Being an ATG was never about 6 slams, it was more than that, it's about the impact a person had on Tennis by revolutionizing it ...
- Thread starter Razer
- Start date
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
No point in discussing with someone so biased and basing arguments on conjecture. Talk about facts, not about WhatIfs. Had they been the same age, Federer wouldn't have dominated at any time because he couldn't get past Rafa when Rafa was healthy. At no point did Federer have a positive H2H against Rafa.
a10best
Legend
That's some tennis knowledge if you can remember Stanford Cardinal David Wheaton.
Some say 90s tennis was a borefest. Yes, when it's two SNV players in a final. But when it's Chang, Courier, Agassi, Chesnokov against a SNV it was a very nice contrast of style and focus.
For me, a borefest was the Djokovic Murray SF and finals.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
Do you realise that the only title Federer won ten times is Halle, which was a 250 until it became a 500 in 2015? The draw in Halle is not that great, as the top players all go to Queens. Not only did Rafa win RG 14 times, but he also won M. Carlo 11 times. Rome 10 times and Barcelona 12 times.
Last edited:
kangaroo1973
Hall of Fame
Fed s backhand is one of the greatest in history. Only one player on one surface was able to exploit it
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Federer and Nadal are not peers, there is a significant age gap between them. If Federer at 35 can figure out Rafa who was 30 then it only means that in a same aged scenario Federer would solve the Nadal riddle much earlier.
In history no older ATG ever reverse the hold that a 5 years younger ATG has over him, but Federer did it, so Federer winning in 2017-2019 proved to us that Fed would have triumphed in a same age scenario, had Fed never won those matches then we would have said that yes in a same age scenario Fed would win nothing.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Nadal is that loser who starts losing to Novak at 25, he starts to losing to Federer at 30, so this is basic math ... 30 - 5 years age gap = 25, Fed would also have started kicking Nadal from 2011 if he was of Novak's age.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
I agree that the 90s were boring. For me, it didn't get any better with Federer dominating a weak field for five years until Nadal came and saved tennis. Later, with Djokovic in the mix and Murray, it became the Golden Age of Tennis.That's some tennis knowledge if you can remember Stanford Cardinal David Wheaton.
Some say 90s tennis was a borefest. Yes, when it's two SNV players in a final. But when it's Chang, Courier, Agassi, Chesnokov against a SNV it was a very nice contrast of style and focus.
For me, a borefest was the Djokovic Murray SF and finals.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
You must be the only one who thinks that. Federer is not as good as Nadal and Djokovic. That's a fact.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Federer is superior to Nadal and Djokovic, obviously, how can he as good when he is better than them?
Fed in old age proved Nadal is a phony
I would say Nadal is far worse than Fed/Novak, at least Novak was beating old Federer, Nadal was busy losing.
I actually blame Federer for allowing Nadal to win Wimbledon 2008, if it was Sampras then he would have done to Nadal what Dustin brown did years later. Clay courters don't deserve to win Wimbledon.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
You don't seem to realise that Nadal is just a year older than Djokovic, and he dominated Djokovic until his fitness began to fail him and they've ended with an almost even H2H. Why was Djokovic unable to beat a fit Nadal? Where was Djokovic when Nadal won 14 RG, 12 Barcelona, 11 Monte Carlo, and 10 Rome titles?
a10best
Legend
uh oh, it's bait time. Djokovic brought upon the boring age of endless baseline grinding for a different audience.
It's like eating the same food every night for dinner. no thanks.
It's no wonder fans still adore Federer for his game and now appreciate Alcaraz (Fed 3.0).
They like flare, creativity and tennis beauty or they end up having interest in a less-skilled activity such as PB (dare I say it's full name).
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
I find Federer boring as well. Rafa is the most watchable player of them all. Alcaraz doesn't play like Federer at all. If I want to watch ballet I wouldn't watch a tennis match. Carlos doesn't have a one-handed bh for a start.
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
No it is not. ATG is a strict metric on success. Federer will always be more well known, famous, loved than Nadovic, and Nadal will always be the hardest worker, and strongest spirited/mental strength, but nothing can detract from Djokovic being the most optimal and successful player. Ultimately it's the results that count.
