Federer Task to be the GOAT
- Thread starter pepe01
- Start date
- Status
GOAT is subjective(everybody will have their own reasons/arguments). In my eyes, Federer has already achieved GOAT. It's not only of his accomplishments but also how he did it. Also, it's a side issue but he has managed to surround himself with the right people and his family is not too overbearing. It seems like he has balanced everything out. My 2 cents.
Bolivian Ace
Rookie
Change his last name to Sampras....just kidding!
IMO there is no ONE GOAT there can be a few. We all meassure them by their records, and some have a record the other one hasn't and mosto of them belong to different generatios, thus different game.
IMO there is no ONE GOAT there can be a few. We all meassure them by their records, and some have a record the other one hasn't and mosto of them belong to different generatios, thus different game.
Agree with you, just comment, if Federer takes the stage on RG and win it ( you can say Nadal gets injure) i can pay to see Nadal_freak and game sampras comments.
GameSampras
Banned
To be the undisputed GOAT, He does need to win a French OPen, though that boat may have sailed and/or surpass Pete which Im sure he will in the GS count.
Then I will crown Roger as the GOAT.. Yes coming from a Pete fan.. But looking back, Fed's consistency at the French Open really solified his legacy over Pete's. Where Pete had 13 tries and failed each time.. Of course its not as though Pete was terrible by any means on clay. He beat some great clay court players in his day. Muster, Bruguera, Courier etc. But he didnt do jack all at the French. Though I will say this.. Pete IMO would have had more success at RG today then he did in the 90s
Pete is the GOAT at wimbeldon without a doubt and maybe you could argue the US OPEN. Though I dunno. Once Fed either gets a FRench Open title which would place him next to laver or reach 15 GS, you cant argue Roger really as being overral the Greatest that ever played the game. Even though it PAINS ME TO NO END to admit it.
Though maybe we cant say there isnt an undisputed GOAT unless all the records are shattered by someone. While Fed has dominated he hasnt shattered some of the records set. The closest thing to an objective opinion is each era has it's player.
But still... How can u argue against Fed.
One thing Fed wont break though is the 6 years of Number 1 though. I still question Feds competition compared to Petes in the early to mid 90s as I think Pete had it much tougher against a more talented crew in the top 10. But Domination is domination.. And no one dominated like Roger. And you can only dominate your era
Then I will crown Roger as the GOAT.. Yes coming from a Pete fan.. But looking back, Fed's consistency at the French Open really solified his legacy over Pete's. Where Pete had 13 tries and failed each time.. Of course its not as though Pete was terrible by any means on clay. He beat some great clay court players in his day. Muster, Bruguera, Courier etc. But he didnt do jack all at the French. Though I will say this.. Pete IMO would have had more success at RG today then he did in the 90s
Pete is the GOAT at wimbeldon without a doubt and maybe you could argue the US OPEN. Though I dunno. Once Fed either gets a FRench Open title which would place him next to laver or reach 15 GS, you cant argue Roger really as being overral the Greatest that ever played the game. Even though it PAINS ME TO NO END to admit it.
Though maybe we cant say there isnt an undisputed GOAT unless all the records are shattered by someone. While Fed has dominated he hasnt shattered some of the records set. The closest thing to an objective opinion is each era has it's player.
But still... How can u argue against Fed.
One thing Fed wont break though is the 6 years of Number 1 though. I still question Feds competition compared to Petes in the early to mid 90s as I think Pete had it much tougher against a more talented crew in the top 10. But Domination is domination.. And no one dominated like Roger. And you can only dominate your era
Last edited:
Well I don't think Roger will win RG.(Granted everybody else right now stay healthy and competitive).
Last edited:
Man, this post shows me real gamesampras, agree with you, if Federer wins RG, nobody can deny he is the best, huge task for federer, mean while, thank you for be part of this thread.
GameSampras
Banned
NO prob. But untill then. LOL I guess its still arguable for Pete and Laver. But once Fed does one of the two, he should be set as the GOAT.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
There are already 500 threads on the subject, you could just bring back an old one, everything has already been said on this issue!
To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.
