Federer deserves the GOAT status, but not against Rafa.

[terribleIVAN]

But competition in Feds era is the toughest.

Only starting 2007.
Before that, Fed only had to best players like Hewitt, Safin, old Agassi.
And he amassed a lot of slams in that period against so and so opposition.

If Sampras during his slight decline after age 26 had 21 years old Borg and Agassi (I mean non headcase Agassi), I don't think he wins 14.

Sampras had to face a tougher field than Roger, right from the start.
Becker, Edberg, Courrier, Chang, Agassi, Korda, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Philipoussis, Ivanisevic, Bruguera, and even old Ivan and Mac to a certain degree when he began.

But like another poster pointed out, Fed certainly deserves the title of GOAT as all-around player, only in contention perhaps with Laver.

 

[Magnetite]

Post doesn't make any sense.

 

[TheTruth]

Pete had minor thalassemia, which causes weakness by lack of red blood cells.

We hear a lot about EPO: imagine the opposite, an athlete forced to compete while low on red blood cells.

You've got to wonder where he would have ended with no hereditary illness.

So very true, but I bet a lot of posters don't even know this. I'll also bet many didn't even see him play in the context of his generation. You can tell by the uninformed things that get said on here.

 

[TheTruth]

Regarding the list which is obviously skewed to highlight Federer, what if we made a list from the perspective of another player's achievements?

To me, consecutive semi-finals, quarterfinals, WTFs, and some of the other things on that list are only put in because they favor Federer.

Another list could be compiled that listed:

Earliest major win

Chang 17
Becker 17
Nadal 19
Federer 21

Less losses on most dominant surface

Nadal 1
Federer ?

Olympics (because the experts consider it a feat)
Nadal ?
Federer 0

Davis Cups

Nadal ?
Federer 0

Won on three surfaces in a year

Nadal 1
Federer 0

Consecutive years winning a major
Nadal 9
Federer 8

H2H against main rivals

Nadal 3
Federer 2
Novak 1
Murray 1

It's all in what you want to highlight. The "list": is so biased and patently unfair it's ridiculous. Anyone using that as a standard of objectivity has got some loose marbles. A lot of it is a thinly veiled account of Federer's achievements only to make him look better. It totally discounts the achievements of others and pads statistics that have zero to do with GOAT status.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver didnt have to beat a clay freak like Nadal. Take Nadal out and Federer does 2-3 CYGS easily.

I have said this before to THUNDERVOLLEY, that Nadal is close to invincible on clay (95% of his FO matches have not even seen his opponent push him to 5 sets). Yet he insists Laver would somehow have magically found a way to rise to a level higher than Nadal on clay, and win the CYGS.

I don't know if he believes his nonsense or is just trolling Federer fans.

 

[terribleIVAN]

I have said this before to THUNDERVOLLEY, that Nadal is close to invincible on clay (95% of his FO matches have not even seen his opponent push him to 5 sets). Yet he insists Laver would somehow have magically found a way to rise to a level higher than Nadal on clay, and win the CYGS.

I don't know if he believes his nonsense or is just trolling Federer fans.

So close to invincibility that Roger, playing total tennis, gave him a 6-1 lecture in the first set of the 2006 RG finale...

Who's to say Laver wouldn't find a way too and sustain it over the long course ?

 

[abmk]

So close to invincibility that Roger, playing total tennis, gave him a 6-1 lecture in the first set of the 2006 RG finale...

Who's to say Laver wouldn't find a way too and sustain it over the long course ?

The problem vs rafa on clay is being able to sustain it to be able to beat him. Many players have had hot streaks and dominated for a stretch, but rafa raises his level and or oppnent cannot keep it up

 

[sbengte]

You guys have to realize that the term "greatest" is relative, meaning if someone loses it then someone else must have replaced him, right?

It is surprising that in the hundreds of threads on the GOAT debate, this very basic fact is overlooked. In a sport like tennis, your accomplishments are always weighed relative to the field. There is no predefined criteria for declaring who is the best. Whoever has the max records is obviously declared the best or the greatest among those who played. It does not mean he/she is perfect.

All these additional criteria for GOAT like h2h are added in hindsight just to dispute somebody's claims at GOAThood. If that is the case, you can always make up new criterion to dispute anybody's claim to GOAthood. Like assume Federer has 25 slams, 4 CYGS, winning h2h against everyone he has played against. Once can still say he is not GOAT because he has not won every tennis match he has played and how can the greatest player lose a match ?

 

[sbengte]

It's all in what you want to highlight. The "list": is so biased and patently unfair it's ridiculous. Anyone using that as a standard of objectivity has got some loose marbles. A lot of it is a thinly veiled account of Federer's achievements only to make him look better. It totally discounts the achievements of others and pads statistics that have zero to do with GOAT status.

