Federer still needs to do two things to be considered the best player

[merlinpinpin]

I'd back Becker in a big match against Lendl. Just look at the amount of times where Becker has beaten Lendl in big matches. But Lendl had the overall better record, with more tournaments won, more majors won, 270 weeks at number 1 etc. Who's better? It depends on how one looks at it.

That's why I'm asking for your opinion. You would consider them roughly equivalent career-wise, then?

 

[merlinpinpin]

I think what pissed me off the most, was your blatant statement that ALL pro players with multiple slams, would give away one of their slam titles, for an olympic gold. I still think that is a ridiculous statement that you simply made up from whatever weird "make believe" world that gives you this special, exclusive access to the pros, that nobody else in the world has direct access to

So obvious this statement is as far off-base as they come. One only has to look at the slam winners that played the olympics from 1988 to 2000. Most of them just didn't bother. Shows how important it was to them.

 

[tenniselbow1]

Nadal is still leading the age race.

False..

http://articles.businessinsider.com...04711_1_novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-gran-slam

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Nadal still has time to make things more interesting as well as being the greatest of the era.. He isn't done yet either

Untill then, of course Federer holds the position.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

found this : http://debatewise.org/debates/898-roger-federer-is-not-the-greatest-tennis-player-of-all-time

 

[Leto]

I don't need or want any olive branch from the likes of you.

Of course you find the need to respond and perhaps obsess over my posts because deep down you know they are based in logic and rationality. Then you attack in order to mask your insecurity regarding Federer! I've seen this play many times before and you predictably play the expected role.

What obssesion?

It's a forum and we're both here discussing an interesting topic. What's the big deal?

I had an honest curiosity as to whether any pros ever directly said that they'd trade one of their slams for an olympic gold. I find that interesting, but when you never answered, I just assumed you made this up in your own mind.

Olive branches are free, so you can toss the one I sent you into the trash. It really hurts my feelings/breaks my heart etc., but at least it didn't cost me any cash

 

[frinton]

Olive branches are free, so you can toss the one I sent you into the trash. It really hurts my feelings/breaks my heart etc., but at least it didn't cost me any cash

Haha, nicely put! thumbs up for you!

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Does someone know how many weeks Nadal has been at Number One, Number Two and Number Three respectively in total in his career?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Does someone know how many weeks Nadal has been at Number One, Number Two and Number Three respectively in total in his career?

Not for #3, but there you go for the others:

* Weeks at #1: 102
* Weeks at #2: 241 (GNTOAT)

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Not for #3, but there you go for the others:

* Weeks at #1: 102
* Weeks at #2: 241 (GNTOAT)

That is sensational, more than double. So Nadal couldn't even be the greatest of his own generation, as his weeks at Number two show, he played second fiddle to Federer for years, and Djokovic for a full year.

 

[merlinpinpin]

That is sensational, more than double. So Nadal couldn't even be the greatest of his own generation, as his weeks at Number two show, he played second fiddle to Federer for years, and Djokovic for a full year.

Yes, that's why he wouldn't be in the GOAT debate even if he had 14 or 15 slams, imho. He's lacking the other most-important thing when applying for GOAT: dominance over the field.

Federer had (has) it, Sampras did, too, Lendl and Connors also, obviously, but despite his 11 slams, Nadal never really did (not long enough, anyway, just two spans of one year with one year of Federer between the two). Funnily enough, Borg never really did, either (109 weeks), although many have the impression that he did.

 

[christos_liaskos]

I dont visit this forum as often as I used to but just for a laugh I thought to myself "hmm, now Federer has won his 17th slam and in doing so has broken the record of most weeks at no1, no doubt there will be some idiots somewhere on this planet claiming that he is still not the best ever, and possibly even some morons who think he is not even the the best of his era! Where could I find such morons? I know, talktennis forum." And guess what. I log in, scroll down a few threads, and voila, there it is, the thread I knew existed.

Idiot

 

[Paul Murphy]

Yep, the guy sure has plenty of boxes left to tick:

ROGER FEDERER - BY THE NUMBERS
Born: Basel, Switzerland
Lives: Bottmingen, Switzerland
Age: 30
Ranking: 1
Career prize money: $US72,913,710
Career titles: 75
Grand slam titles: 17
Australian Open champion 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010
French Open champion 2009
Wimbledon champion 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
US Open champion 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Year-end champion 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011

 

[SLD76]

Yes, that's why he wouldn't be in the GOAT debate even if he had 14 or 15 slams, imho. He's lacking the other most-important thing when applying for GOAT: dominance over the field.

Federer had (has) it, Sampras did, too, Lendl and Connors also, obviously, but despite his 11 slams, Nadal never really did (not long enough, anyway, just two spans of one year with one year of Federer between the two). Funnily enough, Borg never really did, either (109 weeks), although many have the impression that he did.

eh sort of...sampras dominated for 8 months of the tennis year, but was irrelevant completely on clay..which is why he would play so many MM tourneys at the end of the year trying to retain his number one ranking.

