I think prime Fed is overrated on this forum

Then why isnt Margaret Court considered the female GOAT by hardly anyone? Why wasnt Roy Emerson the male GOAT before Sampras or Federer (in fact most dont even rank him top 20 and he is 3rd in slams). No all that is valued is not total # of slams. That is just a new rule invented for Federer.

I didn't say that it's ALL that is valued. I said it's the most highly valued factor in the Open Era.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That was your own post....idiot.

LOL...you're a joke, and now getting your panties all in a bunch.

I ask you a simple question:
BTW, what is your other alternative username(s) ?

Since you're too chicken to answer it, you avoid my question by being a smartass....
BTW, what is your other alternative username(s) ?

If it's really true that you have only 1 username, then you would have NO problem answering it. why are you so scare?:confused: Since you can't, people are more suspect of you have other usernames.




Bullsh*t. By suggesting it, you hope to trigger suspicion (because you cannot win arguments by any legitimate means), but yours was the gamble of a 5 year old mind, so it will not go anywhere--particularly without evidence.
You can't comprehend. I'm not surprise if you do have more active accounts in here. And that's not going to change. Enough said.
 

jones101

Hall of Fame
Gonzales and Rosewall must be included in the top 5. The top 5 is Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Rosewall, and probably Federer. Borg is out due to his lack of a U.S Open or Australian Open, and Nadal has not achieved enough rate to rate over one of those 5. Budge, Tilden, and probably Connors complete the second 10. Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Kramer, and probably soon Djokovic complete the top 15.

Thank you, exactly, thats my point. Noone can ever be the definitive GOAT, but if people are talking about you as a candidate, you must obviously be a very elite player, and must of made some positive impact on the game.

Gonzalez and Rosewall deserve their respect and to be in the conversation too. I dont know too much about them to include them in my top 5, except they were great players.

Being in the 'coversation' to me is whats its all about.

The Agassi's/Edberg/Wilanders/Beckers/McEnroe's of this world all deserve to be in the conversation, and will no doubt be in some people's top 5, esp if you factor in peak play.

Its a subjective term but I dont think we will ever have a concrete answer.

To me, the best player I have ever seen play the game is Federer, and his achievements to me, overall are the best. This is just my opinion and others do make good points when pointing out their GOATs.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
There is no GOAT, but being in the discussion proves your GOATness.

Is is a subjective term.

To me, the top 5 GOATS are Federer/Sampras/Borg/Laver/Nadal.

No, just no.

The gap is too big. If Nadal is in the same breath as Federer, then Courier should be in the same breath as Nadal. The gap is pretty much the same.

Or how about Venus in the same breath with Serena. Makes no sense.
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Gonzales and Rosewall must be included in the top 5. The top 5 is Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Rosewall, and probably Federer. Borg is out due to his lack of a U.S Open or Australian Open, and Nadal has not achieved enough rate to rate over one of those 5. Budge, Tilden, and probably Connors complete the second 10. Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Kramer, and probably soon Djokovic complete the top 15.

Sampras - what does he have over Federer? Half of his slams are in the weakest era of tennis history 96-02 + no slams on clay. Sampras didn't lose 11-12 times to a freaking Clay Goat on clay. There was none in his "strong" era. Even if there was one, Sampras would even reach the final to meet him. Sampras' main rival, the meth-head was AWOL in large part of his career.
If Borg is punished for his lack of US open or AO Sampras should be punished as well. What about Rosewall - no wimbledons? Are you saying 0 > 6 wimbledons? In what rational universe?

Sound more credible next time. lol
 

jones101

Hall of Fame
No, just no.

The gap is too big. If Nadal is in the same breath as Federer, then Courier should be in the same breath as Nadal. The gap is pretty much the same.

Or how about Venus in the same breath with Serena. Makes no sense.

Im not Nadals biggest supporter but he is in double digits in slams, has the career slam, (2x Channel slam), MS Record, Multiple Davis Cup, excellent W-L ratio, 2x YE no1 etc.

