Federer's 10 defeated opponents
- Thread starter krosero
- Start date
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Nadal now at 7: Puerta, Federer, Soderling, Berdych, Djokovic, Ferrer, and Wawrinka.
Djokovic is only at 4: Tsonga (x1), Murray (x5), Nadal (x3), Federer (x3).
The women:
S. Williams - 14 (Hingis, V. Williams, Davenport, Sharapova, Jankovic, Safina, Henin, Zvonareva, Radwanska, Azarenka, Wozniacki, Safarova, Muguruza, Kerber)
Court - 12 (Lehane, Turner, Hard, King, Bueno, Jones, Richey, Melville-Reid, Niessen, Casals, Goolagong, Evert)
Moody - 11 (Mallory, McKane, de Alvarez, Nuthall, Bennet, Jacobs, Mathieu, Holcroft-Watson, Ryan, Whitingstall, Round)
Graf - 10 (Navratilova, Evert, Zvereva, Sabatini, Sukova, Fernandez, Seles, Novotna, Sanchez V., Hingis)
Evert - 9 (Morozova, Navratilova, Goolagong, Turnbull, Shriver, Ruzici, Mandlikova, Jausovec, Sukova)
King - 8 (Bueno, Jones, Court, Tegart, Casals, Goolagong, Melville-Reid, Evert)
Navratilova - 7 (Evert, Jaeger, Jordan, Mandlikova, Sukova, Graf, Garrison)
Seles - 6 (Graf, Novotna, Sanchez V., Navratilova, Fernandez, Huber)
Lenglen - 6 (Lambert Chambers, Ryan, Mallory, McKane, Fry, Browne)
Bueno - 6 (Hard, Truman, Reynolds Price, Court, Graebner, Richey)
Goolagong - 6 (Gourlay, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Tomanova, Courlay)
Wynne Bolton - 6 (West, Coyne, Fitch, Hopman, Toomey, Long)
Connolly - 5 (Fry, Hart, Brough, Sampson, Bucaille)
Hart - 5 (Wynne Bolton, Todd, Fry, Brough, Ward)
Hingis - 5 (Pierce, Novotna, V. Williams, Martinez, Mauresmo)
Sharapova - 5 (S. Williams, Henin, Ivanovic, Errani, Halep)
V. Williams - 4 (Davenport, Henin, S. Williams, Bartoli)
Henin - 4 (Clijsters, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic)
Osborne duPont - 4 (Betz, Hart, Brough, Landry)
Jacobs - 4 (Babcock, Wills Moody, Palfrey, Krawinkel Sperling)
Clijsters - 4 (Pierce, Wozniacki, Zvonareva, Li,)
Brough - 3 (Osborne duPont, Hart, Fleitz)
Betz - 3 (Brough, Osborne duPont, Hart)
Gibson - 3 (Mortimer, Hard, Brough)
Marble - 3 (Jacobs, Wynne Bolton, Stammers)
Sanchez Vicario - 3 (Graf, Pierce, Seles)
Fry - 3 (Hart, Buxton, Gibson)
Mandlikova - 3 (Turnbull, Hanika, Navratilova)
Jones - 3 (Ramirez, Richey, King)
Hard - 3 (Ochoa, Bueno, Jones)
Wade - 3 (King, Goolagong, Stove)
S. Williams - 14 (Hingis, V. Williams, Davenport, Sharapova, Jankovic, Safina, Henin, Zvonareva, Radwanska, Azarenka, Wozniacki, Safarova, Muguruza, Kerber)
Court - 12 (Lehane, Turner, Hard, King, Bueno, Jones, Richey, Melville-Reid, Niessen, Casals, Goolagong, Evert)
Moody - 11 (Mallory, McKane, de Alvarez, Nuthall, Bennet, Jacobs, Mathieu, Holcroft-Watson, Ryan, Whitingstall, Round)
Graf - 10 (Navratilova, Evert, Zvereva, Sabatini, Sukova, Fernandez, Seles, Novotna, Sanchez V., Hingis)
Evert - 9 (Morozova, Navratilova, Goolagong, Turnbull, Shriver, Ruzici, Mandlikova, Jausovec, Sukova)
King - 8 (Bueno, Jones, Court, Tegart, Casals, Goolagong, Melville-Reid, Evert)
Navratilova - 7 (Evert, Jaeger, Jordan, Mandlikova, Sukova, Graf, Garrison)
Seles - 6 (Graf, Novotna, Sanchez V., Navratilova, Fernandez, Huber)
Lenglen - 6 (Lambert Chambers, Ryan, Mallory, McKane, Fry, Browne)
Bueno - 6 (Hard, Truman, Reynolds Price, Court, Graebner, Richey)
Goolagong - 6 (Gourlay, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Tomanova, Courlay)
Wynne Bolton - 6 (West, Coyne, Fitch, Hopman, Toomey, Long)
Connolly - 5 (Fry, Hart, Brough, Sampson, Bucaille)
Hart - 5 (Wynne Bolton, Todd, Fry, Brough, Ward)
Hingis - 5 (Pierce, Novotna, V. Williams, Martinez, Mauresmo)
Sharapova - 5 (S. Williams, Henin, Ivanovic, Errani, Halep)
