It's alright. Quality > Quantity anyway.
This post made me cry. Especially the end. Its a beautiful post.Here's my position. No idea how many will agree with it or can relate, but all I can do is give my view.
I am a full-time, unashamed, card-carrying Fed fan, and I admit that at multiple times in the past I have thought very little of Novak, essentially for the reason OP mentions (that he's been beating Federer and poses a threat to his legacy).
I admit this, and I think some of his current haters would do well to admit this too.
But right now, and as of the last nine months or so, I have come to accept it, make my peace with it, and respect Novak for the great player he is.
I won't lie and say I particularly like him, or that I am a fan of his, but I can and do respect him, and my feelings in this regard are now quite stable.
Anyway, regarding Novak climbing the ladder of history, I wish him the best.
Will he pass Federer? I don't know.
If he does, again, I'm not going to be particularly happy about it, but how can I be?
I have followed Federer for the entire time I have watched tennis, and as far as my interest in the sport goes, his victories are meaningful and joyful for me.
Of course I want him to be the best.
But, and this is important - I can deal with it.
I can be happy for Novak when he wins, and disappointed for him when he loses - these things have happened many times in the past.
I understand that it isn't fair for me to hate on him, as he has done nothing really to deserve it. Beating Federer is his job.
I do not hate him, and do not wish him ill.
I am friendly with many of his fans - good people, and Novak himself is a good guy and does not deserve any hatred.
If Novak somehow climbs above Federer, so be it.
Even though I want Federer to be the greatest, I can deal with it if he is not.
To me personally, he always has been, is, and will always be #1, even if objectively he may not be at some point in the future.
I don't need Federer to be the greatest, or the best. I am not a glory hunter, and those things are not why I follow him.
What Federer does - out there, on the court - is why I am a fan.
Its alrightDidn't mean to do that, sorry.
But seriously I just wish we all get along hereNot debating anything else you have to say here but it's pretty funny to me that you don't remember some federer fans taking a liking to novak in 2011 while you recall and blame all other fan bases to be turncoats. Some fed fans even claimed that they liked Djoker as he had matured a lot compared to 2007 and is very gracious. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in liking Djoker, just had to respond because you said "EVER".
14>>17 as 6 Federers, 4 Djokovics, Puerta, Soderling, Ferrer and Berdych is>>4 Rodicks, 3 Murrays, 2 Nadals, Philippoussis, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Djokovic, Gonzales and Soderling,
Too cryptic...can't tell if you are a friend or foe.
Why?
Never leave here.Federer fans turning on Novak
Federer fans
turning on
Novak
They are not mutually exclusive. Legendary players are legendary for a reason - they play much better than anyone else. So, your point is virtually self-contradictory.Why?
Serious question.
Because those opponents of Federer's can't ever be nearly as good as Nadal, Federer, and Murray in a tennis match, right?
And how do you know that?
I'll guess again - because they haven't won as much, right?
That seems like a legitimate argument, and it is, when comparing those players' overall greatness to the more achieved players.
Nadal is obviously a greater and more achieved player than Roddick.
But, and here's the but: It says little of the level players have brought or can bring in individual matches.
I'll guess again that you think Federer's opponent in the final of the 2007 Australian Open (Fernando Gonzalez) was inferior to Novak's competition, yeah?
That if Federer had faced Nadal, that would have been much better/stronger competition?
Here's the thing - Nadal showed up to that tournament, and was doing just fine - until Gonzalez (the very same) beat him in the QF, 6-2, 6-4, 6-3.
He then straight-setted the next guy (Tommy Haas) in the SF, before Federer destroyed him in the final.
So Gonzalez, who gave the World #2 a beatdown, (and maintained that level in the next rounds) is supposedly weak opposition?
You may say that Nadal would have been tougher for Federer due to the match-up, and that is perfectly true.
But so what?
Are people only worthy of winning a slam if they play someone with whom they have a severe match-up issue in the final, regardless of who makes it through the draw?
Djokovic has a favourable match-up with Nadal, does that then make his slam final wins vs. Nadal illegitimate?
Of course not, and I hope that you would agree.
You could also say that Nadal was playing badly - not Federer's fault.
Besides, if Nadal was playing badly enough to lose in straights to someone who is apparently no good, Federer would have beaten him as well, match-up or no.
Would a terrible Nadal be tough competition?
It's not the name of the player you should look for, it's how they're playing.
Novak will have to win Agassi's entire career worth of majors starting from now, at age 28, to overtake Federer in majors won.
It is probably easier to understand if I put 10>6. If you say, one can beat only those who are in front of you, I will tell you 6<9. Federer had many opportunities to beat Nadal and Djokovic (but he didn't).Why?
Serious question.
Because those opponents of Federer's can't ever be nearly as good as Nadal, Federer, and Murray in a tennis match, right?
And how do you know that?
I'll guess again - because they haven't won as much, right?
That seems like a legitimate argument, and it is, when comparing those players' overall greatness to the more achieved players.
Nadal is obviously a greater and more achieved player than Roddick.