Except that your list is so good that no one except fans of your hero will buy this list :lol:

What about the ATP records page ? They have no agenda to promote anyone so their list can't be unfair or ridiculous ? Search for each of the potential GOAT candidates on that page and see whose name gets the most hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records

Whoever holds the most records should be the greatest without doubt ? Or are you now going to accuse the ATP of promoting Federer ?

(Someone made a thread suggesting this , and I agree this is the best method rather than all the subjective opinions ;-) )

 

[terribleIVAN]

Once can still say he is not GOAT because he has not won every tennis match he has played and how can the greatest player lose a match ?

 

[TMF]

Pete had minor thalassemia, which causes weakness by lack of red blood cells.

We hear a lot about EPO: imagine the opposite, an athlete forced to compete while low on red blood cells.

You've got to wonder where he would have ended with no hereditary illness.

Yes, that's unfortunate for Pete, but you have deal with what you're born with. You can't say he would have better career if he was born free from thalassemia. That's like Davydenko say had he was born a few inches taller he would have a better career, or another player who's born with asthma could say the same thing. You deal with what you have.

So very true, but I bet a lot of posters don't even know this. I'll also bet many didn't even see him play in the context of his generation. You can tell by the uninformed things that get said on here.

I'm sure many tennis are aware of Pete's condition. Don't underestimate other poster's knowledge, they may know even more than you.

 

[terribleIVAN]

You can't say he would have better career if he was born free from thalassemia.

Of course i can !
Why do you even think blood doping exists ?

 

[TheTruth]

Except that your list is so good that no one except fans of your hero will buy this list :lol:

What about the ATP records page ? They have no agenda to promote anyone so their list can't be unfair or ridiculous ? Search for each of the potential GOAT candidates on that page and see whose name gets the most hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records

Whoever holds the most records should be the greatest without doubt ? Or are you now going to accuse the ATP of promoting Federer ?

(Someone made a thread suggesting this , and I agree this is the best method rather than all the subjective opinions ;-) )

The ATP records page is a list of statistics. It's not a list of GOAT criterion. You can extrapolate any of these statistics to make your case for GOAT.

All of these players are not potential GOAT candidates, for example, Djokovic, Connors, Nadal, Ferrer, and Murray are on the list for things that they have done, that doesn't mean they're the GOAT. It's just a list of those at the top of the game, or who did some great things.

Also, the point of my post was that very long list that keeps getting quoted around here which is definitely skewed in Federer's favor, to show that he is the GOAT.

Not being a historian I don't know what the actual GOAT criteria is, and don't pretend to know.

I've seen lists that deem others the GOAT and they don't list many things on the TT list that I was referring to.

And, with Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray being on the list of ATP records, not GOAT criterion, that would be a bit premature to consider this a GOAT list, wouldn't it? Considering their ages.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes, that's unfortunate for Pete, but you have deal with what you're born with. You can't say he would have better career if he was born free from thalassemia. That's like Davydenko say had he was born a few inches taller he would have a better career, or another player who's born with asthma could say the same thing. You deal with what you have.



I'm sure many tennis are aware of Pete's condition. Don't underestimate other poster's knowledge, they may know even more than you.

A lot of people know more than me. I would never dispute that, but everyone doesn't know Pete had thalassemia, so I'm speaking about those people who may not be aware.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer is up there in the GOAT discussion along with many other greats, but his record against Nadal isn't a complete deterrent to his career.

 

[swordtennis]

Of course i can !
Why do you even think blood doping exists ?

Good post.
Good times.
What a peak Canas had. Those two beatings he gave Federer were epic.
Canas was doped to the gills.

 

[Sorana fan]

Of course i can !
Why do you even think blood doping exists ?

Was ******* that fat? Not fit at all

 

[zam88]

So, what is worse? Losing to different guys and to lesser players and early in slams? Or losing to only 1 guy, an all-time great more times in slam finals?

Also what is better? Winning 2 slams in 10 tries, or 1 slam in 3 tries?

Who is richer? A guy who is 20 and has 1 million dollars, but stays at 1 million? Or a guy who is 20 and is broke, but has 2 million when he is 30?

Agree.. if you're going to lose... is losing to the Clay GOAT.. on CLAY! a lot of times a flaw?

It's like Roger would've been far more rewarded for losing the match right before playing Nadal on clay to a lesser opponent, then actually beating that opponent.


I think I'd rather be the guy who had 1 million at 20, has a great time and bangs a lot of chicks and still has the million... than the broke guy who has 2 million at 30

 

[zam88]

Recipe for GOAT:

Win 100% of your matches, rarely dropping a point let alone a set (i mean there's a ton of matches where allegedly according to poster here that Federer looks like CRAP when he wins, but drops a set).

But somehow your competition needs to be good as well.... but the problem is, how is your competition going to have any appreciable accolades when you win 100% of your matches?