Im not saying he is the best, but him being in the conversation is certainly warranted, he has carved out his own niche in tennis history too IMO.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Im not Nadals biggest supporter but he is in double digits in slams, has the career slam, (2x Channel slam), MS Record, Multiple Davis Cup, excellent W-L ratio, 2x YE no1 etc.

Im not saying he is the best, but him being in the conversation is certainly warranted, he has carved out his own niche in tennis history too IMO.

Sorry, I have to disagree. That's like putting Seles in the same conversation with Graf, or Venus with Serena, Agassi with Sampras....

Anyone in their right mind would disagree.

BTW, you wouldn't mind accepting Henin/Serena are equal in greatness?
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Sampras - what does he have over Federer? Half of his slams are in the weakest era of tennis history 96-02 + no slams on clay. Sampras didn't lose 11-12 times to a freaking Clay Goat on clay. There was none in his "strong" era. Even if there was one, Sampras would even reach the final to meet him. Sampras' main rival, the meth-head was AWOL in large part of his career.
If Borg is punished for his lack of US open or AO Sampras should be punished as well. What about Rosewall - no wimbledons? Are you saying 0 > 6 wimbledons? In what rational universe?

Sound more credible next time. lol

Reading comprehension is one of your many failings apparently. I was not putting an exact order, just the groups, which would be obvious to anyone reading my post other than the incredibly stupid. Also a Federer fan calling the field Sampras faced as the weakest ever, oh the irony, not to mention a poster like you speaking of sounding credible, haha.

Borg is missing 2 slams, not just 1. There is a big difference. Sampras also didnt quit tennis in his mid 20s, but instead kept winning slams into his 30s (which Federer might not even do for the record).

Rosewall was banned from playing the slams for 12 years so his slam count is virtually meaningless, just like Roy Emerson winning as many as 12 is virtually meaningless to people today for the opposite reason. The fact he won 8 slams while being banned from 12 years of his prime is simply insane. Again something I shouldnt have to even explain but some special individuals apparently need to have everything explained to them.
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
Im not Nadals biggest supporter but he is in double digits in slams, has the career slam, (2x Channel slam), MS Record, Multiple Davis Cup, excellent W-L ratio, 2x YE no1 etc.

Im not saying he is the best, but him being in the conversation is certainly warranted, he has carved out his own niche in tennis history too IMO.

Didn't really look at it that way, puts things into perspective.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
LOL...you're a joke, and now getting your panties all in a bunch.

No, you're an idiot because you attacked your own quote.

That dunce cap must fit very well.

If it's really true that you have only 1 username, then you would have NO problem answering it. why are you so scare?:confused: Since you can't, people are more suspect of you have other usernames.

This is the most illogical bullsh*t i've ever read. YOU made the charge, thus the burden of proof is on you, fool. Now, start proving.

Now.
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
No, you're an idiot because you attacked your own quote.

That dunce cap must fit very well.



This is the most illogical bullsh*t i've ever read. YOU made the charge, thus the burden of proof is on you, fool. Now, start proving.

Now.

She is a hostile ignorant incompetent little girl just acting out, don't expect much from here, but she is used to that.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
There is no need for spin jobs. It is a basic fact that there is no "official requirement" for GOAT. Who the greatest player ever is is basically a matter of opinion, which people use results for.

Then you have just informed every TW Federer fanatic that their false god has no universal claim to the GOAT title.

For you, the Grand Slam is the most important thing. For others, it would be weeks at number one. For others, it could be total number of slams.

You continually say that a player MUST have won the Grand Slam to be considered the best ever, but this is fallacious: if people are considering Federer and Sampras as potential GOATs (which they do, why not start a GOAT poll including Laver, Federer, and Sampras and observe the results, I can assure you that it will not be one way traffic for Laver), then evidently, as the greatest player ever is based entirely on people's opinions, one need not necessarily have won the Grand Slam.

The essential difference is that Federer--while still an active player--is already questioned about his status--that fast after a brief period of some calling him the GOAT. That quick turnaround speaks volumes. Add his own statement which can only be read as a part of his majors-winning era was weak, and he completes the GOAT invalidation process.

