Federer has lost to only 25 different players since winning his first Slam!

[GameSampras]

This is precisely the criticism that many of us have made about certain posts by Sampras fans.



No. No player gets any special consideration for what he might or might not have done if he had not been injured. This applies equally to Sampras' thalassemia minor, Federer's mono and Nadal's tendinitis. It even applies to considerably more difficult cases such as Seles' stabbing and Maureen Connolly's riding injury. While it's extremely easy to make the case that Connolly and Seles would have achieved more if they had not been injured, players are judged on the basis of what they accomplished, not on what some fans think they might have done if only....


Why is it better to lose in the early rounds of majors to journeymen such as Schaller, Yzaga and Delgado than it is to lose in major finals to a Nadal?



Sampras in major finals: 14-4
Federer in major finals: 15-5, with a French Open title, something that Sampras never came close to achieving.

If we were to ask past and present ATP players whose record they would rather have their answer would be virtually unanimous. Hint: they would select the player who is featured on the cover of the current Tennis magazine as The Greatest of All Time.

Well we know thats a load of crap.. Thanks for pointing that out.. Yea sure Fed never gets any special consideration around here:shock: Its either Fed had mono which is why he lossed, Fed isnt taking smaller tournaments seriously, Fed had a bad back even though he made it to the AO final.. Fed was passed his prime last year at wimbeldon even though he went through the entire slam without dropping a set prior to the final..




And I dont care about the Greatest of all Time since there is no way to prove it regardless. Its just an opinion.. And IMO Fed isnt.. he hasnt had the best career and have the best overrall resume of all time..

When he duplicates what Laver did or even Pancho then we will talk.


You want to go resume wise? Nope Fed doesnt take it.. Era toughness wise, Fed sure as hell doesnt take that considering the 00's is one of the weaker eras in history top talent depth wise. Hes had one rival, and that rival has bested Fed more times than Fed has bested him

Fed loses one more slam match to Nadal preferably his GOAT candidacy goes out the window.. If it hasnt already you can argue.


First people say Fed's the GOAT.. Then they recant and say, "well fed needs to beat Nadal to be the GOAT" So which is it? If Fed was the GOAT, he wouldnt NEED to prove himself against his rival I would say

 

[Steve132]

Well we know thats a load of crap.. Thanks for pointing that out.. Yea sure Fed never gets any special consideration around here:shock: Its either Fed had mono which is why he lossed, Fed isnt taking smaller tournaments seriously, Fed had a bad back even though he made it to the AO final.. Fed was passed his prime last year at wimbeldon even though he went through the entire slam without dropping a set prior to the final..




And I dont care about the Greatest of all Time since there is no way to prove it regardless. Its just an opinion.. And IMO Fed isnt.. he hasnt had the best career and have the best overrall resume of all time..

When he duplicates what Laver did or even Pancho then we will talk.


You want to go resume wise? Nope Fed doesnt take it.. Era toughness wise, Fed sure as hell doesnt take that considering the 00's is one of the weaker eras in history top talent depth wise. Hes had one rival, and that rival has bested Fed more times than Fed has bested him

Fed loses one more slam match to Nadal preferably his GOAT candidacy goes out the window.. If it hasnt already you can argue.


First people say Fed's the GOAT.. Then they recant and say, "well fed needs to beat Nadal to be the GOAT" So which is it? If Fed was the GOAT, he wouldnt NEED to prove himself against his rival I would say

We are clearly not going to agree on issues such as the strength of Federer's competition, so I won't revisit any of the many discussions that this forum has had on such topics.

I'll just make one point. You claim that 'First people say Fed's the GOAT.. Then they recant and say, "well fed needs to beat Nadal to be the GOAT"'

Over the past few months many tennis analysts and former players have described Federer as the best player since (at least) Rod Laver. This view is very widely shared and it can now even be described as a solid consensus. The list of informed observers supporting Federer's Open era GOAT claims includes Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Stefan Edberg, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, Ivan Lendl, John Lloyd, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Greg Rusedski and Mats Wilander. To the best of my knowledge none of this group has retracted his statements. Do you have any information to the contrary, or any evidence that a significant number of analysts believes that Sampras is a better player than Federer?