As I have said many times, Pete was a reverse Rafa, they rack up the titles and slams on their key surfaces to make up for the lack of titles as soon as their hc/clay seasons are over. Although rafa was much better on his off surfaces than Pete. That said, rafa benefited hugely from courts being slowed. Imagine if all clay tourneys played like madrid in pete's era

 

[Talker]

I dont visit this forum as often as I used to but just for a laugh I thought to myself "hmm, now Federer has won his 17th slam and in doing so has broken the record of most weeks at no1, no doubt there will be some idiots somewhere on this planet claiming that he is still not the best ever, and possibly even some morons who think he is not even the the best of his era! Where could I find such morons? I know, talktennis forum." And guess what. I log in, scroll down a few threads, and voila, there it is, the thread I knew existed.

Idiot

Fed was in the discussion strongly when he won the French, #14.

Now three slams later with numerous other titles not much has changed.

He has 3 more than Sampras and 6 more than Laver, and goes to #1 with prime Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Feather]

Fed was in the discussion strongly when he won the French, #14.

Now three slams later with numerous other titles not much has changed.

He has 3 more than Sampras and 6 more than Laver, and goes to #1 with prime Nadal and Djokovic.

I don't think he is finished either. I have high hopes on this years US open

 

[christos_liaskos]

I don't think he is finished either. I have high hopes on this years US open

I am actually a massive Roger fan but now he finally most weeks at no1, a day which I really didnt think would ever come, I honestly dont mind if he doesnt win another match. GOAT

 

[DRII]

How ignorant.

If you mean I think Nadal is the better player because I think peak vs peak he wins the most slams, then so be it.

However, we all know that the whole concept of peak is a hypothetical. None of us really know what any player's peak is, all we can do is conjecture based on their past performances.

Yet, given the fact that Nadal has a winning head to head against Federer, Nole, and Murray particularly bolsters my position! Especially considering he's the only one of the Big 4 that can claim such an achievement!

Thanks @Rago for being a stalker and looking up old posts of mine!

Here is a doosy (sic) lol, I was on this forum the first to bring up h2h among the Big 4.

I don't think this is the particular post, because I remember saying something about tweeting Brad Gilbert about it and then he started using the stat as well.

 

[CCPass]

Thanks @Rago for being a stalker and looking up old posts of mine!

Here is a doosy (sic) lol, I was on this forum the first to bring up h2h among the Big 4.

I don't think this is the particular post, because I remember saying something about tweeting Brad Gilbert about it and then he started using the stat as well.

Where's the proof that you were the first?

 

[Rago]

Thanks @Rago for being a stalker and looking up old posts of mine!

Here is a doosy (sic) lol, I was on this forum the first to bring up h2h among the Big 4.

I don't think this is the particular post, because I remember saying something about tweeting Brad Gilbert about it and then he started using the stat as well.

No sir, the pleasure is all mine. I eagerly look forward to more outlandish posts from you in the future for my personal amusement.

 

[DRII]

Where's the proof that you were the first?

Do your own research, Nero. (search the key words and find the oldest posts)

I was the first to bring up many concepts and arguments on this forum.

The first to argue Federer's competition was weaker pre 2008 and he racked up a 'slew of slams' during that time (I was making a comparison to Graf, if I remember correctly).

first to bring up h2h among the Big 4, I think the first to pin "Big 4" and Big 3 (maybe even ATG and definitely CoGOAT).

I was the first to say that Federer benefitted most from surface homogenization - IDK if I agree with this premise now, I think all the CoGOATs benefitted from it, but at one time on this forum many argued that Federer was hurt by surface homogenization, which was ridiculous.

A lot of these premises were 'anti Federer' only because this forum was absolutely dominated by Federer fans when i first joined and I had to be the contrarian (its just in my nature).

 

[CCPass]

Do your own research, Nero. (search the key words and find the oldest posts)

I was the first to bring up many concepts and arguments on this forum.

The first to argue Federer's competition was weaker pre 2008 and he racked up a 'slew of slams' during that time (I was making a comparison to Graf, if I remember correctly).

first to bring up h2h among the Big 4, I think the first to pin "Big 4" and Big 3 (maybe even ATG and definitely CoGOAT).

I was the first to say that Federer benefitted most from surface homogenization - IDK if I agree with this premise now, I think all the CoGOATs benefitted from it, but at one time on this forum many argued that Federer was hurt by surface homogenization, which was ridiculous.

A lot of these premises were 'anti Federer' only because this forum was absolutely dominated by Federer fans when i first joined and I had to be the contrarian (its just in my nature).

So no proof.
Now that Djokovic is the one with winning H2H against all other Big 4 so he's officially your GOAT. Got it, Nero.

 

[daphne]

Nadal is still the best ever to me, just cause he is better tennis player than federer due to head to head record.

30-28 what does it say to you?

 

[daphne]

Winning 17 slams and retaking #1 at nearly 31 is pretty impressive and goes further in cementing his relative GOAT status!


Right now: 17>12...

Winning 20 slams and holding #1 at nearly 35 for 329 weeks is pretty impressive and goes further in cementing his relative GOAT status!