Moreover--and this is most important--we cannot pretend history has not celebrated players like Graf, Laver, Budge, Connoly, et al, have been elevated as the standard of genunine tennis superiority/accomplishment for decades. This is no coincidence.

However, we now have the fanboy culture of Olympian ignorance--who want their toy of their generation's moment (Federer) has to be "the best EVAR lol!" rather than employing any critical study using--and understanding why many generations/history have placed certain players at the top level of accomplishment. No...the toy of their generation (Federer) just "has to be" the best, despite a mountain of countering evidence...and said toy's own statements.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You dont need another username in order to return after having "banned" appear under your name. I've posted the visual evidence against you in another thread, so you have already lost this little fantasy.

You were banned.
Until I have another username, get back with me.

BTW, what is your other alternative username(s) ?


More lies...otherwise, you would have posted the evidence.

Poor child.

I said I wouldn't be a bit surprise if you have other active accounts, b/c friend stick together...your friend Davey25 has many usernames.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Then you have just informed every TW Federer fanatic that their false god has no universal claim to the GOAT title.

Correct, of course he has no "universal claim" to the GOAT title. Neither does Laver.


The essential difference is that Federer--while still an active player--is already questioned about his status--that fast after a brief period of some calling him the GOAT. That quick turnaround speaks volumes. Add his own statement which can only be read as a part of his majors-winning era was weak, and he completes the GOAT invalidation process.

Everyone is questioned about their status. The media likes doing that. You have still not explained why you view Federer's opinions as undeniable fact, but fail to do the same for Laver's. I'm sure you appreciate such double standards look rather odd.

Moreover--and this is most important--we cannot pretend history has not celebrated players like Graf, Laver, Budge, Connoly, et al, have been elevated as the standard of genunine tennis superiority/accomplishment for decades. This is no coincidence.

Yes, that is true. But so too are Sampras, Nadal, Borg, and Federer celebrated for their achievements.

This is where I'm quite confused by your line of reasoning. This business of "history celebrating" players. If anything, Federer has been praised in the media more than any other player ever... If you believe that the amount of praise a player attracts is indicative of their greatness (which your post and list of Graf, Laver etc implies) then you must surely include Federer in such a list of players.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
She is a hostile ignorant incompetent little girl just acting out, don't expect much from here, but she is used to that.

And you're used to geting body slam in here for all of your ****ism by the Fed fans. There will be much more to come.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Then you have just informed every TW Federer fanatic that their false god has no universal claim to the GOAT title.

It's ok if you don't believe Fed is not a universal goat. But for you to say he's not a candidate, or he's out of the question b/c he didn't win a CS is moronic.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Im not Nadals biggest supporter but he is in double digits in slams, has the career slam, (2x Channel slam), MS Record, Multiple Davis Cup, excellent W-L ratio, 2x YE no1 etc.

Im not saying he is the best, but him being in the conversation is certainly warranted, he has carved out his own niche in tennis history too IMO.

Agree, of course. Nadal is definitely in the conversation and, along with Borg, can lay claim to being the best claycourt player ever. Djokovic? Not yet.

Didn't really look at it that way, puts things into perspective.

Jones stated what should be patently obvious to anyone with a balanced view. But then, a balanced view isn't exactly one of your strong points :twisted:.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
ironically , neither Sampras nor Becker would have won on today's grass as much as they did during their time.

I agree, but the reverse is also true for Federer and Nadal today. Djokovic (and maybe Nadal) would probably never win a Wimbledon under 90s playing conditions in fact.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
I agree, but the reverse is also true for Federer and Nadal today. Djokovic (and maybe Nadal) would probably never win a Wimbledon under 90s playing conditions in fact.