NatF
Bionic Poster
If Federer 1 hadn't existed you don't think Federer 2 would have anything unique and exceptional? Or just if Federer 1 also existed.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
Murray won a Slam, Olympics (record holder), YEC and M1000. With Djokovic and Agassi being the only ones to achieve this.
I agree he's NOT an ATG, but he's with Courier, Vilas and Nastase the best ones below the ATGs.
I agree he's NOT an ATG, but he's with Courier, Vilas and Nastase the best ones below the ATGs.
NachoGPT
Hall of Fame
lmao
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
I stopped watching tennis during his TMF days because I just didn't find him exciting to watch, and all the rest just handed him matches on a plate because they bought into the hype. If Rafa hadn't come along, I don't think I would still be watching tennis. Federer plays old-style tennis, like the men of the 40s in their long trousers.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
I was a tennis fan LOOOONG before Federer picked up a racquet. I just don't find his supercilious style appealing. He changed his style when Rafa came along and later Djokovic and Murray.
NachoGPT
Hall of Fame
RAFA was definitely needed, otherwise you’d have Federer winning 2-3 CYGS. But to call him boring is insane to me.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
Between 2003 and 2007, Federer didn't have to try; players walked on court and served him the matches on a silver platter. That's boring to watch. He became more watchable when he had to compete with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Even Murray had a positive H2H against Federer for a while. Federer has admitted that he became a better player because of those three players.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
But his backhand was his Achilles heel, wasn't it?
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't watch tennis for art, poetry and cinema. Tennis is a sport.
The Guru
G.O.A.T.
The point was stylistic uniqueness is not a requirement for ATGhood. The double Federer's was just a concrete example. I think you're thinking too hard about this.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
You don't seem to realise that Nadal is just a year older than Djokovic, and he dominated Djokovic until his fitness began to fail him and they've ended with an almost even H2H. Why was Djokovic unable to beat a fit Nadal? Where was Djokovic when Nadal won 14 RG, 12 Barcelona, 11 Monte Carlo, and 10 Rome titles?
None of that matters, Nadal had a 8 slams lead over Djokovic and ended up 2 behind. These are guys of the same age, shame on Nadal...
Razer
G.O.A.T.
True
If Federer is boring then that means Nadal is even more boring .. ? ... If Nadal is boring then what does that make Djokovic with all those endless rallies ? ... and if Djokovic is boring then what does that make Sinner ?
So basically if Federer is boring then one must quit tennis, everyone else must be boring too, @clayqueen needs a new sport to follow.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
What matters is that Djokovic benefited from an injured Nadal for twelve years from 2012.
SwissMaestro81
Rookie
No non-Brit ever called Andy Murray an ATG.
Even if we count his two - impressive! - Olympic gold medals the same as slam wins he would not be among the 25 greatest players of all time.
Even if we count his two - impressive! - Olympic gold medals the same as slam wins he would not be among the 25 greatest players of all time.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
What matters is that Djokovic benefited from an injured Nadal for twelve years from 2012.
I agree but they all had benefits. Nadal benefitted from Fed being 5 years older, Nadal benefitted from bad clay court competition for 20 years, Fed benefitted from bit of a weak era, Djokovic benefitted from a full vacuum from 2016+ when 90s gen failed to stand up .. technically they all benefitted.
Ah so that's where that comes from. When you miss a feed in the clinic and the pro says, "that was a Mulligan, go again."Laver won it once. The earlier one cannot be counted when the best players were banned from slams.
Laver himself said that he hugely struggled against Rosewall, Pancho and others when he initially graduated from amateur level to pro.
Nobody believes Laver was winning the 1962 CYGS if it were open to pro players.
If Gentle Readers wish to know the huge disparity between amateur level and pro level, one only needs to look at Martin Mulligan.
Mulligan was Laver's opponent in the 1962 Wimbledon Final.
Mulligan was consistently ranked in the Top 10 as an amateur between 1962-1967.