 

[NamRanger]

We are clearly not going to agree on issues such as the strength of Federer's competition, so I won't revisit any of the many discussions that this forum has had on such topics.

I'll just make one point. You claim that 'First people say Fed's the GOAT.. Then they recant and say, "well fed needs to beat Nadal to be the GOAT"'

Over the past few months many tennis analysts and former players have described Federer as the best player since (at least) Rod Laver. This view is very widely shared and it can now even be described as a solid consensus. The list of informed observers supporting Federer's Open era GOAT claims includes Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Stefan Edberg, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, Ivan Lendl, John Lloyd, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Greg Rusedski and Mats Wilander. To the best of my knowledge none of this group has retracted his statements. Do you have any information to the contrary, or any evidence that a significant number of analysts believes that Sampras is a better player than Federer?

To put the nail in the coffin, even Sampras feels Federer is the GOAT.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

To put the nail in the coffin, even Sampras feels Federer is the GOAT.

But then he started flip flopping and saying Fed needed to change the Nadal h2h. Thus, GameSampras follows the Tao of Pete.

 

[GameSampras]

We are clearly not going to agree on issues such as the strength of Federer's competition, so I won't revisit any of the many discussions that this forum has had on such topics.

I'll just make one point. You claim that 'First people say Fed's the GOAT.. Then they recant and say, "well fed needs to beat Nadal to be the GOAT"'

Over the past few months many tennis analysts and former players have described Federer as the best player since (at least) Rod Laver. This view is very widely shared and it can now even be described as a solid consensus. The list of informed observers supporting Federer's Open era GOAT claims includes Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Stefan Edberg, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, Ivan Lendl, John Lloyd, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Greg Rusedski and Mats Wilander. To the best of my knowledge none of this group has retracted his statements. Do you have any information to the contrary, or any evidence that a significant number of analysts believes that Sampras is a better player than Federer?

Agassi has gone back and forth with Fed. He was one who recanted a few times.. First Fed is GOAT he says, but again mentions he needs to prove himself against Nadal..

I just find that leaning on both ends of the spectrum so to speak.. Sure the hands down GOAT wouldnt need to accomplish such a feat.. The hands down GOAT should have already proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.. Not lose to his one and only rival on every surface at the slams..And only manage to win slams when his rival is not in the equation? See what Im saying?



Hell there are still players who feel Sampras is better than Roger. Goran, Kafelnikov just to name a few. At the end of the day its just an opinion. So who cares really.. How can you prove one great over the other?

 

[GameSampras]

Today, 09:58 PM
Remove user from ignore listNamRanger
This message is hidden because NamRanger is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 10:01 PM
Remove user from ignore listjamesblakefan#1
This message is hidden because jamesblakefan#1 is on your ignore list.




Ahhh..... Peace and quiet. LOL.. I dont have to deal with these two anymore.. Thank god for the ignore option provided to us

 

[Mikael]

If you can excuse Sampras' and Ivanisevic's failures against the current generation by saying that they were past their prime, I can just as easily excuse Roddick's failures before the U.S. Open iin 2003 by saying that he was not as yet in his prime. See how easy it is to create a special pleading argument?

Hewitt had some bad losses in majors. So what? This is true of all no. 1 players with the exception of Federer who, since becoming No. 1 is about 117-1 in majors against players ranked outside the top 5. When Sampras was world no. 1 he lost in majors to journeymen such as Schaller, Yzaga and Delgado.