Take a look at Federer vs. Sampras epic at Wimbledon 2001. The kid was talented enough to adapt to any surface.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
The match went to 7-5 in the 5th, Federer was playing well beyond his years that days, Pete was playing well beyond his prime. I dunno if one match is good enough to make any kind of determination as to what kind of domination Fed would have on 90s grass truthfully. He would still have Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Rafter ( a little later on) Goran, etc. to contend with. Thats quite a crew of solid grass players.. Certainly better then the joke grass field of the 00's-present. Outside of Nadal.( who really didn't come into his own until 08 really) . There isn't much in terms of grass. Roddick was alright.. Not on Becker or Pete's level. Maybe on Andre's though thats questionable though. Hewitt was decent on grass I suppose.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
The match went to 7-5 in the 5th, Federer was playing well beyond his years that days, Pete was playing well beyond his prime. I dunno if one match is good enough to make any kind of determination as to what kind of domination Fed would have on 90s grass truthfully. He would still have Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Rafter ( a little later on) Goran, etc. to contend with. Thats quite a crew of solid grass players.. Certainly better then the joke grass field of the 00's-present. Outside of Nadal.( who really didn't come into his own until 08 really) . There isn't much in terms of grass. Roddick was alright.. Not on Becker or Pete's level. Maybe on Andre's though thats questionable though. Hewitt was decent on grass I suppose.

As usual spot on. Behind those you mentioned there was also a good supporting cast like Krajicek (the only guy to beat prime Sampras at Wimbledon), Henman, Philippousis, Todd Martin, and others. It is quite telling a past his prime Philippoussis could make the Wimbledon final in the Federer era on grass, but couldnt get past the quarters in his actual prime during the Sampras one.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
As usual spot on. Behind those you mentioned there was also a good supporting cast like Krajicek (the only guy to beat prime Sampras at Wimbledon), Henman, Philippousis, Todd Martin, and others. It is quite telling a past his prime Philippoussis could make the Wimbledon final in the Federer era on grass, but couldnt get past the quarters in his actual prime during the Sampras one.

That is a good point. About Phillipousis. I didn't know that. It does say alot though with how far down the grass field went after the 90s.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Hey! This Set Sampras dude is looking really familiar. Oh maaan, not again! :)
 
Last edited:

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
The match went to 7-5 in the 5th, Federer was playing well beyond his years that days, Pete was playing well beyond his prime. I dunno if one match is good enough to make any kind of determination as to what kind of domination Fed would have on 90s grass truthfully. He would still have Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Rafter ( a little later on) Goran, etc. to contend with. Thats quite a crew of solid grass players.. Certainly better then the joke grass field of the 00's-present. Outside of Nadal.( who really didn't come into his own until 08 really) . There isn't much in terms of grass. Roddick was alright.. Not on Becker or Pete's level. Maybe on Andre's though thats questionable though. Hewitt was decent on grass I suppose.

Becker was Sampras' pigeon on grass. Remind me how many times Becker won Wimbledon after 1990 ? And teen-Fed is 2-0 against Goran, both victories coming before Goran's Wimbledon victory.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Becker was Sampras' pigeon on grass. Remind me how many times Becker won Wimbledon after 1990 ? And teen-Fed is 2-0 against Goran, both victories coming before Goran's Wimbledon victory.

Roddick was Fed's pidgeon for 7-8 years everywhere. Roddick was Geriatric Andre's pidgeon (5-1 h2h) long before he became fed's pidgeon. And Sampras in his last slam ever, embarrassed Roddick right off the court.

Becker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Roddick

Mid 90s Goran>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any Roddick on grass

Heck Roddick couldnt even beat an early 30s Goran at Wimbeldon in 01
 
Last edited:

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
Roddick was Fed's pidgeon for 7-8 years everywhere. Roddick was Geriatric Andre's pidgeon (5-1 h2h) long before he became fed's pidgeon. And Sampras in his last slam ever, embarrassed Roddick right off the court.

Did Sampras embarass Roddick the two times he lost to him as well ?

And Andre was Fed's pigeon and Nadal beat Andre (on grass, much before he became a good grass player according to you) - your point is ?

