I think it is almost indisputable. what stat says otherwise? The H2H against rafa? That's only a stat against one player, not against the field. It is indisputable. Borg is a woulda shoulda. Sampras has good numbers, but not as good. Of course, nadal could end up ahead of federer in slam count (though that alone wouldn't make me put him ahead of federer he'd need weeks at #1 and WTF too) and become the goat, but I'm talking about right now. Weak era? What about the terribly weak era now where the youngest player to have made a slam semifinal is del potro at 24. Similarly weak era after 1993 (when courier and edberg made their last slam finals) for sampras.
Fed's the best of the Open Era?
- Thread starter 1477aces
- Start date
tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
um.. please don't thank you
FederErizeD
Hall of Fame
Finally, some sanity in this forum has been restored .. Go on OP !
forzamilan90
Legend
Fed best of Open Era=stating the obvious
Not for nadal fans or Pete fans. At least some of them
DolgoSantoro
Professional
Never had a thread for this before 
.
I think he's the greatest period.
.I think he's the greatest period.
Not up to date, but yeah..
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387860
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387860
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Great thread.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I think OP is trolling.
I think OP is trolling.
No. I'm just tired of people claiming that nadal's head to head makes him better or that sampras had "better competition".
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Well 17 slams says it all. I'm not going to even mention all the other insane numbers he has going for himself.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Is his case helped by the fact that he's ahead (or way ahead) of every other Open Era player in each and every meaningful record? Er, probably.
Also, first tier 1 player ever produced by the Open Era (last one before him being Laver), so we're talking huge gap here.
Also, first tier 1 player ever produced by the Open Era (last one before him being Laver), so we're talking huge gap here.
kragster
Hall of Fame
Is his case helped by the fact that he's ahead (or way ahead) of every other Open Era player in each and every meaningful record? Er, probably.
Also, first tier 1 player ever produced by the Open Era (last one before him being Laver), so we're talking huge gap here.
This doesn't make sense. You are tier 1 because you are great, you are not great because you are tier 1. I agree with the rest of your post that by virtue of being the leader on almost all the records , it makes his case really strong. .
The only argument period that Nadal fans have is that the H2H is 20 to 10.
Good point, Federer has issues with Nadal. To be fair, a ton of those are on clay, where Federer is not the GOAT, Nadal is. Nadal just was not good enough to reach more finals when Fed was at his best on hard, therefore we will never know how it would end up.
Either way the Nadal argument is a massive grasp at straws, and thus why any sane person that loves tennis knows that Federer may not be the greatest, but he certainly is one of them. Novak when at his highest level was owning Nadal, and Fed at 30 was the one who ended the streak. This alone is proof that matchups are just that - not determinants about an entire career.
Good point, Federer has issues with Nadal. To be fair, a ton of those are on clay, where Federer is not the GOAT, Nadal is. Nadal just was not good enough to reach more finals when Fed was at his best on hard, therefore we will never know how it would end up.
Either way the Nadal argument is a massive grasp at straws, and thus why any sane person that loves tennis knows that Federer may not be the greatest, but he certainly is one of them. Novak when at his highest level was owning Nadal, and Fed at 30 was the one who ended the streak. This alone is proof that matchups are just that - not determinants about an entire career.
If Federer isn't the greatest of all-time, what would someone have to do to earn that ranking?
I dislike comparing athletes amongst eras, but someone ultimately has to be the best.
By all the metrics we have available to assess how a tennis player has done vs. their competition i.e. the players they play matches against overall, Federer has been the most successful tennis player in the recordable era.
Obviously he's had a problem beating Rafa Nadal on clay specifically.
But that's the equivalent of the Yankees losing all 12 of their games vs. the Red Sox for multiple consecutive seasons and yet still winning the division and world series each of those years.
The Red Sox may have had the Yankees number... but everyone remembers the Yankees won the titles.
We're blessed as tennis fans to be viewing an era with multiple fantastic champions.
Whether this has happened because of surface homogenization or just a crop of really supreme guys all at once is a different story.
Either way.. tennis has had some really elite guys playing of late.
it's possible one may surpass Roger in the future.
But I think if you presented the collection of statistics that Roger Federer has amassed over the years and presented these stats to a completely non-biased audience.. maybe people who knew of tennis, but had never seen them play, I believe that room of non-biased people would conclusively vote that Roger is the greatest player.
I dislike comparing athletes amongst eras, but someone ultimately has to be the best.
By all the metrics we have available to assess how a tennis player has done vs. their competition i.e. the players they play matches against overall, Federer has been the most successful tennis player in the recordable era.
Obviously he's had a problem beating Rafa Nadal on clay specifically.
But that's the equivalent of the Yankees losing all 12 of their games vs. the Red Sox for multiple consecutive seasons and yet still winning the division and world series each of those years.
The Red Sox may have had the Yankees number... but everyone remembers the Yankees won the titles.
We're blessed as tennis fans to be viewing an era with multiple fantastic champions.
Whether this has happened because of surface homogenization or just a crop of really supreme guys all at once is a different story.
Either way.. tennis has had some really elite guys playing of late.
it's possible one may surpass Roger in the future.
But I think if you presented the collection of statistics that Roger Federer has amassed over the years and presented these stats to a completely non-biased audience.. maybe people who knew of tennis, but had never seen them play, I believe that room of non-biased people would conclusively vote that Roger is the greatest player.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
What I meant is that the other tier 1 player were before the Open Era. In the Open Era, there were none, cause they were all lacking--until Federer came along.
Sorana fan
Banned
No.
10nononononono
10nononononono
Rock Strongo
Legend
10 counterarguments please.
I don't think we've seen the best in the open era yet! However, I would say Fed's in the lead with Nadal a close second. Dojokovic looked like he was starting a run...but starting to fade!
Basically in my opinion if someone can make an argument against a player - then not the best.
Basically in my opinion if someone can make an argument against a player - then not the best.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Fantastic reply, very insightful.
tell the nadal fans and sampras fans.