 

[OKUSA]

It's all in what you want to highlight. The "list": is so biased and patently unfair it's ridiculous. Anyone using that as a standard of objectivity has got some loose marbles. A lot of it is a thinly veiled account of Federer's achievements only to make him look better. It totally discounts the achievements of others and pads statistics that have zero to do with GOAT status.

Okay, then throw the two biased lists together and see who's the best? In fact, you're missing a ton of names from your so called list

 

[sbengte]

The ATP records page is a list of statistics. It's not a list of GOAT criterion. You can extrapolate any of these statistics to make your case for GOAT.

Sorry, argument makes no sense. Sounds more like sour grapes. This page has an official, exhaustive, unbiased list of the world records and not just any statistics. The guy with the most of these records has to be the best. What extrapolation are you talking about ?

All of these players are not potential GOAT candidates, for example, Djokovic, Connors, Nadal, Ferrer, and Murray are on the list for things that they have done, that doesn't mean they're the GOAT. It's just a list of those at the top of the game, or who did some great things.

Did you read my post ? I said whoever holds the most records on that page is GOAT, not every player whose name figures there. Jeez.

Not being a historian I don't know what the actual GOAT criteria is, and don't pretend to know.

There is no predefined criteria. But it is just common sense that whoever holds the most amount of official records is the best.

 

[TheTruth]

Okay, then throw the two biased lists together and see who's the best? In fact, you're missing a ton of names from your so called list

If you can't see how biased it is, there's no point in trying to have a discussion with you.

 

[TheTruth]

Sorry, argument makes no sense. Sounds more like sour grapes. This page has an official, exhaustive, unbiased list of the world records and not just any statistics. The guy with the most of these records has to be the best. What extrapolation are you talking about ?



Did you read my post ? I said whoever holds the most records on that page is GOAT, not every player whose name figures there. Jeez.



There is no predefined criteria. But it is just common sense that whoever holds the most amount of official records is the best.

The list is statistical, only noting different achievements, that doesn't mean it's GOAT criteria. So, you think Murray, Djokovic, or F Lopez are possible GOAT contenders? Because their achievements are on there too. I can't believe you think that it's sour grapes, that's funny. They simply listed different things that players have done, that includes the lower ranked players as well. You extrapolate when you try to make the list mean something it wasn't intended to mean.

I don't remember your post, tbh.

If you go by common sense and numbers, then you would see that many other players had very impressive numbers and reasons for being called the GOAT. For example, look up Borg and GOAT, they make a great case for him considering the time frame in which he achieved his exploits.

The most records on that list does not qualify as GOAT to me, to you maybe, but many of those statistics have nothing at all to do with GOAT.

 

[Chico]

I believe Fed's records and longevity rightfully place him above other greats like Pete, Borg, Mac, Nadal, Agassi or Lendl.

It doesn't mean of course Fed would beat them all individually; he deserves the GOAT status because his achievements against the whole field, not just your main rivals, surpasses those of all the players cited above.

His shotmaking, economy in effort, ability to play total tennis without real weaknesses provided him a longevity that he used to break nearly every tennis record.

Having established that, there will be those who will point out it's a nonsense to use the GOAT status when you could never dominate your main rival, and they have a perfectly valid point.

Just like Pete before him, who could never master clay, Roger has left the GOAT door open to interpretation ; he's himself very much aware of it.

So, it would be unjust to rewrite history now that he's in decline and forget his whole legacy in favour of younger lions.

Until another player can come along and beat these records, i say Fed deserves the GOAT status...except against Rafa.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Terrible statement to make IVAN.

 

[TheTruth]

Okay, then throw the two biased lists together and see who's the best? In fact, you're missing a ton of names from your so called list

I didn't make a list. I was making an analogy, lol. I don't have a GOAT list because I don't believe in GOATS. That's silly.

 

[TMF]

The goat list isn't that complicated or difficult to understand. The metrics are basically based on career achievements, level of dominating the sport, setting and breaking records. Of all the goat athletes(eg Gretzky), the list is all about career achievements. My goat list for tennis is all about achievements.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The goat list isn't that complicated or difficult to understand. The metrics are basically based on career achievements, level of dominating the sport, setting and breaking records. Of all the goat athletes(eg Gretzky), the list is all about career achievements. My goat list for tennis is all about achievements.

TMF - Who make the top five in your opinion?

 

[TMF]

TMF - Who make the top five in your opinion?

Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Pancho. Nadal deserves to be in their too and if I have to remove one player from the list then it would be Borg(sorry borg fans).

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Pancho. Nadal deserves to be in their too and if I have to remove one player from the list then it would be Borg(sorry borg fans).

You have Borg over Pancho?

 

[TMF]

You have Borg over Pancho?

It's close, but it's hard to compare between the two since Pancho was in the pre-open era. The reason why I would swapped Nadal for Borg because their career are similar plus an open era is easier to compare.