 

[DRII]

So no proof.
Now that Djokovic is the one with winning H2H against all other Big 4 so he's officially your GOAT. Got it, Nero.

Djokovic has the losing h2h at the slams and his miniscule 2 win advantage overall does not overcome that!

Nadal had the h2h advantage by both metrics.

 

[daphne]

Disagree...

Nadal has always been able to deal and relatively dominate a peak Federer on all surfaces except indoors; peak Nadal would most certainly continue this trend and win slams on all surfaces (especially grass), not just clay.

Peak Nole probably has a slight advantage or is equal to peak Federer on hardcourts. Nole would win more Aussies, while Federer would win more USOs.

So comparing peaks with peaks:

At Wimbledon Nadal and Federer would more or less split titles, with Nole winning one... out of 10 wimbys - F-5, NA-4, No-1

At the hardcourt slams Federer and Nole would more or less split titles with Nadal winning more than a couple... out of 20 combined USOs and Aussies - F-8, NA-4, No-8

And at the French, Nadal would still dominate with Nole maybe sneaking one out... out of 10 French's - F-0, NA-9, No-1

Which = Federer - 13 slams, Nadal - 17 slams, Nole - 10 slams

As far as weeks at #1, i think Federer would dominate this stat because of his superior consistency and lack of injury.

Federer 62% at #1, Nadal 21% at #1, and Nole 17% at #1.


Of course all that is completely hypothetical, but thats how i would break it down...

LOL

 

[CCPass]

Djokovic has the losing h2h at the slams and his miniscule 2 win advantage overall does not overcome that!

Nadal had the h2h advantage by both metrics.

You didn't mention slam H2H in your original post so you admit you are a hypocrite. Got it, Nero.

 

[DRII]

Winning 20 slams and holding #1 at nearly 35 for 329 weeks is pretty impressive and goes further in cementing his relative GOAT status!

Oh, look what you left out from my previous quote:

"Winning 17 slams and retaking #1 at nearly 31 is pretty impressive and goes further in cementing his relative GOAT status!

He's finally overtaken Sampras' weeks at #1 and doing so in the face of having a mature Nadal and Nole as adversaries.

Of course he's had a lot of luck (as has been discussed endlessly), but he was good enough to take advantage and deserves credit for it.

We'll have to see what Nadal can do and if he ever challenges Federer's slam and singles Olympic gold record.

Right now: 17>12..."

Now that all the coGOATS have 20 slams, sorry but Federer probably loses out to Djokovic as GOAT overall with Nadal being BOAT.

Nadal is the best, he's not the greatest. We'll see who gets to 21 first.

 

[daphne]

Do your own research, Nero. (search the key words and find the oldest posts)

I was the first to bring up many concepts and arguments on this forum.

The first to argue Federer's competition was weaker pre 2008 and he racked up a 'slew of slams' during that time (I was making a comparison to Graf, if I remember correctly).

first to bring up h2h among the Big 4, I think the first to pin "Big 4" and Big 3 (maybe even ATG and definitely CoGOAT).

I was the first to say that Federer benefitted most from surface homogenization - IDK if I agree with this premise now, I think all the CoGOATs benefitted from it, but at one time on this forum many argued that Federer was hurt by surface homogenization, which was ridiculous.

A lot of these premises were 'anti Federer' only because this forum was absolutely dominated by Federer fans when i first joined and I had to be the contrarian (its just in my nature).

Simply not true.

 

[daphne]

Oh, look what you left out from my previous quote:

"Winning 17 slams and retaking #1 at nearly 31 is pretty impressive and goes further in cementing his relative GOAT status!

He's finally overtaken Sampras' weeks at #1 and doing so in the face of having a mature Nadal and Nole as adversaries.

Of course he's had a lot of luck (as has been discussed endlessly), but he was good enough to take advantage and deserves credit for it.

We'll have to see what Nadal can do and if he ever challenges Federer's slam and singles Olympic gold record.

Right now: 17>12..."

Now that all the coGOATS have 20 slams, sorry but Federer probably loses out to Djokovic as GOAT overall with Nadal being BOAT.

Nadal is the best, he's not the greatest. We'll see who gets to 21 first.

30-28 bud.

 

[DRII]

You didn't mention slam H2H in your original post so you admit you are a hypocrite. Got it, Nero.

Slam matches weigh heavier!

there was no need to make the distinction then because Nadal lead in both metrics vs the other Big 4 (now Big 3).

 

[DRII]

Simply not true.

prove it!

 

[CCPass]

Slam matches weigh heavier!

there was no need to make the distinction then because Nadal lead in both metrics vs the other Big 4 (now Big 3).

Face it, Nero - you are a hypocrite.

 

[daphne]

prove it!

Zzzzzz

 

[daphne]

Slam matches weigh heavier!

there was no need to make the distinction then because Nadal lead in both metrics vs the other Big 4 (now Big 3).

Yellow matches weigh heavier than blue matches.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

He needed to convert those break, match and championship points lol.