V. Williams - 4 (Davenport, Henin, S. Williams, Bartoli)
Henin - 4 (Clijsters, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic)
Osborne duPont - 4 (Betz, Hart, Brough, Landry)
Jacobs - 4 (Babcock, Wills Moody, Palfrey, Krawinkel Sperling)
Clijsters - 4 (Pierce, Wozniacki, Zvonareva, Li,)
Brough - 3 (Osborne duPont, Hart, Fleitz)
Betz - 3 (Brough, Osborne duPont, Hart)
Gibson - 3 (Mortimer, Hard, Brough)
Marble - 3 (Jacobs, Wynne Bolton, Stammers)
Sanchez Vicario - 3 (Graf, Pierce, Seles)
Fry - 3 (Hart, Buxton, Gibson)
Mandlikova - 3 (Turnbull, Hanika, Navratilova)
Jones - 3 (Ramirez, Richey, King)
Hard - 3 (Ochoa, Bueno, Jones)
Wade - 3 (King, Goolagong, Stove)
Federer has now played more people in Slam finals than anyone in Open Era. Previously, he was tied with Sampras (who lost to two guys he never beat at that level)
Connors - 9 (Dent, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Orantes, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl)
Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Pecci, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Nastase, Connors, Tanner, McEnroe)
McEnroe - 5 (Lendl, Borg, Connors, Lewis, Gerulaitis)
Lendl - 9 (Wilander, Mecir, Edberg, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Pernfors, Cash, Connors)
Wilander - 7 (Lendl, Curren, Edberg, Cash, Vilas, Noah, Leconte)
Becker - 6 (Lendl, Chang, Curren, Edberg, Stich, Sampras)
Edberg - 7 (Wilander, Cash, Lendl, Courier, Chang, Becker, Sampras)
Agassi - 11 (Sampras, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler, Gomez, Courier, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Stich, Martin, Federer)
Sampras - 12 (Martin, Agassi, Moya, Courier, Ivanisevic, Becker, Pioline, Rafter, Edberg, Chang, Safin, Hewitt)
Federer - 13 (Safin, Bagdhatis, Gonzalez, Nadal, Murray, Soderling, Philippoussis, Roddick, Djokovic, Cilic, Hewitt, Agassi, del Potro)
Nadal - 7 (Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Puerta, Soderling, Ferrer, Berdych)
Djokovic - 5 (Tsonga, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Federer)
Murray - 3 (Federer, Djokovic, Raonic)
Connors - 9 (Dent, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Orantes, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl)
Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Pecci, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Nastase, Connors, Tanner, McEnroe)
McEnroe - 5 (Lendl, Borg, Connors, Lewis, Gerulaitis)
Lendl - 9 (Wilander, Mecir, Edberg, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Pernfors, Cash, Connors)
Wilander - 7 (Lendl, Curren, Edberg, Cash, Vilas, Noah, Leconte)
Becker - 6 (Lendl, Chang, Curren, Edberg, Stich, Sampras)
Edberg - 7 (Wilander, Cash, Lendl, Courier, Chang, Becker, Sampras)
Agassi - 11 (Sampras, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler, Gomez, Courier, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Stich, Martin, Federer)
Sampras - 12 (Martin, Agassi, Moya, Courier, Ivanisevic, Becker, Pioline, Rafter, Edberg, Chang, Safin, Hewitt)
Federer - 13 (Safin, Bagdhatis, Gonzalez, Nadal, Murray, Soderling, Philippoussis, Roddick, Djokovic, Cilic, Hewitt, Agassi, del Potro)
Nadal - 7 (Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Puerta, Soderling, Ferrer, Berdych)
Djokovic - 5 (Tsonga, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Federer)
Murray - 3 (Federer, Djokovic, Raonic)
Last edited:
joe sch
Legend
Perhaps looking at the GOAT equation via this statistic, maybe it should be GOAT ranking by the Number of Opponents played in the slam chapionships including each Opponents total slam wins ? Maybe @krosero knows what these total counts would be ?