GameSampras
Banned
I agree with the above poster. But did Laver have the field to compete against that Pete or Roger did? Should we take that into account as well?
Yeap, but before i start to search on TW threads, what is your conclusion?, i mean, GameSampres gave me a very good comments very clear and specific, you have been parts of those thread so winning RG is the final show down to Federer?
Tell me.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Laver won 3 of of the 4 majors on grass, one on clay. So unless we change the surfaces back to what they were>> there is no sense bringing Laver into it. Additionally, Fed won on 3 different surfaces in one year (twice), something Laver never did, as it was much easier to win on two surfaces, than on 3.
TennezSport
Hall of Fame
OK..............
OK, so I see it's "Greats Of All Time" right??? Kinda like the great worriors throughout history thing; not bad. :wink:
Cheers, TennezSport
OK, so I see it's "Greats Of All Time" right??? Kinda like the great worriors throughout history thing; not bad. :wink:
Cheers, TennezSport
So win RG is final task?, agree with you, Laver is among the greatest but not the big fish.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
^^^^ Personally, Federer, a long time ago, was already **THE BEST** player I have ever seen. Everything he has done since then, is icing on the cake.
As for the GOAT thing and "The French", I agree with the following:
1. His chance to have won it may have passed.
2. he doesn't need it, but it would be great to witness him win one.
3. he happens to play in an era where possibly the GOAT of clay is playing.
As for the GOAT thing and "The French", I agree with the following:
1. His chance to have won it may have passed.
2. he doesn't need it, but it would be great to witness him win one.
3. he happens to play in an era where possibly the GOAT of clay is playing.
TennezSport
Hall of Fame
Major...........
Major point! And.....grass was really slimy back then so no bounce, very fast and the balls were very hard (meaning 1 style of play S&V), while clay was .............well clay (no disrespect intended).
Cheers, TennezSport
Major point! And.....grass was really slimy back then so no bounce, very fast and the balls were very hard (meaning 1 style of play S&V), while clay was .............well clay (no disrespect intended).
Cheers, TennezSport
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
My opinion is that the GOAT (past or future) has to win all 4 slams and if he can have most slams overall on top (among other stuff like # 1 record) , then it's even better. As I said in another thread Fed has NEITHER won the FO NOR won the most slams. He's not even a "half-goat" if he doesn't do one of the 2 (no matter how many SEMIS he has played ;-) -private joke)
Last edited:
edmondsm
Legend
I think so. Laver's achievements are amazing and it is tragic that he got screwed by the tennis establishment. However, if you look at some of his opponents at slams, especially in the early years, there is no comparison to Samp and Fed's competition. Sampras and Federer never played a single match against a non-pro, but Laver played most of his matches against non-pros.
S H O W S T O P P E R !
Hall of Fame
The only way to convince me who the GOAT is if every candidate in their prime played a tournament. Single elimination, with a court that's one part grass, one part clay one part hardcourt. The winner is the GOAT. But then fanboys for each player would be crying because it wasn't on a good court, blah blah blah. We will never know who the GOAT is.
Thanks, win 4 slams is not going to happen, FO ?, well, if NY giants won last superbowl, all is possible, even Federer will takes RG, as i stated before huge task for Roger.
wangs78
Legend
If Fed wins the FO (assuming Nadal is healthy and partakes in the tournament) and also breaks the 14GS mark, Fed will be the GOAT. He will have more GSs than anybody and he'll have a FO which Sampras didn't. Laver played in an altogether different era. Different equipment and a much smaller field of competitors. IMO, today's game is more demanding than yesteryears. The real GOAT test is whether Fed can we a few more slams, including RG, against Nadal, Djoker and Murray, who are now hitting their prime. If he does that then I think all the stronger arguments why Fed isn't the GOAT will fall by the wayside.
380pistol
Banned
There is no one definitive answer to this question, as so many things need to be considered.
Pancho Gonzales shoud definitly be in the conversation (if not have the title) but the amateur/pro split killed his #'s. Laver has 2 calendar slams (throw out the 1st one). Sampras and Federer both lack the French, though Roger is still active.
