Bud
Bionic Poster
He wasn't in a slump, per se... his knees were basically broken and needed recovery time.
Can Federer ever be GOAT if he can't beat his only rival?
- Thread starter samboy01
- Start date
He wasn't in a slump, per se... his knees were basically broken and needed recovery time.
thalivest
Banned
So Nadal didnt suck as a teenager like Federer did. Good for him. That doesnt mean that anyone who didnt stink as a teenager was already in their prime. Federer is the only all time great candidate who stunk so badly as a teenager, something you outwardly are admitting. Even third tier greats like Becker, Edberg, Wilander, were never so weak at that age as Federer. That is an argument against Federer the wanabee GOAT if anything, not for him. And considering Federer was so bad when he was really young for an all time great, let alone a GOAT candidate of any sort, he shouldnt already be struggling so much at 28. Yet he is. More points against him.
Now back to Nadal yes many people have been predicting for many years now Nadal's body would soon fall apart and that his being ahead of Federer's pace at every age was meaningless as he was soon to go into a sharp decline and fall off that pace. Instead here he is at 24 and still well ahead of Federer's pace. If he wins the U.S Open this year he will be ahead of his pace by 3 slams, even if not still ahead by 2 and well ahead in some other stats. People should be starting to wise up to not be so sure Nadal is going to fall off pace after all. We are now entering a point in Roger's career he won 3 of 4 slams twice. We are also entering into a point in Nadal's this looks like the most likely period he would do something like this. Basically if Nadal only wins the French and Wimbledon the next 2 years (which he is obviously a heavy favorite for both in the near future) he still be equal to Federer's pace at the time he is 26. And in the more likely scenario he does that and wins atleast 1 or more of the next 5 hard court slams he will still be ahead of pace. And if Nadal weathers this phase and still mantains his lead it only gets easier from he now enters the phase Federer's pace drops well off, so Nadal can afford to as well at that point and still be on pace or ahead. So continue assuming Nadal will fall off Federer's pace and that comparing them at the same age is meaningless. The rest of us dont have to assume that, and many of us dont. Many of you have been wrong for years already on this.
Last edited:
He would have looked like a better player than Nadal, but not as great of one overall. Like I said, your arguments would hold water if H2H were the gauge of greatness but it's not because it's not an absolute gauge of prowess against an entire field. Ask any non-fanboy which scenario is better and I will almost guarantee you they will say the first because Federer consistently performed better.
Sampras had a winning H2H against Kuerten only because their three meetings were on hard courts, one of which Kuerten won. But don't tell me Sampras wouldn't be considered a better all-around player if he had made the finals at Roland Garros and lost to Kuerten three times. In hindsight, people look at abo****e, unambiguous results, not the conditional mess that is H2H.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Omega_7000
Legend
Bud
Bionic Poster
I never said Federer wasn't injured. It seems, however, that he's lost the burning passion to play tennis.
Nadal's injury time-off in mid 09 plus the fact he was unable to defend his Wimby title in 2009 seems to have ignited an even hotter fire in his belly in 2010.
thalivest
Banned
Is Kuerten the far and away 2nd (atleast) greatest player of the Sampras era, let alone the only other truly great player of the Sampras era. Would Kuerten be capable of a 3-3 head to head vs Sampras on hard courts, especialy beginning those matches at age 17. Could Kuerten beat Sampras in a slam final on hard courts in say 1999. Could Kuerten have played Sampras 3 times at Wimbledon, lost in 5 sets inspite of dominating Sampras from the baseline all match in one, and beaten Sampras in another. Could Kuerten have basically been the one to end Sampras's overall reign both at Wimbledon and as World #1.
So yes if Sampras were better on clay and lost to Kuerten many times at the French people would not look at it the same way since it isnt nor would it have led to anywhere near the same situation. At all.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Omega_7000
Legend
Bud
Bionic Poster
How do I know what?
Omega_7000
Legend
Bud
Bionic Poster
It's pretty obvious after observing him play. IMO, Federer appears burned out on tennis and the rigors of tour life. He may surprise everyone and come back strong but he's running out of time.
He's beat Nadal 7 of 21 times they've met. That's a 33% win ratio... nothing to write home about.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
powerangle
Legend
That's the thing though. I think some people think I'm anti-Nadal or something, which I'm not. Nadal obviously doesn't need to be in his prime to win the French, he's that good on the dirt (as a side note, I hope he breaks Brog's 6 FO record, which is looking good right now). But...on the same token, Fed doesn't need to be in his prime to win slams either. In fact, he wasn't even in his prime when he won FO and Wim last year (FO especially was due to Nadal's absence, I'm not a ******* and can acknowledge that). But I guess my main point here, is that Fed was not in his prime last year, even though some (including some *******s) claim he was. Fed's form has been on a steady decline since 2007 (ableit slightly in 2007, but his stats already was on the downturn compared to 2006, the decline became more dramatic in 2008 ), and that's not even to Nadal, but against other players as well.