I do think this would really help show "toughest competition of all time".
NatF
Bionic Poster
That's awful metric. By that metric beating Federer at the AO in 2005 counts for less than beating him in say 2013.
joe sch
Legend
I did not state if the count is for the time of defeat or the players total count at career end.
I think it should be the total count, not the count at time of defeat.
This makes a big diff in the case you mention.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I see. It still doesn't take into account form in anyway. Under such a system beating Verdasco in 2009 means nothing where as Murray in 2011 is a (so far) 3 slam winner.
If I'm understanding you correctly your method would still mean 2005 Fed = 2013 Fed. Not to mention with a guy like say Lleyon Hewitt who was chronically injured after 2005, beating him on clay in 06-07 for Nadal counts the same as Federer taking him out at Wimbledon and the USO in 04-05.
Might be interesting to look at this, but no I don't have it
krosero, Great overview.
I would think one would have to consider who the champions beat in the quarters, and semi's as well, if not the whole tournament. Often an earlier round opponent can be tougher or higher ranked than the final opponent. Whatever, all great multi slam winners have had their share of great and less than great finals opponents.
It should be the count at time of defeat, age can also be a factor. The first few Federer slam finals defeat of Novak and Nadal was when they were young and had not reached their peak, plus old injured Agassi, injured Cilic. One can also say that a 35 year old should not be reaching slam finals. But then, Roger is not your average 35 year old athlete and sports medicine, training and nutrition supplements are superior today than 10 or more years ago. In the end, it all evens out.
Roger Federer has beaten everyone. From Sampras in 2001 at Wimby to the present day.
Thing is, Roger won this Wimbledon too at nearly 36 without dropping a set, dismantling
Dimitrov, Raonic, Berdych and Cilic in successive rounds, all younger and generally bigger men, very solid grass court players and good servers.
Cilic was poor in the final, sure, very disappointing, but Federer had to earn his right to make the final and he might have won in 2016 himself if not hampered by injury...
If the US and AO were still played on grass like in the old days, Fed probably has many more Slams, so you have to think of that too.
The guy's won 19 Slams and 6 YEC (25 Majors if you like) and only the greatest clay court player ever in Nadal stopped him winning the Grand Slam.
Of course it's hard to compare era's with the different rackets, strings, training, nutrition and tour structure etc, but Federer's probably proven himself the greatest player ever, taking peak play, consistency, success on all surfaces and now longevity as well into account.
The way he's looking right now, he's not stopped winning either. I'm pretty sure he would have hung in those old tour days of the 50's and 60's too. He's lasted, reinvented himself, has the shot-making talent and loves winning. He's disciplined. It's in his nature.
He makes it look so easy too.
Was there ever a more stylish player?
Thing is, Roger won this Wimbledon too at nearly 36 without dropping a set, dismantling
Dimitrov, Raonic, Berdych and Cilic in successive rounds, all younger and generally bigger men, very solid grass court players and good servers.
Cilic was poor in the final, sure, very disappointing, but Federer had to earn his right to make the final and he might have won in 2016 himself if not hampered by injury...
If the US and AO were still played on grass like in the old days, Fed probably has many more Slams, so you have to think of that too.
The guy's won 19 Slams and 6 YEC (25 Majors if you like) and only the greatest clay court player ever in Nadal stopped him winning the Grand Slam.
Of course it's hard to compare era's with the different rackets, strings, training, nutrition and tour structure etc, but Federer's probably proven himself the greatest player ever, taking peak play, consistency, success on all surfaces and now longevity as well into account.
The way he's looking right now, he's not stopped winning either. I'm pretty sure he would have hung in those old tour days of the 50's and 60's too. He's lasted, reinvented himself, has the shot-making talent and loves winning. He's disciplined. It's in his nature.
He makes it look so easy too.
Was there ever a more stylish player?
Xavier, Maybe Crawford and Rosewall were even more stylish.