Becker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Roddick

Are you sure you didn't miss out a few more of the ">" signs :confused:

In terms of achievements, yes. But you never know how their specific match-up would pan out, unless they actually played.

Mid 90s Goran>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any Roddick on grass

Heck Roddick couldnt even beat an early 30s Goran at Wimbeldon in 01

Goran was a headcase. No reason why I would rate him any better than Roddick. He won one Slam - roddick won one.

I like how you 2 (are you the same person, btw ?) go round and round about imagined/perceived match-ups that never happened, pretending as if the giant(s) from the previous era would somehow own the midgets from this era. Most evidence (based on matches that happened) would suggest that the match-ups would be close, and the outcome hard to predict.

Fed -- prime/pre-prime was extremely effective against the big-servers. Sampras served out of his skin in Wimbledon and lost, he had no problems with Goran's serve and we don't have to talk about Roddick. Based on the evidence of the matches that actually happened, it is clear to me that Fed would do well against anybody on any grass. Would he win 6 Wimbledon's against the 90's field ? perhaps not -- but 3 or 4 he'd most likely manage.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Overall Roddick was probably slightly better than Ivanisevic since he was by far the better and more consistent hard court player, despite that Goran was probably better on all other surfaces. However Ivanisevic is the better grass court player without question. You wont find a single expert who rates Roddick higher than Ivanisevic on grass. Even if you dont accept the opinion the stats bear it out, Ivanisevic has won Wimbledon and Roddick hasnt, Ivanisevic has more Wimbledon finals, Ivanisevic has beaten more Wimbledon winners at Wimbledon. It is silly to even dispute that Goran is the better grass courter.
 

purge

Hall of Fame
no one can ever truly be called the GOAT because as the game changes and evolves over time players from different eras can never truly be compared. not even by bare figures as winning a cetrain tournament for example took very different qualities then and now.

so there can only be a list of GOAT candidates from different eras and try to subjectively put them into a possible order.

and almost everyone who knows anything about tennis (including past greats) put federer on top of that list. which doesnt mean hes the undesputedly GOAT but that out of everyone on the list he is closest to that title.

and for good reason i say. no one has dominated the sport as much as he did for as long as he did. and more importantly no one has ever made producing outstanding things on a tennis court look easier and more natural, especially considering how much more physical the sport has become over the years.

and ppl like thundervolley who are obviously just begrudging haters will always pick everything federer said apart and take 1 sentence he made in 10 years of daily interviews and forget about everything else in order to prove some absurd claims.

like for example that he is a bad sportsman which is nonsense.
or in this case that he had no competition which is just laughable.
if you really wanted to go there then that would hold true for anyone who ever won anything.

when the media asks fed about nole and rafa today they obviously do so because they want to get praise for the players who are on top of the game at the moment because its their job to hype them. and fed knows that of course. he knows if he says anything else haters are gonna say "oh wow look how bitter he is he doesnt even aknowledge rafa and nole altho he mostly loses to them now, yadda yadda"

so federer said these two who are his prime rivals now had not matured then. which is true of course. but that doesnt mean he didnt have any competition back then? hosnetly i can take anyone seriously who thinks agassi, hewitt, nalbandian, safin, etc were no competition or a "weak era" with no "depth of field" :S. if anything the field was deeper than it is today with more people who have the game to beat the current #1 and/or be possible slam winners.

so fed says he had it easier then compared to now mainly because he knows the media is all about nole and rafa at the moment. you think if he sat in a room with his main adversaries from 5-6 years back hed say "guys, no offence but.. nadal and djokovic are like so much better than you ever were.. i mean theyd totally kick your asses out there, sorry but you were just a joke competition compared to now"? my moneys on no

after all he completely dominated a field in his prime and now that hes lost a step he still throws down with the absolute best of a new field. that hadrly serves as evidence that the field is so much stronger now or am i missing something?

so if you say stuff like fed had it easy and won most of his slams when there was no real competition is just bollocks. yes a matured rafa and nole were not around then. but others were. and he beat them. every multi slam winner had periods when a certain rival hadnt evolved yet so youd question all these slam titles as well?