Let's take a step back. Ferrero and Safin were born in 1980, Federer and Hewitt in 1981 and Nalbandian and Roddick in 1982. It is unrealistic, to say the least, to expect any except the first two to have been consistent contenders at majors before 2003. Safin and Hewitt won their first majors at age 20. Nalbandian reached the finals at Wimbledon at the same age. Roddick won the U.S. Open a week or so after his 21st birthday. Federer was something of a late bloomer, not winning his first major until he was almost 22. 2003 was the breakout year for this generation, with Ferrero winning the French and reaching the U.S. Open final in that year. But even if Federer had not begun to dominate the tour from 2004 onwards his contemporatries would have done so. Most of the majors that he won in 2004-2006 would have gone to Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. All things considered, this generation began contending and winning at majors just about when you would expect. There are very few players in the Open era - other than perhaps Borg and Becker - who were consistent contenders at majors before their early 20's.

Yes, if Federer had not started dominating then Hewitt, Roddick and Safin would have shared slams around 2004-6, that is the most natural thing as that's precisely the period that would have been their prime. Except maybe Hewitt whose gamestyle IMO lends itself to peaking a little earlier, a la Nadal. It would have been too late for anyone from the Sampras generation to do any damage, except Agassi who might have won a slam or two.

My point was that these guys, even though as you say they were still a little young around 2000-2003, could have done a lot better at slams considering the weak opposition they were up against: no dominant Fed, a very weak and injury prone mid 70s generation who were hitting their primes (Kuerten, Moya, Philipoussis, Johansson, Enqvist, Henman...), and an early 70s generation pushing 30 including Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter and a few others.

Yes I agree with you that Agassi is a bit of a stand out here, but even though he was still playing very well in the early 00s I still think he "belongs" to the 90s. Besides he is "compensated" in a way by the fact that other greats from his age group like Chang and Courier weren't threats anymore.

The "new balls" were more than capable of regularly being slam contenders in spite of their young age: Safin was very close to ending 2000 as #1, then Hewitt ended both 2001 and 2002 as #1. However, when it came to majors, they were regularly beaten by older players, including much older players. This is no generalization, just an observation.

I guess our disagreement boils down to how much could be expected of Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian and Roddick in 2000-2003. Of course it depends on the individual player, Roddick wasn't even playing slams in 2000... But my opinion is that as a whole those guys should have done a lot better. If you are top 10 let alone top 5 like most of them were in that period then you are a slam contender, and should be winning more slams in a period where guys ranked beyond the top 10 were doing it.

 

[FlamEnemY]

Today, 09:58 PM
Remove user from ignore listNamRanger
This message is hidden because NamRanger is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 10:01 PM
Remove user from ignore listjamesblakefan#1
This message is hidden because jamesblakefan#1 is on your ignore list.




Ahhh..... Peace and quiet. LOL.. I dont have to deal with these two anymore.. Thank god for the ignore option provided to us

You are making a fool of yourself. You are PROUD with ignoring respectable posters' opinion and showing off with it?
You know, the loudest ones are often the most shallow.

 

[CountryHillbilly]

You are making a fool of yourself. You are PROUD with ignoring respectable posters' opinion and showing off with it?
You know, the loudest ones are often the most shallow.

NamRanger respectable? He knows A LOT about tennis, that's for sure. But some of his opinions are badly biased. Especially about Murray and Djoko.

Still, it's dumb putting people on ignore list.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

NamRanger respectable? He knows A LOT about tennis, that's for sure. But some of his opinions are badly biased. Especially about Murray and Djoko.

Still, it's dumb putting people on ignore list.

he doesnt use multiple acounts to make his points prevail... or to take low blows at elder posters with whom he has disagreements...

or am i Wrong Daddy?

 

[CountryHillbilly]

... or to take low blows at elder posters with whom he has disagreements...

Wow, I would like to see you when you have disagreements. It doesn't look pretty when you defend your country's greatest tennis promise.

Are you still in Portugao btw?
Moved anywhere perhaps?

See, I'll keep this ugly Murray avatar for the next couple of years. Happy now?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Wow, I would like to see you when you have disagreements. It doesn't look pretty when you defend your country's greatest tennis promise.

now why would you bring once more the question of nationality? do you have a problem with my country? were you mistreated when you were here a few months ago? now what about you drop the nationality issue before i start reporting and what about you start adressing my points instead of driving the problem to the same BS again and again...

and FYI.. we already had and since he has a brain, we disagree without having fake acount low blows...