No doubt Federer would have stood up to any great players of the fifties and sixties as he has done with those of the recent past, present, and would be future greats. Unfortunately, Dimitrov and Raonic are not likely to have the physical or mental capacity to ever win a slam. Berdych, a solid player, has proven his failure to ever do so. Cilic has won a slam, but he is inconsistent and was injured in this Wimbledon final. Had Cilic not been injured, there probably would have been a better and closer match that Federer would have won. Only an in top form Novak, or perhaps Rafa, would have had a chance in this Wimbledon final against Roger. Certainly, Roger is one of the most stylish players ever, who also has one of the greatest serves and returns of serve of all time.
krosero, Rosewall would be probably No.2 , if we add his final victims in his pro majors: Segura, Gonzalez, Gimeno, together ten players.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Cilic has been fairly consistent at Wimbledon, 4 QF's in a row before this year IIRC. This wasn't one of Federer's hardest draws (evidenced by doing it without dropping a set) but I don't think it's any worse than Murray's last year or Nadal's #10 at the French. Goes without saying a top form ATG would have posed a greater challenge but that Federer has outlasted and outperformed them this year is a testament to him. If Federer had struggled with this draw it would be less impressive but that he did it without dropping a set. Also worth pointing out that while Federer wasn't hindered anywhere near as much as Cilic he was suffering with a cold/sinus infection throughout the 2 weeks.
Some good points.
Whether Dimitrov or Raonic ever win a Slam or not, they are still good grass court players though. Dimitrov did thrash Andy Murray at Wimbledon 2014 too in reaching the semis (and reached the AO semis this year as well).
Raonic was runner-up at Wimbledon last year getting past Roger in the semis.
Cilic has been pretty consistent at Wimbledon the last few years, is a GS champion like you said.
Disappointing final though, we can agree on that.
Berdych was a former Wimbledon finalist too with a win over Federer there.
These are all good-quality players.
It was still very impressive for Roger to get past all these guys without dropping a set at this stage of his career, no two ways about it.
Unfortunately, Novak has not been playing well and carrying an injury. If he had somehow got past Berdych, I think Federer still beats him in the circumstances.
Federer is outlasting them all right now.
Especially impressive was the fact that Federer was able to beat an severly injured Cilic in three sets!
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That's a very impressive record by Djokovic.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Cilic was on fire in the 1st 3 games of that final, overpowering Federer from the baseline, hammering his serve. It looked like it might be another beatdown of Fed. Then Cilic suffered a sudden loss of form which is not explained by foot blisters. Does anyone know exactly what his injury was? A torn plantar fascia or metatarsal fracture would explain it. It would also explain his angry outburst and later his tears of frustration.
joe sch
Legend
Agree about the beginning of the match.
It was just "really bad blisters" and that stress attack breakdown crying when he realized he would not be good enough.
NatF
Bionic Poster
"Severely injured", BobbyOne?
What exactly WAS his injury?
We saw someone come out to tend to what looked like blisters on Cilic's foot.
Seems to me, a few days after the event, that the occasion of being in a Wimbledon final and realizing he was probably going to lose, also got to Marin. He seemed a little uptight earlier as well.
Sometimes, finals are an anti--climax. It happens. Get over it...
NatF
Bionic Poster
It was actually a single blister, it developed during his SF which he was still able to win.
Bobby can never get over the fact that Federer is and probably always will be regarded higher in the pantheon than Rosewall. By fans and experts alike.
A single blister, was it? Ok.
Federer is regarded as being higher in the pantheon and greater than Rosewall by most sensible fans and experts alike these days, yes...
joe sch
Legend
Agree, as I state and is pretty much the explanation that Cilic admitted to in the interviews ...
It was just "really bad blisters" and that stress attack breakdown crying when he realized he would not be good enough.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
No wonder he's also lost nine Slam finals, considering his losses were:
Federer x 1 (US Open 2007)
Nadal x 4 (US Open 2010, Roland Garros 2012, US Open 2013, Roland Garros 2014)
Murray x 2 (US Open 2012, Wimbledon 2013)
Wawrinka x 2 (Roland Garros 2015, US Open 2016)
Sure, Murray and Wawrinka aren't as good as him, and would have one Slam each had Djokovic won all those finals (assuming, falsely, that there would have been no butterfly effect, but let's simplify), but they are still by no means bad opponents. Murray's made 11 Slam finals, and Wawrinka played very well indeed in the Roland Garros final, in my view. Djokovic was also clearly below his best at the US Open.
Anyway, 20 of his 21 major finals have been against other members of the "Big 5" - the extended version that includes Murray and Wawrinka.
NLBwell, I agree of course but the idiots here think it's not a severe handicap to play competitive tennis with a bad blister.
Severally injured?The guy had a blister not a missing arm.
A big blister does not mean a severe injury and does not mean a big handicap? Really? Then please play with such a blister for hours, boy!
I get over Federer's win but not over the biased idiots here!