Last edited:
Omega_7000
Legend
This. Apparently Dud know more about Fed's fire than Fed himself? :-?
Bud
Bionic Poster
Boy, you two are really in denial.
This is pretty lame argument. It doesn't matter if Roger can't win slam during his teen. It's his overall achievement at the end of his career that count. Borg, Pete, Mac have won slams well earlier than Roger, but they are now behind him and that is what people will base on...the final numbers. To take points away b/c he wasn't good in his teen is dumb. And you believe Rafa catching Roger and passing him is a far-fetched. While it's not impossible, but very unlikely. Even a career slam isn't a certain(see Lendl). Many players reach their prime very early like Nadal but slow down in later on in their career. Not to mention his body wear down faster than Roger. Anyway believe what you want on how many slams he will win. I like my prediction more likely to come true than yours by the time he's finish.
Omega_7000
Legend
Denial? Sureeeeeeeeeeee............ :roll:
I'm not the one who claims to know what state Fed is in...You OTOH seem to know everything about Fed's mental state.
Will he make a comeback? Nobody knows!
Has he lost his fire? Nobody but Fed knows!
Is he injured ? According to his statements, Yes. But again nobody but Fed knows!
& you surely don't know squat even though you would like to pretend that you do.
Talker
Hall of Fame
We're coming up to a period when Fed was at Nadal's age he won 6 out of 7 GS's, so Nadal needs 5 out of the next 7 slams to stay ahead by 1 slam.
I don't see it, last year Nadal was leading by 4 GS's IIRC.
http://federermagic.blogspot.com/2007/10/roger-federer-vs-bjorn-borg.html
I don't see it, last year Nadal was leading by 4 GS's IIRC.
http://federermagic.blogspot.com/2007/10/roger-federer-vs-bjorn-borg.html
J
Jchurch
Guest
thalivest
Banned
Whether he is trying or not he isnt even good enough anymore to beat the likes of Soderling and Berdych in slams, the likes of Baghdatis and Gulbis in Masters events, or the likes of Montanes and a washed up Hewitt in 250 events. Federer is now a complete shadow of what he used to be as his fans keep reminding anyway, and not likely to do anything significant ever again in the future. Now it is for Nadal to chase a pretty much finished Federer and he has all the time in the World to do so.
J
Jchurch
Guest
It isn't Federer's fault Nadal was injured just like it wasn't Nadal's fault that Federer floundered at the FO and Wimbledon this year. Nadal has been going deep in HC tournaments for quite some time. Why hasn't he been in more than one HC final?
J
Jchurch
Guest
You're*
Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say?
People are eager to point out Rafa's dominance of Federer on ALL surfaces. How can he be better when he couldn't beat Federer at those tournaments. He had just as much chance as Federer to win them.
And if you still believe your point to be Valid, knock out EVERY post 2007 TMC match as Federer was never the same Federer from that point on. Can't have it both ways.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
davey...if you really think Fed is done winning slams, I've got some land to sell you in Iraq.
Fed is not at his peak anymore; losses like these had to happen eventually even to the best (look at some of the guys Samp lost to in slams), but if you think losing to guys who are STILL TOP 10 BTW (despite the way you call Berdych a clown DAVEY) makes Fed done, you're foolish. People said Fed was done in 2005 when he lost to Safin at the AO and Nadal at RG. They said it again in 07 when he lost to guys like Gonzalez, Volandri, and Canas twice in a row. Then again in 08 when he was in the slump. Then again in 09 when he lost to Rafa at AO. You see the pattern? I've seen the "Fed is done" train far too many times just to buy into it now.
J
Justdoit10
Guest
lol thnx for the target. I will be sure to spam you with loads of fail pics when you get proven wrong.
Bud
Bionic Poster
She was referring to GS tournaments (Wimby, FO and AO Rafa beat Federer). You may recall that Federer doesn't care about MS1000 tournaments :wink:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
What a nice response. Logical and reasonable. I actually agree with everything you've said, except the *******s part.
This GOAT argument is really getting ridiculous. "Greatest of all Time" spans a variety of topics, not just H2H.
People are putting entirely too much emphasis on how many times Nadal has beaten Federer. Yes, the H2H is very lopsided (due to the crazy match-up in Nadal's favor) but Nadal isn't the only tennis player that Federer plays. People are ignoring every other tennis player that Federer beats just to belittle Federer's position as the top contender for GOAT.
