time. He simply isn't - his thinking game is too limited; he's a genius physically, but not mentally. The game tests your mettle and big moments like this come where your true side is revealed. Roger failed this test. He's still a great player. He's still among the all-time best. But, not the best - you cannot keep losing to a player who's not even in the goat consideration and still call yourself the greatest.
Would Pancho Gonzales fold in the fifth set the way Federer faded? No way. Would Laver? Would Rosewall? Would Sampras? I don't think so.
I've had Roger ahead of Sampras for some time now. I'm beginning to rethink this.
There may be some similarities here with Rosewall, whose peak ended suddenly when Laver just started to dominate the sport and H2H.
But remember how long Rosewall hung around and he still kept winning majors - not with regularity, but picking up whatever he could get.
The problem is that Nadal is no Laver. Just a nightmare matchup for Roger in general.
No, Roger isn't even close to the best of all-time. Forget about the numbers, for a second and watch the match. Roger, while probably as skilled a man as any in tennis history, is not a great strategist. Nadal is one of the more adaptable players I've ever seen; he has great intuition and ability to play many different different ways and shift seamlessly from one to another.
Federer doesn't know how to do this. He can play only one way; the strategy he picks ahead of time he always sticks to - even when it doesn't work. Yesterday with the backhand returns, he simply didn't do enough and yet was stubborn, refusing to make changes. It cost him again.
I just don't see how a player with such severe limitations in strategy and game sense can be considered as the greatest of all time. He simply isn't - his thinking game is too limited; he's a genius physically, but not mentally. The game tests your mettle and big moments like this come where your true side is revealed. Roger failed this test. He's still a great player. He's still among the all-time best. But, not the best - you cannot keep losing to a player who's not even in the goat consideration and still call yourself the greatest.
Would Pancho Gonzales fold in the fifth set the way Federer faded? No way. Would Laver? Would Rosewall? Would Sampras? I don't think so.
I've had Roger ahead of Sampras for some time now. I'm beginning to rethink this.
Why are you bring up Chris-Martina? Martina has the head-to-head, but it is very close at 43-37, and Chris showed an impressive determination and resilience of a champion in getting fitter, retooling her game, and coming back from losing 13 in a row to Martina to win the 85 French Open.
Aside from that, most people, although I'm not one of them, rate Martina ahead of Chris, so again it doesn't apply to Fed-Nadal.
Cy Borg makes some reasonable points. I could not see any real game plan nor some adjustments in Roger's game today. He came to the net at the end of the third and sometimes during the fourth, and did that with some success, but gave up on it completely in the fifth. He had a bad percentage on his first serve, but didn't reduce speed on it, to get in more first serves. He was never really dictating the exchanges, although he might have had more winners.
On the other hand, Nadal has great intuition in his strategic approach. I noticed that he went more to Fed's forehand than usual, instead of directing all shots to Fed's backhand. If pressed, he his upgrading his game, even going to the net, to put on pressure on the opponent. And he never gives up, playing all points, if they would be the first or the last.
On the other hand, Nadal has great intuition in his strategic approach. I noticed that he went more to Fed's forehand than usual, instead of directing all shots to Fed's backhand. If pressed, he his upgrading his game, even going to the net, to put on pressure on the opponent. And he never gives up, playing all points, if they would be the first or the last.
ag200boy
Hall of Fame
since when is fed in his prime??
CyBorg
Legend
Nadal is a genius of sorts. We like to use that label when speaking of more finesse players like Federer. But mentally Nadal is more than just a 'bull', as many call him. He's extremely smart, crafty, has great timing, always new ideas. This is, in a way, old school tennis - in terms of constantly mixing things up.
I don't see any of this in Roger. Tennis has often been compared to chess in terms of the mental aspect of things. This comparison may be a bit superficial, but if one is going to go there then one has to acknowledge that the game is first-and-foremost mental or intellectual. Then you have fitness, endurance, pure skill in whatever order. But what wins time and time again is not only a great game plan, but the ability to make adjustments over the course of a match.
That takes a keen mind. Nadal is one of the smartest players I've ever seen.
I don't see any of this in Roger. Tennis has often been compared to chess in terms of the mental aspect of things. This comparison may be a bit superficial, but if one is going to go there then one has to acknowledge that the game is first-and-foremost mental or intellectual. Then you have fitness, endurance, pure skill in whatever order. But what wins time and time again is not only a great game plan, but the ability to make adjustments over the course of a match.
That takes a keen mind. Nadal is one of the smartest players I've ever seen.
Similar threads
- Poll