But, and here's the but: It says little of the level players have brought or can bring in individual matches.
I'll guess again that you think Federer's opponent in the final of the 2007 Australian Open (Fernando Gonzalez) was inferior to Novak's competition, yeah?
That if Federer had faced Nadal, that would have been much better/stronger competition?
Here's the thing - Nadal showed up to that tournament, and was doing just fine - until Gonzalez (the very same) beat him in the QF, 6-2, 6-4, 6-3.
He then straight-setted the next guy (Tommy Haas) in the SF, before Federer destroyed him in the final.
So Gonzalez, who gave the World #2 a beatdown, (and maintained that level in the next rounds) is supposedly weak opposition?
You may say that Nadal would have been tougher for Federer due to the match-up, and that is perfectly true.
But so what?
Are people only worthy of winning a slam if they play someone with whom they have a severe match-up issue in the final, regardless of who makes it through the draw?
Djokovic has a favourable match-up with Nadal, does that then make his slam final wins vs. Nadal illegitimate?
Of course not, and I hope that you would agree.
You could also say that Nadal was playing badly - not Federer's fault.
Besides, if Nadal was playing badly enough to lose in straights to someone who is apparently no good, Federer would have beaten him as well, match-up or no.
Would a terrible Nadal be tough competition?
It's not the name of the player you should look for, it's how they're playing.
Yes, they are legendary. Of course they are.
You answered your own question. "Form" is subjective, while "overall accomplishment" is objective. That's why it is a better indicator as to who's the harder competitor.
One of the 100 ways to help Fed fans sleep at night.
You're barking up the wrong tree I'm afraid... Bias doesn't begin to describe this guyWhy?
Serious question.
Because those opponents of Federer's can't ever be nearly as good as Nadal, Federer, and Murray in a tennis match, right?
And how do you know that?
I'll guess again - because they haven't won as much, right?
That seems like a legitimate argument, and it is, when comparing those players' overall greatness to the more achieved players.
Nadal is obviously a greater and more achieved player than Roddick.
But, and here's the but: It says little of the level players have brought or can bring in individual matches.
I'll guess again that you think Federer's opponent in the final of the 2007 Australian Open (Fernando Gonzalez) was inferior to Novak's competition, yeah?
That if Federer had faced Nadal, that would have been much better/stronger competition?
Here's the thing - Nadal showed up to that tournament, and was doing just fine - until Gonzalez (the very same) beat him in the QF, 6-2, 6-4, 6-3.
He then straight-setted the next guy (Tommy Haas) in the SF, before Federer destroyed him in the final.
So Gonzalez, who gave the World #2 a beatdown, (and maintained that level in the next rounds) is supposedly weak opposition?
You may say that Nadal would have been tougher for Federer due to the match-up, and that is perfectly true.
But so what?
Are people only worthy of winning a slam if they play someone with whom they have a severe match-up issue in the final, regardless of who makes it through the draw?
Djokovic has a favourable match-up with Nadal, does that then make his slam final wins vs. Nadal illegitimate?
Of course not, and I hope that you would agree.
You could also say that Nadal was playing badly - not Federer's fault.
Besides, if Nadal was playing badly enough to lose in straights to someone who is apparently no good, Federer would have beaten him as well, match-up or no.
Would a terrible Nadal be tough competition?
It's not the name of the player you should look for, it's how they're playing.
He's too short
Federer has won 17 slams.
), as I was saying previously, the times when Fed won slams without going through Nadal and Djokovic are no less valid simply becuase they could not make it through the draw to face him.On many occasions, he also did.
But in this case, the man you claim to be the "harder competitor" (which is on average true, and I do not deny this) lost in the quarterfinal, in straight sets.
And you being stupid enough to get involved in all of them.
You can argue all day long, but what you said is still "subjective". Still an "inferior" indicator.But in this case, the man you claim to be the "harder competitor" (which is on average true, and I do not deny this) lost in the quarterfinal, in straight sets.
Gonzalez, on the other hand, played out of his skin and made the final, beating Nadal in straight sets along the way.
So who is tougher?
Someone who, whatever their name happens to be, lost in straights in the QF;
Or someone who, whatever their name happens to be, straight-setted the world #2 (and the next decent guy) and made the final.
I know who I'd rather face.
Hey N_N.
He is referring to himself. Look at his username. You know he's obsessed with Djokovic and faking to be a hater.
Hey N_N.
You might notice I'm putting in more effort now lol.
Are you back for good?
Djokovic.
Indeed. All those are great players. Federer is himself a great player.
But it is not subjective.
Oh, you were talking to me there, I though you were talking to OP.
No need to mention him. Djokovic is out of any league. What he is doing is something else. What he has done in China, never seen anything like it. The guy will probably finish with >20 majors. When I see Wawrinka, Karlovic, Federer, Lopez etc. Djokovic probably didn't reach his peak.
Apart from 3 Slam final losses, which other 2 Slams you think Fed was denied by Novak? 2008 and 2011 AO maybe?
What do you mean by the elites count