What if Sampras (and even Federer) got to contest 3 of 4 slams on grass??? What if Pete and Roger got net rushing Aussies Emmerson, Roche, Newcombe(I don't think either beats Rosewall at RG) instead seasoned claycourters, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Nadal, Kuerten??? What if Laver had to deal with Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez, Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian at his peak instead of Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe and Emmerson???
There are so many qustions, and generally people tend to give more weight to things that favour who they like, and less to those that do a disservice to their respective favourite.
You wanna know who the GOAT is. Take the top 16 contenders, make them play (in their primes) at all 4 slams and a final one on indoor carpet over a certain period of time, and there you have it. Then if one player has more slam and another has more points, there will be another debate. Outside of Pancho Gonzales in a fair one you know who I go with.
Pancho Gonzales shoud definitly be in the conversation (if not have the title) but the amateur/pro split killed his #'s. Laver has 2 calendar slams (throw out the 1st one). Sampras and Federer both lack the French, though Roger is still active.
What if Sampras (and even Federer) got to contest 3 of 4 slams on grass??? What if Pete and Roger got net rushing Aussies Emmerson, Roche, Newcombe(I don't think either beats Rosewall at RG) instead seasoned claycourters, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Nadal, Kuerten??? What if Laver had to deal with Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez, Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian at his peak instead of Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe and Emmerson???
There are so many qustions, and generally people tend to give more weight to things that favour who they like, and less to those that do a disservice to their respective favourite.
You wanna know who the GOAT is. Take the top 16 contenders, make them play (in their primes) at all 4 slams and a final one on indoor carpet over a certain period of time, and there you have it. Then if one player has more slam and another has more points, there will be another debate. Outside of Pancho Gonzales in a fair one you know who I go with.
Last edited:
wangs78
Legend
Btw, IMO, the key arguments against Fed being the GOAT are:
1) He hasn't won the FO
2) Currently he's only #2 in GS count
3) Many think his contemporaries until '08-'09 were sub-par by historical standards (Roddick, Davydenko, Bagdatis, Gonzalez, Blake, even Safin (who is an undeniable talent) but hardly played to his potential on 90% of occasions). The trio of Nadal, Murray and Djoker are a much more formidable bunch, IMO.
1) He hasn't won the FO
2) Currently he's only #2 in GS count
3) Many think his contemporaries until '08-'09 were sub-par by historical standards (Roddick, Davydenko, Bagdatis, Gonzalez, Blake, even Safin (who is an undeniable talent) but hardly played to his potential on 90% of occasions). The trio of Nadal, Murray and Djoker are a much more formidable bunch, IMO.
ksbh
Banned
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Both FO and winning 2 more slams are realistic goals for Fed. I don't know if it WILL happen but it's not arguable that Fed is the current player closest to these achievements.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I've just read that Laver has won around 198 titles in his career :shock: How is that possible? He has also won more than 1 of each slam, either the guy was a beast or his competition wasn't that strong. Either way, scary numbers!
380pistol
Banned
1) Yes and No. If he never wins the French does it make him any less of a player?? Not really. He's an excellent player overall, but on that singular surface he's good but not elite.
I mean Laver's great but at his best vs Nadal at the French I go with Nadal. Then again no Lendl for Wimbledon, but remove Becker, Edberg and Cash and give him Roddick, Hewitt etc. he maybe gets one. So this is as much Nadals' greatness on the dirt as well as Roger not winning it.
2) Again yes and no. Then Emmerson would be 3rd, Pancho Gonzalez only has 2, etc. Federer has forever enshrined himself in the GOAT debate. Being #1 on the list would definitely help his case though.
3) Yeah somewhat. It isn't his fault he can only play who's in front of him, but there's an old addage "You're only as good as what you come up against".
Still I feel if Federer had to walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's shoes etc. he'd still be #1 in their positions (like them) and winning slams. Would there 3 slas a year 3 times and 5 in row at SW19 and Flushing??? I'm not sure, not likely. But he would hold his own. But people will question what if Safin was focused (and healthy) and if Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had peaked alongside Federer, not a few years after??