Here you are right, boy. I will never understand why the modern "experts" make that hype about Roger. But I accept the Federer fans and fanatics as they don't understand tennis history. Even an expert like you comes with that old nonsense argument that Rosewall did not win Wimbledon...
Fortunately not by all experts! The fans don't matter though.
NatF
Bionic Poster
You're falling apart before my eyes.
I never said he wasn't hindered, only that it wasn't a severe injury. You of course want to exaggerate because you can't stand Roger.
I didn't even make the argument that Federer is greater due to Wimbledon. If I did find me the post if not then settle yourself down.
BobbyOne, Cilic was affected by the blister. We all know it was a disappointing final. These things happen occasionally.
Cilic isn't the first player to be affected by an injury, or a blister, in a final.
It was still impressive that Federer won Wimbledon (his eighth by the way), without the loss of a set, especially at this stage of his career.
I'm sure Ken Rosewall himself would be willing to give Roger a bit more credit for an eighth Wimbledon than you are.
abmk
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, those guys Laver, Bud Collins are modern "experts" who regard federer so highly and above Rosewall. So are those "youngsters" in Borg, Connors, Evert etc. ( all of this was before 2013 btw ) and federer has won 2 more slams after that.
Here is that "fresh, young , green" Jack Kramer in 2008....
"Kramer said Don Budge, Gonzales or Hoad might have been the equal of Federer if they had been able to use Federer's racquet.
Yet he had never seen any player do more with a ball than Federer.
Federer, Kramer said, was the only player he had seen with the complete package; he is a fantastic offensive player, a super server and can play defence.
We all have our dream match-ups we would have loved to see play against each other in their prime.
Mine would be Rod Laver and Federer playing on Centre Court at Wimbledon.
Kramer's is Gonzales taking on Federer using the same racquets.
Kramer finished the interview by saying Federer was simply the best player he had seen play the game.
With credentials as good as his, who are we to argue?"
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/jack-kramer-on-federer.175546/
Druss
Hall of Fame
From what I saw in the final, Cilic came out all guns blazing in the early part of the first set, until Federer realised he had to change tactics, and that's what he did. Roger responded to Marin's one dimensional play with his all court play and variety. He basically 'stunned' Cilic, who had no response, and then broke down. Yes the blister affected his play, but that's only a small percentage. The outcome would have still been the same, just a little tighter result, IMO. Remember Federer only lost Wimby to peak Nadal and (Old*rer to) peak Djokovic...Cilic is nowhere near in the same stratosphere as them.
BobbyOne, Cilic was affected by the blister. We all know it was a disappointing final. These things happen occasionally.
Cilic isn't the first player to be affected by an injury, or a blister, in a final.
It was still impressive that Federer won Wimbledon (his eighth by the way), without the loss of a set, especially at this stage of his career.
I'm sure Ken Rosewall himself would be willing to give Roger a bit more credit for an eighth Wimbledon than you are.
Xavier, A bad blister and thus a pseudo-final may happen (but very seldom) but when ever did it happen that the finalist could not play his game because a severe injury and the winner's toughest two opponents lost their QF matches by also injured? I would say, not three times lucky here but three lucky facts which made it Federer much easier than an usual winner of a Grand Slam tournament. Honestly: If I were Roger I would not be as proud about this Wimbledon win as I would about the first seven. But I will not mind Roger if he believes that all his eight wins are of equal value. They just are not if we look at them objectively.
I'm a great and justified Rosewall admirer but I don't agree with Ken every time (but mostly)...
Your LAST error that I comment.
abmk, My old friend, How do you know that Bud Collins has regarded Federer above Rosewall? Are you a clairvoyant? All what I heard for Bud personally and via the Tennis Channel video is that he rated Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Federer about equal. He once even did not mention Roger at all when we talked about Bud's GOAT candidates. At that time Federer was praised by many as the undisputed GOAT already...
You should take Kramer's statements and opinions with a grain of salt. Jack once wrote in his book that Riggs would have beaten both Rosewall and LAVER! Do you agree?
What can Federer better do with a ball than Hoad, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver could? I would be interested because I never saw Federer playing shots better than Rosewall's and Laver's. Yes, he can give more power in his forehand shots (mostly because he does not use wood racquets. That's all. Bud Collins once said that Rosewall had a better volley.
Druss, How many percentages would you admit to Cilic's game because of the blister? 2%, or 4%, or 8%? When you have a significant injury you tend to get to a lower quality of your whole game!