But the hapless Mulligan failed to ever reach the Top 10 once the Open Era began in 1968.
clayqueen
Bionic Poster
So Federer and Djokovic were rubbish on clay, totally unable to challenge Nadal? Got it.
Last edited:
a10best
Legend
early Fed hit drops shots, fake fh drives into deep slices, bh short slice. Alcaraz said his game mirrors Fed more. Sorry bro, not my words, his.
I like Rafa pre-2017 when he moved better and his RG wins but most watchable of the 3? Between his serve rituals (wedgie and sniffing) and Djokovic's endless bouncing I can't take it.
Have some grace and natural ability with 2-3 bounces to serve than making the serve overly mechanical, butt sniffing and 30 seconds.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
True, it was never about a 6 Slam cutoff or any number really.
What Sir Murray needs or doesn't need to be an ATG is not within your purview to mandate nor does anyone need your permission to consider him one
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
omg they actually put "stomach virus" as an injuryWhat matters is that Djokovic benefited from an injured Nadal for twelve years from 2012.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Probably.
The Guru
G.O.A.T.
Brodie really bringing up Barcelona an ATP 500 Novak played twice in 2006 and before he recovered in 2018. Djokovic clearly gave all he could to stop him there but just couldn't do it alas Nadal won more 500s than poor Novak.You don't seem to realise that Nadal is just a year older than Djokovic, and he dominated Djokovic until his fitness began to fail him and they've ended with an almost even H2H. Why was Djokovic unable to beat a fit Nadal? Where was Djokovic when Nadal won 14 RG, 12 Barcelona, 11 Monte Carlo, and 10 Rome titles?
RSJfan
Legend
Kindly do not diminish the CYGS achievements of the great Rodney Laver. By way of contrast, Gentle Readers should be reminded that your fav Egg merely had to beat Meddy to seal a CYGS.
Alas, it ended with Egg in a puddle of his own tears. An embarrassing spectacle for the audience and for tennis.
Last edited:
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Better off for me to stay out of ATG conversations. I'll try my best.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
ghostofMecir
Legend
In an age when the one-hander became a massive liability, he still won as much as he did due to his ince in a lifetime talent.
darthrafa
Hall of Fame
fed is definitely a great player but i really dont see what he had revolutionised tennis
i will rather say he is the only icon elevating tennis among sports
on the contrary, not revolutionalisation, his biggest achievement is probably an ohbh player winning so many
if being the last ohbh man standing means a chapter of revolutionalisation, it would be so
but his effortness-uniqueness that no one can replicate hardly enlightens anyone or even make more ppl turn to thbh
i will rather say he is the only icon elevating tennis among sports
on the contrary, not revolutionalisation, his biggest achievement is probably an ohbh player winning so many
if being the last ohbh man standing means a chapter of revolutionalisation, it would be so
but his effortness-uniqueness that no one can replicate hardly enlightens anyone or even make more ppl turn to thbh
junkieballer
Legend
10 years before Federer picked a racket for the first time Connors and Borg dominated the tour with a two handed backhand.
Federer and his coach were not smart enough to understand that the two handed backhand was the future, or maybe they tried and Federer was not capable of using it. Therefore it's all on him.
Last edited:
junkieballer
Legend
Razer has weird ways to cope: money earned, influence on people...
ATGs are simply those who dominate tennis by winning lots of matches.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Cheers.Laver won it once. The earlier one cannot be counted when the best players were banned from slams.
Laver himself said that he hugely struggled against Rosewall, Pancho and others when he initially graduated from amateur level to pro.
Nobody believes Laver was winning the 1962 CYGS if it were open to pro players.
If Gentle Readers wish to know the huge disparity between amateur level and pro level, one only needs to look at Martin Mulligan.
Mulligan was Laver's opponent in the 1962 Wimbledon Final.
Mulligan was consistently ranked in the Top 10 as an amateur between 1962-1967.
But the hapless Mulligan failed to ever reach the Top 10 once the Open Era began in 1968.
ghostofMecir
Legend
Nobody is this ignorant so i’m assuming you’re trolling.
Similar threads