bottom line. no one can ever claim to be the GOAT because its just not comparable
but for now fed is #1 on the list of contenders by consensus of pretty much anyone who knows what they are talking about.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
Overall Roddick was probably slightly better than Ivanisevic since he was by far the better and more consistent hard court player, despite that Goran was probably better on all other surfaces. However Ivanisevic is the better grass court player without question. You wont find a single expert who rates Roddick higher than Ivanisevic on grass. Even if you dont accept the opinion the stats bear it out, Ivanisevic has won Wimbledon and Roddick hasnt, Ivanisevic has more Wimbledon finals, Ivanisevic has beaten more Wimbledon winners at Wimbledon. It is silly to even dispute that Goran is the better grass courter.

Who cares about Roddick ? And where did i say he was better than Goran ? The point is baby-Fed creamed Goran, twice -- before Goran won Wimbledon. Ergo, there is very little evidence to suggest that Goran would have troubled Fed on any surface. Pre-prime/Prime-Fed ate up big-servers for brunch and dinner.

And apparently it is highly intellectual, to dispute Fed's greatness, or have endless hypothetical match-ups comparing the weak-era's of the present with the imaginary strong era's of the past. :confused:

If Nadal wins a few more Slams, a case can be made for him being better than Federer. Against anybody else Fed has a stronger case (in the Open Era).
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Reading comprehension is one of your many failings apparently. I was not putting an exact order, just the groups, which would be obvious to anyone reading my post other than the incredibly stupid. or creation of a coherent message is one of your failings? The use of the word "probably" in front of Federer indicates what is his place in the order of the Top 5 you listed. Talk about failings and stupid lol

Also a Federer fan calling the field Sampras faced as the weakest ever, oh the irony, not to mention a poster like you speaking of sounding credible, haha.
Yes, Sampras had a weak field. Never had to compete against a double-digit slam champion in his time. His main rival wasn't consistent as well. Even in the weak field from 96 - 02 Sampras was averaging 1 slam per year. Excuse me, I mentioned "credible" and "you" in one sentence. You have failed many predictions, because your overall reasoning is weak.

Borg is missing 2 slams, not just 1. There is a big difference. Sampras also didnt quit tennis in his mid 20s, but instead kept winning slams into his 30s (which Federer might not even do for the record).

Rosewall was banned from playing the slams for 12 years so his slam count is virtually meaningless, just like Roy Emerson winning as many as 12 is virtually meaningless to people today for the opposite reason. The fact he won 8 slams while being banned from 12 years of his prime is simply insane. Again something I shouldnt have to even explain but some special individuals apparently need to have everything explained to them.

What should you and shouldn't you explain? Rosewall is not above Federer, unfortunately. I couldn't play in the slams in the 60s as well. Does this make me GOAT? Your opinion is subjective and has nothing to do with the facts. If you put weak arguments out there, you should expect people to disagree with you.
 
Last edited:

billnepill

Hall of Fame
As usual spot on. Behind those you mentioned there was also a good supporting cast like Krajicek (the only guy to beat prime Sampras at Wimbledon), Henman, Philippousis, Todd Martin, and others. It is quite telling a past his prime Philippoussis could make the Wimbledon final in the Federer era on grass, but couldnt get past the quarters in his actual prime during the Sampras one.

MaliVai Washington, Cédric Pioline (Wimbledon finalists) are examples of the deep 90's field. :oops:
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Who cares about Roddick ? And where did i say he was better than Goran ? The point is baby-Fed creamed Goran, twice -- before Goran won Wimbledon. Ergo, there is very little evidence to suggest that Goran would have troubled Fed on any surface. Pre-prime/Prime-Fed ate up big-servers for brunch and dinner.

LOL. Goran was playing rubbish when Federer beat him, losing more matches than he was winning.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
Geez, Goran has very little chance against Fed on any surface including grass. Fed serves as well and does EVERYTHING else much, much better. Duh.