Are you still in Portugao btw?

yes... and i'm sure proud of that! why...

Moved anywhere perhaps?

not Serbia... no!

See, I'll keep this ugly Murray avatar for the next couple of years. Happy now?

yeah.. but you should change your previous acount ALF avatar too!

happy now?

 

[CountryHillbilly]

now why would you bring once more the question of nationality? do you have a problem with my country? were you mistreated when you were here a few months ago? now what about you drop the nationality issue before i start reporting and what about you start adressing my points intead of driving the problem to the same BS again and again...

yes... and i'm sure proud of that! why...

not Serbia... no!

happy now?

Well, I remember many people had problems with serbs being fans of their country's players. Serbs should be more objective or something. But I wont make fun of you for doing the same, if thats whats bothering you. OK? I wish all the luck to the little screamer.

I thought people move often in the west. Didn't Djokovic visit Portugal and even win a tourbament there once?

This avatar is even dumber than that old one. I'm happy now.

Do you know where I can find the ATP race btw?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Well, I remember many people had problems with serbs being fans of their country's players. Serbs should be more objective or something. But I wont make fun of you for doing the same, if thats whats bothering you. OK? I wish all the luck to the little screamer.

I thought people move often in the west. Didn't Djokovic visit Portugal and even win a tourbament there once?

This avatar is even dumber than that old one. I'm happy now.

well i dont you adress them...

 

[CountryHillbilly]

well i dont you adress them...

OK, no problem. But don't call other posters "worthless".

Hey, you got ATP race points btw?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

OK, no problem. But don't call other posters "worthless".

Hey, you got ATP race points btw?

No... sorry... i dont follow rankings. i follow tennis matches!

 

[CountryHillbilly]

No... sorry... i dont follow rankings. i follow tennis matches!

Oh, I know. You were always the coolest guy ever.

But, I dont see you commenting on the matches around here. It's mostly sarcastic comments and similar. Very funny, though, I must say.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Oh, I know. You were always the coolest guy ever.

But, I dont see you commenting on the matches around here. It's mostly sarcastic comments and similar. Very funny, though, I must say.

yeah.. stupid of me... i should be reading all your expertise instead of watching the game on TV... your right!

 

[CountryHillbilly]

yeah.. stupid of me... i should be reading all your expertise instead of watching the game on TV... your right!

No, you shouldn't be wasting time posting sarcasm all over TT.



As long as it's fun.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

No, you shouldn't be wasting time posting sarcasm all over TT.



As long as it's fun.

in the monkey house i speak monkey language.

but you could use a few minutes of archive in my posts on the gear section... you know.. where those of us who play tennis actually debate and discuss tennis... where i dont post with sarcasm!

beware... you will find guys who speak in a weird language where it seems they love racquets and not players...:twisted:


i might have used the word "worthless" to describe a certain string or overgrip, but it was all in better intentions... tournagrip already issued a public post where they forgive me!

 

[Steve132]

Agassi has gone back and forth with Fed. He was one who recanted a few times.. First Fed is GOAT he says, but again mentions he needs to prove himself against Nadal..

I just find that leaning on both ends of the spectrum so to speak.. Sure the hands down GOAT wouldnt need to accomplish such a feat.. The hands down GOAT should have already proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.. Not lose to his one and only rival on every surface at the slams..And only manage to win slams when his rival is not in the equation? See what Im saying?



Hell there are still players who feel Sampras is better than Roger. Goran, Kafelnikov just to name a few. At the end of the day its just an opinion. So who cares really.. How can you prove one great over the other?

So your claim that 'First people say Fed's the GOAT.. Then they recant and say, "well fed needs to beat Nadal to be the GOAT"' is based on a single data point, Agassi?

