Federer Fans - Are you more worried about Fed Slam Count Over Nadal than Ever Before
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
I feel Rafa really targeted this Wimbledon. He was close, but failed in the end.
I'm looking forward to the USO now.
Otacon
Hall of Fame
Why so sure ?
Day_Tripper
Rookie
This was the perfect draw for Nadal and he came up short. Unlikely he gets this lucky at Wimbledon again.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
The age limit of the modern tennis greats is being pushed, (along with next gen being crap) so although it wouldn't surprise at all if Federer never won another slam, it wouldn't surprise me if he did either. This isn't the 80's anymore where McEnroe was done after '84 or Wilander burned out etc etc... You want proof? Look at Novak now, who btw you said many times was gone the way of Wilander and had "lost his passion."
I agree that it's harder to win slams than many realize, but that doesn't mean a 2 slam lead is safe. The 3 slam lead he has now isn't safe either. The game is being dominated by 30+ year old guys in modern times. Not just Federer and Nadal, but now Djokovic, and I expect Murray is noticing the complete lack of a next gen superstar as well while he preps for the USO. Not only that, Cilic, Anderson and Isner are all over 30, and Delpo is 29 and will be 30 in September.
Times have changed.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 756486
Guest
Never fear, Djoker is here!
StrongerThanAll
Professional
I’m the same level of worried I’ve been since 2014. This Wimbledon almost made it the most worried though. Only reprieve was AO17 felt a bit like an end.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CentreCourt
Rookie
The way the courts played at Wimbledon this year is once in a lifetime stuff. Not sure how many of you are in the UK, but we've had our warmest, driest summer of my lifetime, I believe. Certainly further back than any of the Big Four have been around.
He can be dangerous at slams, but I'd still rule out another Wimbledon. If Djokovic and Federer are fit, he's unlikely to win an AO.
If Djokovic is truly fit, he's also not a guarantee for the FO. He'd probably win it 2/3 instead of 3/3.
The US Open, who knows how they'll have the courts playing. He's been good there before, but he's unlikely to get an easier draw than last year ever again.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I didn't realize the final was played today. Silly me, I thought this was a semi?
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Semi dead Anderson was gonna beat Nadl? Stop kidding.
D
Deleted member 629564
Guest
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
lol
Bud
Bionic Poster
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Awk well, Bud.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Slam count was never the greatest metric for me regarding which player was better. People only really started caring once Fed started to approach Sampras. Make no mistake--I'd rather my favorite player had it than didn't. But there are way too many contextual issues with slams (as well as any other singular method) to properly iron out who the best is. For me, winning 17 slams with a 90 sq racket and doing it with all out offense, while having by far the most well-rounded game the sport has ever seen puts Fed at the top (AND while doing this with such a slow homogenization of surfaces). His talent is unquantifiable and he's made the sport a joy to watch. For Nadal to pass him in my book, you're looking at something like 25+ slams (at least for me). Such are the deficiencies in Nadal's game. I say that with the utmost respect. I love him as a competitor. And certainly root for him over the failure of a man known as Djokovic.
I can't think of any real weaknesses in Fed's game at his prime. One of the greatest one handers the sport has ever seen (yes, slice counts in the convo), best forehand ever, one of the best serves ever, always been a top returner, one of the best volleyers for a player primarily playing singles (though even has the doubles olympic gold), supreme movement, one of the best overheads ever, one of the fastest movers to net ever, obviously the shotmaking, has the most matches won from two sets down (how's that for the foolish notion the man was always a frontrunner). 23 straight semi's will never be broken. The man was ethereal. His two largest rivals literally patterned their games to beat him. He was as the saying goes, the gold standard. It's taken until now with Alcaraz until we've seen anything resembling a true successor's to Fed's approach to tennis. Those are things records can't exactly quantify. Fed only has himself to blame regarding the slam deficiency now (2011, 2013, 2019 really stick out for me) but that for me isn't what's most important.
All credit to Nadal today. He's been willing to suffer the most to win as much as he has. All that said--let's hear no more of Fed having a weak era with the amount of mugs Nadal has been able to feast on for his finals. Ruud is possibly the worst slam finalist of the last 30 years, and I mean that with all seriousness. I think too many people quantify end result (winning) as the measure of who is the best. You see this in lots of sports. Unfortunately, context is rarely afforded. Most players will say Fed is the greatest they've ever played, and that's from those who have played all three at their prime levels. Zverev is the only one who seems to oscillate depending on his head space after matches. But listen to his brother Mischa. Fed puts a pressure on a player no other player can.
I can't think of any real weaknesses in Fed's game at his prime. One of the greatest one handers the sport has ever seen (yes, slice counts in the convo), best forehand ever, one of the best serves ever, always been a top returner, one of the best volleyers for a player primarily playing singles (though even has the doubles olympic gold), supreme movement, one of the best overheads ever, one of the fastest movers to net ever, obviously the shotmaking, has the most matches won from two sets down (how's that for the foolish notion the man was always a frontrunner). 23 straight semi's will never be broken. The man was ethereal. His two largest rivals literally patterned their games to beat him. He was as the saying goes, the gold standard. It's taken until now with Alcaraz until we've seen anything resembling a true successor's to Fed's approach to tennis. Those are things records can't exactly quantify. Fed only has himself to blame regarding the slam deficiency now (2011, 2013, 2019 really stick out for me) but that for me isn't what's most important.
All credit to Nadal today. He's been willing to suffer the most to win as much as he has. All that said--let's hear no more of Fed having a weak era with the amount of mugs Nadal has been able to feast on for his finals. Ruud is possibly the worst slam finalist of the last 30 years, and I mean that with all seriousness. I think too many people quantify end result (winning) as the measure of who is the best. You see this in lots of sports. Unfortunately, context is rarely afforded. Most players will say Fed is the greatest they've ever played, and that's from those who have played all three at their prime levels. Zverev is the only one who seems to oscillate depending on his head space after matches. But listen to his brother Mischa. Fed puts a pressure on a player no other player can.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
I’m a Fed fan and not really worried about the slam count at this point. Fed was the first to get to the ridiculous milestone of 20. Doesn’t matter what the final slam count, these 3 guys will forever be linked to one another.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
It is OK.
ElChivoEspañol
Hall of Fame
Wimbledon is next and there’s something in the air that tells me this is Rafa’s year, I’m confident they’ll figure that foot out to let him play right on time.
Vamos!
Vamos!
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal wins the rest of the slams for this year I will retire my account
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Nobody cares.
Similar threads