Fed is not overrate until someone wins 17 GS titles and makes the semi-finals in slams for 4 -5 years straight. Then, we can have a post about how the new player is overrated and played in a weak era.
 

Crazy man

Banned
Heck Roddick couldnt even beat an early 30s Goran at Wimbeldon in 01

Roddick was 18. Goran was the eventual winner. Why is it the dumb posters post the most out of anyone?





The more I see of posters like SetSampras/NadalAgassi and the flock of ******** tennis posters who agree with them, the less I am impressed. These people troll everyday and clearly have no involvement in the sport.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
LOL. Goran was playing rubbish when Federer beat him, losing more matches than he was winning.

Sure - whenever you lose you play rubbish. In fact Fed would not have lost any match in his life - he just happened to play rubbish the days he lost matches:confused:
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Overall Roddick was probably slightly better than Ivanisevic since he was by far the better and more consistent hard court player, despite that Goran was probably better on all other surfaces. However Ivanisevic is the better grass court player without question. You wont find a single expert who rates Roddick higher than Ivanisevic on grass. Even if you dont accept the opinion the stats bear it out, Ivanisevic has won Wimbledon and Roddick hasnt, Ivanisevic has more Wimbledon finals, Ivanisevic has beaten more Wimbledon winners at Wimbledon. It is silly to even dispute that Goran is the better grass courter.

Thats another good point.. Regardless NO ONE should objectively put Roddick over Goran on grass. Thats simply delusional. People will argue Fed stopped Roddick from winning a few wimbledon.. Fair enough.. But the grass GOAT stopped Goran from winning a few wimbledons of his own.

One thing to point out the strength of the 90s grass field, Goran over 30 years of age finally wins Wimbledon much past his prime. Beat Safin, Rafter, Roddick etc.. in the process to do so. In the 90s being at his peak on grass, he still couldn't win one.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Roddick was 18. Goran was the eventual winner. Why is it the dumb posters post the most out of anyone?

You know the cliche: "Empty vessels make the most noise." That's probably one of the main reasons you see idiotic posters writing the most frequently.

Another reason is that some posters expressly want to make others angry enough to start arguing endlessly.
 

Crazy man

Banned
You know the cliche: "Empty vessels make the most noise." That's probably one of the main reasons you see idiotic posters writing the most frequently.

Another reason is that some posters expressly want to make others angry enough to start arguing endlessly.



I've read a few of their posts, the only thing I could deduct from them is that they like to talk about which player/era is better. Even in threads which didn't need a 'who's GOAT/my era > your era' it was the same three or four people cropping up trying to argue their way to victory.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Sure - whenever you lose you play rubbish. In fact Fed would not have lost any match in his life - he just happened to play rubbish the days he lost matches:confused:

Actually his comment is spot on, Goran was struggling with shoulder injury(and was constantly postponing shoulder surgery)and needed a wild card to play Wimbledon that year (and this is a player who was as high as #2 in the world), his 2001 Wimbledon victory is a miracle as fas as tennis goes (although we all knew Goran could still be dangerous on grass if he goes deep and someone upsets Pete which teenage Fed did). Wimbledon was the only tournament Goran played great tennis in that year, aside from that he looked like a pale shadow of his former best.

That said, 2001 wasn't Roddick's prime either, he was what 18? And he still gave Goran a solid match.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
MaliVai Washington, Cédric Pioline (Wimbledon finalists) are examples of the deep 90's field. :oops:

Better than 35 year old Bjorkman and Rainer Schuettler being in the Wimbledon semis, and Sebastien Grosjean and Scheng Schalken being two of the favorites and biggest Federer rivals for the title.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Better than 35 year old Bjorkman and Rainer Schuettler being in the Wimbledon semis, and Sebastien Grosjean and Scheng Schalken being two of the favorites and biggest Federer rivals for the title.

MaliVai Washington, Cédric Pioline (Wimbledon finalists) are examples of the deep 90's field. :oops:

He's talking about players making the W final dimwit.

Washington and Pioline would have NO chance making the final in this era.
 
Last edited:
Top