Last edited:
P_Agony
Banned
So Nadal wasn't there before 2008? Wasn't Djokovic playing in th 2007 AO? Wasn't Murray there too? Sure, other than Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were not reaching their best form at the time, but you somehow forgot to mention guys like Hewitt (who gave Fed a lot of trouble in past years) and Nalbandian (who is IMO just as talented as the trio perhaps even more), not to mention Agassi in a very good form. The argument of Federer having no real trouble is pathetic. The field was very strong, but people have a short term memory. It seems so weak because Fed destroyed everybody.
wangs78
Legend
Agree with all your points. But all I was trying to say is that those are the 3 most commonly cited reasons why Fed isn't the GOAT. If he is able to win for a couple more years and turn each of those 3 points in his favor, then it will be VERY hard for ppl to argue that he is not the GOAT. Or at least, they'd have to come up with new arguments.
11 of Federer's 13 slams came in a three year period. The reason he has so many slams is because, unlike all of the other contenders for the greatest player of all time, he didn't have 4/5 other players capable of winning a major.
A great player, for sure. I just don't believe that he's anywhere near the greatest of all time.
A great player, for sure. I just don't believe that he's anywhere near the greatest of all time.
Yeap, i know, but with this thread i try to see any common point, or task to Federer, as i can see 80% or more of us are thinking that Federer must win RG, and its possible, not imposible, also all of us knows if there is somebody to get this crown ( GOAT) is Federer, nobody puts Federer out of stage.
I think this is very good to Tennis sport, wait about what is going to happen with Federer, if Nadal will maintain great level than 2008, if Murray will be a real treat on grand slams and if Novak at the end will get number one spot.
Lets see.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
He's already Rafa's b---- Can't be so many animals at once! (joking tooFed needs to marry Rafa - then he can be (Rafa's) GOAT. Just joking - do not start shooting.
)
FlamEnemY
Hall of Fame
Some people say that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick (and occasionaly Nalbandian) are somewhat easy competition for a "GOAT" contender(not that there is a proof of who really this is, but whatever, I'll just play along), but why not turn it the other way around? Safin is extremely talented. Nalby too. Hewitt in his prime was a great player and would probably hold his own quite well versus those other legendary players. Roddick is not a "no-talented server".
Actually, Federer utterly dominating Hewitt and double bageling him in a final of a slam is a proof of Fed's calibre. Not many players could do that, I belive. Let's not underestimate Federer, let's give credit where credit is due.
Actually, Federer utterly dominating Hewitt and double bageling him in a final of a slam is a proof of Fed's calibre. Not many players could do that, I belive. Let's not underestimate Federer, let's give credit where credit is due.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
The 198, if true, was probably bolstered by the 'barnstorming' during the early pro years - '63 - '68 when pros weren't allowed to play the majors. He and the other pros drove from city to city in the US every week (for months and months) and played a 'tournament' (probably more like exhibitions - not a 32 person draw). As the best player of the time he'd win a lot more than he lost - sure he racked up some amazing numbers.
Well said. And you left out the extra credit - there were a lot of years in between those two amazing years - first was '62 and the repeat performance was in '69...
Last edited:
JeMar
Legend
I personally don't agree with number three on this list for two reasons:
1.) You can only play the person across the net from you, and you have no control over who that is.
2.) There are way too many subtle differences in the games from back then and now to be able to make an objective comparison.
While there are many threads about this, this one deserves to stand because it features GameSampras providing some actual rational insight. Kudos to you, sir. Keep it up. (Keep in mind I only read the first three pages in case he gets off the wagon again
)
GameSampras
Banned
I personally don't agree with number three on this list for two reasons:
1.) You can only play the person across the net from you, and you have no control over who that is.
2.) There are way too many subtle differences in the games from back then and now to be able to make an objective comparison.
While there are many threads about this, this one deserves to stand because it features GameSampras providing some actual rational insight. Kudos to you, sir. Keep it up. (Keep in mind I only read the first three pages in case he gets off the wagon again
Whys that JMAR because I was pro Fed for once?
Wait until the Australian Open. LOL. I may not be so kind.Just have to call a spade a spade. 13 tries for Sampras at the RG.. Its very hard to defend that, even for the most diehard pete fans. I mean what do I blame it on? Sampras' Thalassemia Minor?
Last edited:
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
I agree.