I agree that Federer would probably also have won if Cilic were not injured. The greater problem in my eyes to accept Roger's win of the 2017 Wimbledon as a "full win" is another point, to be exact two points:that his two toughest and most dangerous opponents (aside of Nadal who lost early without having an injury), Djokovic and Murray, who seemed to have gotten back much of their old form, were INJURED significantly and did not reach the SF and the final stage of that tournament. Is this so difficult to understand, my dear Federer worshippers? (don't know if you join the hard-core fanatics though).
abmk
Bionic Poster
He may have just been trying to placate you when talking personally, with you being such a big Rosewall fan.
Rosewall was not even in Bud's top 5 in 2006
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/top-all-time-greats-by-bud-collins.93832/
• Bill Tilden
United States
• Pancho Gonzalez
United States
• Rod Laver
Australia
• Bjorn Borg
Sweden
• Pete Sampras
United States
Do you have any link for the tennis channel video.
he has a personal bias in the Riggs case.
Not in the case of federer.
In any case, all of Laver, Connors, Lendl etc say the same. Do we have take their opinions with a grain of salt as well.?
Are so many people - old players, experts brainwashed as well ?
yes, the fact that you ask this shows your ignorance.
those flick backhands that he hit consistently at his peak, BH overhead smash, the sneak attack on 2nd serve return (taking the 2nd serve return almost at the service line).
Some of the angles he can hit were unheard of in the wooden era.
some of the passes made by federer were just not possible with a wooden racquet.
oh and federer's serve about a country mile better than rosewall's and clearly better than Laver's.
ditto for the fh. (except maybe on clay)
(when equalized for the equipment )
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Murray lost in his first match to some unknown guy called Thompson at Queens and was very up and down at Wimbledon as well.
Djokovic was solid in his matches, but not at peak level and faced pretty easy opponents as well.
the only chance among these 2 would be if djokovic got back to full peak form , which is not a likely thing given how he's played from Wimbledon 2016 onwards
It is a full slam with a full field of 128 players.
unlike some of the amateur slams and pro slams of Rosewall's that you keep parading about as full slams when totalling all of them up.
Don't see you complaining about Rosewall winning the pro slams in 60,62, 63without Gonzales around and that wasn't just one pro slam either (&those pro slams were small fields as well).
Last edited:
For what it's worth, Federer was suffering from a cold during more or less the entire Wimbledon fortnight. That did not prevent him from winning the tournament without dropping a set.
EVERY player will from time to time benefit when his or her opponent is injured. You can only play (and beat) the player in front of you. There is no justification for adding an asterisk to such wins. Federer's draw at Wimbledon 2017 is a long, long way away from the weakest ever at a major. He did, after all, beat (among others) Dimitrov, Raonic and Berdych.
Virtually all players and analysts, including Frank Sedgeman, Rod Laver, Cliff Drysdale and the late Jack Kramer, rank Federer above Rosewall in all time lists. We can denounce them as "Federer worshippers" or respect their judgement, even if we disagree with it. I know which option makes more sense to me.
EVERY player will from time to time benefit when his or her opponent is injured. You can only play (and beat) the player in front of you. There is no justification for adding an asterisk to such wins. Federer's draw at Wimbledon 2017 is a long, long way away from the weakest ever at a major. He did, after all, beat (among others) Dimitrov, Raonic and Berdych.
Virtually all players and analysts, including Frank Sedgeman, Rod Laver, Cliff Drysdale and the late Jack Kramer, rank Federer above Rosewall in all time lists. We can denounce them as "Federer worshippers" or respect their judgement, even if we disagree with it. I know which option makes more sense to me.
Stop writing that ugly "placating" stuff! You insult America's greatest tennis expert. Bud was a man of honour -in contrast to you and a few other bad persons here!
I never give links (my computer weakness) but you just have to google Tennis Channel the 100 greatest tennis players and go to Rosewall.
There is nothing of a placating stuff in that video.
Bud was not the only expert who still does or did not say that Federer is the GOAT, F. e. Ken Rosewall a few years ago (he is a true Federer's admirer!) ranked Roger behind Hoad, Gonzalez and Laver.
Most of the shots you praise are due the modern racquet as you concede yourself.
Yes, Federer has a betetr service than Laver and Rosewall but there always were man since Tilden who had an equal or even better service than Roger (if you consider the modern racquets of course).
When Rosewall won those pro majors including the best players in the world there seldom was an opponent injured not to speak about three (THREE!) potential opponents!
Federer lost to grandpa Haas. So don't bother me with Murray!