Federer has one extremely bad match-up while Nadal has several. Federer isn't perfect but from a objective (and statistical) standpoint, he proved to be better than everyone else so far.
People are putting entirely too much emphasis on how many times Nadal has beaten Federer. Yes, the H2H is very lopsided (due to the crazy match-up in Nadal's favor) but Nadal isn't the only tennis player that Federer plays. People are ignoring every other tennis player that Federer beats just to belittle Federer's position as the top contender for GOAT.
Federer has one extremely bad match-up while Nadal has several. Federer isn't perfect but from a objective (and statistical) standpoint, he proved to be better than everyone else so far.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
That last statement is the arguable part. Nadal has proven that he can win 18 masters in the same time frame Fed was winning 7 and 8 slams at the same time Fed could win 5. Nadal has also proven one can be a top player without having a block or disastrous head to head vs anyone. (the worst head to head Nadal has is by 1 match difference).
How does that show that Fed is better than everyone else is what I fail to grasp. The ONLY argument Fed fans have to counteract is to hypothesize that Nadal will have a shorter career than Fed. Tenuous argument to say the least when at 24 Nadal is posting better results than ever.
How does that show that Fed is better than everyone else is what I fail to grasp. The ONLY argument Fed fans have to counteract is to hypothesize that Nadal will have a shorter career than Fed. Tenuous argument to say the least when at 24 Nadal is posting better results than ever.
Last edited:
powerangle
Legend
Exactly, no one ever said having a negative H2H is a good thing. But some *******s act like no other players exist and that the ONLY important thing is the H2H between the top two players. I bet Nadal wasn't thinking that when he was losing to the Blakes, et al. Since when is losing to "lesser" player a good thing even if you're beating the top player 2 out of 3 times? I won't think you're much of a player if you're beating Federer but losing to me in my backyard (an exagerration, but same analogy). At least Fed is losing to another great (and only really getting owned on clay by the clay GOAT, and still being able to hang tough elsewhere even when the matchup is horrible for him).
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
The 09 brief resurgence did not mean Fed was not on the decline anymore. First of all, he won W painstakingly in a very long 5 setter vs an opponent that had posed no problem to him in the past. He lost USO final to a rookie, lost his home tournament Basel to Djoko and started his early exits to non-entities in Paris with the Benneteau match, didn't make the final of a previous favorite event of his (WTF) and got 4 titles in all for the whole year.
It's not what I would call a rebirth or a new phase, it's a temporary peak within a declining trend that sharply accentuated in 2010 and that "peak" would have been vastly unlikely to happen if Nadal hadn't suddenly been sidelined by injuries.
J
Jchurch
Guest
Well no scheisse Sherlock. However,
1. Nadal hasn't reached all the surfaces and beat Federer on all the surfaces.
2. Are we now going to lump all Clay together like she did Hard Court? If so then WOW!!! Jimmy Connors is greater than Borg on Clay. He won the USO versus Borg on Clay =)
3. I was just giving her a hard time for not being exact
Why is it that Clay, even the same type of Clay is disregarded by *******s due to elevation, but vastly different Hard Court is all lumped into one category?
Well if you choose only stats in Nadal's favour you will obvious "fail to grasp" it.
How about looking at number of slams won?
Number of consecutive titles of a particular slam? (See USO/Wimbledon)
Weeks at number 1?
Year end number ones?
YEC titles?
Obviously both Federer and Nadal have stats in their favour, but if you only consider the ones in Nadal's favour, then you'll obviously get a biased picture.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
We get it.
Nadal is God, Federer doesn't know how to play. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Lets call this thread what it is - Lets hate on Federer thread!!!! Yay! Pathetic.
Nadal is God, Federer doesn't know how to play. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Lets call this thread what it is - Lets hate on Federer thread!!!! Yay! Pathetic.
'time' is what Nadal doesn't have. 3 more years at top-level tennis max, which means that he'd have to win 3 slams per year for the next 3 years to beat Fed's slam-record.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Dark Victory
Rookie
It's a pity that Rafael Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer.
Had they progressed and competed at the same age, Federer would not only have a better head-to-head, but that Rafa most likely wouldn't have GS titles at Melbourne or Wimbledon. Flushing, too.
Had they progressed and competed at the same age, Federer would not only have a better head-to-head, but that Rafa most likely wouldn't have GS titles at Melbourne or Wimbledon. Flushing, too.
Clay lover
Legend
It's hard to say in my opinion. Federer is a late bloomer and a 19-22 years old Fed doesn't match up well with a 19-22 years old Nadal. And we have no proof that the competition outside of Federer back then was stronger than the players today who eliminated Nadal in the Grand slams.