It's a bit of a straw man to argue that Federer does not satisfy the criteria for being the "hands down GOAT." No one does and no one ever has, because GOAT arguments will continue as long as tennis is played.

What we can say is that there are far, far more players and journalists who are willing to describe Federer as the (Open Era) GOAT than they are who would opt for all other players combined. I provided a list of some of them in my last post. If I had done an exhaustive search I could have added many more. As a counterweight to that you offer Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, and....?

I note that you can only quote Sampras contemporaries in his support. while I can easily identify players and analysts of earlier generations who opt for Federer, e.g. Kramer, Drysdale, Bollettieri.

 

[Steve132]

Yes, if Federer had not started dominating then Hewitt, Roddick and Safin would have shared slams around 2004-6, that is the most natural thing as that's precisely the period that would have been their prime. Except maybe Hewitt whose gamestyle IMO lends itself to peaking a little earlier, a la Nadal. It would have been too late for anyone from the Sampras generation to do any damage, except Agassi who might have won a slam or two.

My point was that these guys, even though as you say they were still a little young around 2000-2003, could have done a lot better at slams considering the weak opposition they were up against: no dominant Fed, a very weak and injury prone mid 70s generation who were hitting their primes (Kuerten, Moya, Philipoussis, Johansson, Enqvist, Henman...), and an early 70s generation pushing 30 including Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter and a few others.

Yes I agree with you that Agassi is a bit of a stand out here, but even though he was still playing very well in the early 00s I still think he "belongs" to the 90s. Besides he is "compensated" in a way by the fact that other greats from his age group like Chang and Courier weren't threats anymore.

The "new balls" were more than capable of regularly being slam contenders in spite of their young age: Safin was very close to ending 2000 as #1, then Hewitt ended both 2001 and 2002 as #1. However, when it came to majors, they were regularly beaten by older players, including much older players. This is no generalization, just an observation.

I guess our disagreement boils down to how much could be expected of Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian and Roddick in 2000-2003. Of course it depends on the individual player, Roddick wasn't even playing slams in 2000... But my opinion is that as a whole those guys should have done a lot better. If you are top 10 let alone top 5 like most of them were in that period then you are a slam contender, and should be winning more slams in a period where guys ranked beyond the top 10 were doing it.

So basically your argument boils down to saying that players born in the early 1980's "should have done a lot better" in majors between 2000 and 2003. I would be far more impressed with this argument if you could identify a period in the Open era that was dominated by teenagers. One or two precocious players have won majors while in their teens, but Borg is the only player I can think of who was a consistent contender at big events. It's hardly realistic to expect other players to match him. As I pointed out, in the context of the history of Open tennis Federer's peers emerged just about when you would expect.

 

[Mikael]

So basically your argument boils down to saying that players born in the early 1980's "should have done a lot better" in majors between 2000 and 2003. I would be far more impressed with this argument if you could identify a period in the Open era that was dominated by teenagers. One or two precocious players have won majors while in their teens, but Borg is the only player I can think of who was a consistent contender at big events. It's hardly realistic to expect other players to match him. As I pointed out, in the context of the history of Open tennis Federer's peers emerged just about when you would expect.

But you are forgetting the most crucial part of my argument which is that the 1998-2003 period was a unique one in recent tennis history. There's another thread going on BTW which does a great job showing how the mid-70s generation - the one that should have dominated the 98-03 period - is probably the weakest ever in the Open era, by a large margin.

So in this particular context, I would precisely expect Federer's peers to do *better* than players their age usually do.

At least the "oldies" from Sampras' generation took full advantage by winning all slams except 2 in 98-99 and then managing another 6 from AO 00 until W 03. That's a total of 12. That is significantly better than what players born in 60-62 achieved in 1988-1993. They only won 3 slams (Lendl 2, Gomez 1)!

EDIT: I was intrigued so I also looked at how Sampras' generation did in the AO 90 - FO 93 period: they won 7 slams, almost double what Federer's peers achieved between AO 00 - FO 03. And against stronger opposition too!