Hewitt is not the kind of guy that would give up and let you double bagel him easily.
Roger Federer has a hell of a tennis game. Personally I've never seen any other player so complete and "artistic". Some great players leave one's eyes in big awe once or twice on a regular match. Maybe four or five times in a inspired day. In his best years, Federer could left you in awe ten times in a match.
Can't really talk about the pre-Open era, but in modern tennis, Federer has been the absolute best for me. All respect and admiration to Sampras, Borg, etc. But Federer is something else. I've seen him solve plays in a magical way so many times on a regular basis that I can't think in anybody else as the best Open era player.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Federer didn't take RG just because Nadal, and Nadal on clay is up there with the humongous Bjorn Borg.
So I can't really say not winning RG is a big failure for Federer. Three finals and one semi all lost to Rafael Nadal, in a strange way that just speaks about Fed's greatness to me. For God's sake, Nadal has been as near to being unbeatable as a player can be, and Federer was just there in the finals because he beat everyone else, on his supposed "worst" surface.
It's not like he lost in FO 3rd round against some guy named John Doe.
So I can't really say not winning RG is a big failure for Federer. Three finals and one semi all lost to Rafael Nadal, in a strange way that just speaks about Fed's greatness to me. For God's sake, Nadal has been as near to being unbeatable as a player can be, and Federer was just there in the finals because he beat everyone else, on his supposed "worst" surface.
It's not like he lost in FO 3rd round against some guy named John Doe.
egn
Hall of Fame
Question what about Borg? I mean why does Pete get to compete with Laver..
I think Pete, Borg, Laver and Fed all get to fight this out. No offense but Sampras is not lightyears ahead of Borg or Fed they are all relatively close and in many opinion Sampras can fall fourth on that list. I mean at least Borg and Fed madethe final of the slamthey could not conQuer
CyBorg
Legend
Roger has four great years under his belt (2004-2007) and a couple of second-tier ones (2003, 2008 ).
That's good, but nothing unprecedented. In fact, it's not particularly eye-popping when compared to the accomplishments and particularly the longevity of some of the past greats. Yes, those four great years were amazing and are right there with those of Laver, but Roger still needs to surround them with some consistently good ones.
If his career ends now it would not only be remarkably short, it would also have a fair share of warts, particularly his record against Nadal (his closest nemesis) and his inability to master clay.
Now contrast this with Laver who mastered and dominated on all surfaces and had a peak stretch of circa six years with lots of quality ones to surround that.
Frankly I don't see how Roger is even close. Perhaps in the same neighbourhood as Gonzales, Sampras, Borg and Budge. But definitely not in Laver's league and probably not Rosewall's either.
That's good, but nothing unprecedented. In fact, it's not particularly eye-popping when compared to the accomplishments and particularly the longevity of some of the past greats. Yes, those four great years were amazing and are right there with those of Laver, but Roger still needs to surround them with some consistently good ones.
If his career ends now it would not only be remarkably short, it would also have a fair share of warts, particularly his record against Nadal (his closest nemesis) and his inability to master clay.
Now contrast this with Laver who mastered and dominated on all surfaces and had a peak stretch of circa six years with lots of quality ones to surround that.
Frankly I don't see how Roger is even close. Perhaps in the same neighbourhood as Gonzales, Sampras, Borg and Budge. But definitely not in Laver's league and probably not Rosewall's either.
GameSampras
Banned
Borg was finished by 25. No longevity there at all.. Granted he was the dominant one of his era but when your career only lasts until your mid 20s, that should take something away from your legacy. Granted Laver has 11 but we know the circumstances involved and dominated the multi surfaces . Realistically, Laver could/should be sitting on close to 20. Borg shouldnt be mentioned with Fed/Sampras/Laver IMO
Last edited:
CyBorg
Legend
You should read up more on Borg. You're looking at age, but missing the big picture.
Borg has more years of elite tennis on his resume than Federer.
The difference is that Borg entered the elite ranks at 17 and stayed there. Federer didn't make the top-3 until he was about 22.
Mileage was a factor to Borg's early retirement. Young in years, somewhat old in actual playing years and matches.
- Status