One side of the coin.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
so 4 RG finals, including a win, 5 masters on clay is not being reasonably good on clay ???? The fact that he's lost so many times to rafa on clay is a more a testament to rafa's grateness on clay, not that much of a knock on federer
then what would you call rafa's 2 SFs and 2 (? ) masters on fast outdoors HCs, downright mediocore ? too bad he hasn't beat anyone of significance at the USO. every time he comes across someone good there, he gets outplayed !
I'll tell you what is lame: you calling rafa better than federer only on the basis of H2H when he has just half the slams, considering hasn't proven himself on fast HCs and indoors ( hasn't reached even a final at the USO ) - he is nowhere close to fed on HC or grass in terms of achievements !
I recall many saying the same thing back in 2007
they weren't entirely wrong. Nadal did fall off in 2009, though this year his comeback was phenomenal.
Nadal works really hard to get to where he is now, so one must wonder, can he stay up there? for how long? with that kind of physical game that he has, i don't think he can maintain that level without something breaking down, again.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
If Nadal isnt the GOAT now, then Federer must be, by your own logic.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
That does'nt take away the goatness of Federers results.
If Federer was on the WTA tour, Davey would declared him the undispute goat. He's just using the double standard between the ATP and WTA. Main reason is Serena is so inferior to other past legends and he doesn't like Federer.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Sorry, just now saw how Davey25 totally contradicts himself in Federer/Sampras opposition debate, which makes him fail miserably.
Dark Victory
Rookie
Had they come up at the same time, Roger isn't the only one Rafa would be worrying about in the 2001-2003 time period. Plus, other factors also figure into the equation (racket technology and surface speed).
Suppose they were both born in 1981...
Rafa at 19 in 2001 would be facing a still-formidable Kuerten on clay (he won Monte Carlo and RG that year. Plus, he also made finals in Rome). Maybe Rafa overcomes Guga, but that isn't a lock imo. Like the 19 year-old Federer in 2001, I don't see Nadal being ready yet to win Slams elsewhere.
Rafa at 20 wins RG in 2002. Maybe he does well at Melbourne. Yes, he's better than Johansson who was hot at the time, but it's still hard to call imo. Further, I'm not sure he gets past say, Safin (who also made Finals) that year. I wouldn't favor him either if he played 2002 Lleyton Hewitt at Wimbledon (given especially the rackets and the surface speed). Somebody takes him out midway at US OPEN. Heck, maybe it's Andre, or heck, even Pete.
Federer was ready to win Wimbledon in 2003. You match the 21 year-old Nadal (which is basically the 2007 version), against Roger and I'd pick the 2003---still serve-and-volleying---version of Fed in a heartbeat. Rafa wins another French Open. Once again, somebody beats him at the US OPEN. Maybe it's Roddick, who in reality, won Flushing that year.
Federer at 23 in 2004 wins three out of four Slams. Rafa also at 23 wins a third consecutive French Open. Essentially, the 2008 version of Rafa would be playing at this hypothetical year, and I figure him being as dominant as he had been in reality on Clay. Still, he loses to Fed at Wimbledon (that five-set epic in 2008 in all likelihood would probably never have happened).
In 2005, Federer probably still loses to Safin at the Australian Open semis. But past that it gets interesting. He and Rafa would be both 24 playing at the French Open. It'd essentially be Fed vs the 2009 version of Rafa and I like Fed's chances here. By years end, at the very least Roger would still have 2 Slams. And maybe he'd still mark up an 81-4 year-end record.
In 2006, Federer once again wins three our of four slams. Rafa wins the French Open given his 2010 form.
Beyond this we can only conjecture what Nadal's form could be. He's only 24 right now. But the thing is, we've already seen Federer past 25.
I figure Federer in his mid-to-late twenties is better than Rafa would be when he gets to that age bracket. Of course, once again, this is speculation, since he's not even 25 yet. But given his style of play, it's not unreasonable to imagine his level dipping off more when he gets to his late twenties as compared to Federer.
Thus, had they been of the same age and played at the same timeline, I think Fed would still have roughly 9-10 Slams at age 25 (he won his 10th at 2007 Australian Open aged 25). Maybe even 11 given how I like his chances at RG in 2005 wherein he'd be playing against what is essentially the 2009 version of Rafa.
Just because Nadal improved earlier doesn't mean he'd be holding back and beating Federer in Slams had they come up at the same time. Federer wasn't ready to dominate during that time. But like I said, there are other guys (and conditions---racket technology and surface speed) capable of stopping Rafa from 2001-2003 even given that period's reputation for being relatively weak.
Just my 2 cents.
Similar threads
