Murray Mound
Banned
At the moment Federer is arguably the GOAT but if he beats Nadal at the FO he will be the undisputed GOAT.
If Federer beats Nadal at the FO he is the undisputed GOAT
- Thread starter Murray Mound
- Start date
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
What is he if he gets his butt kicked by Nadal again?
Murray Mound
Banned
Then I think there will be a serious debate of who is the goat....both sides will have valid points.
orangettecoleman
Professional
Who is the other side advocating? Surely not Nadal. Can't be Sampras. If Fed loses to Nadal, then that validates Laver or something?
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
why? Clay is his strongest domain, and it is not like it's first time Rodge would lose on clay to him
Not a valid argument
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure and I win the lottery I will be a rich man,both of these things have the same amount of chance to happen.
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
Until Nadal gets to 16, Fed is the GOAT.
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
murray mound, do you realize how much you sound like a sixth grader? Nadal if he wins the french has no claim to GOAT status whatsoever. sorry you just sound like a freakin middle schooler.
BorisBeckerFan
Professional
I could be misreading Murray Mound but I do not believe he is at least in this thread making any claims that Nadal is the goat so I am not sure as to how he is being accused of this. The both sides are those who believe Fed is the GOAT and those who do not. An alternative candidate has not been posed by Murray Mound in this thread so far.
Sangria
Semi-Pro
Huh? I'm a long shot from being irritated by Federer's success. The guys a genius. If Rafa wins, it just means that he is in superb form and another trophy addition to his remarkable achievements.
All-rounder
Legend
Federer isn't afraid of nadal, I have no idea where you got that from. Was he afraid when he beat him last year at Madrid?
Carsomyr
Legend
davey25
Banned
Federer is a long way from convincing me he is the GOAT. It would take more than defeating Nadal in the French Open final in itself. His overall game and abilities do not stack up against what Laver, Borg, and Sampras all demonstrated in their primes. His overall achievements do not stack up against Laver, Gonzalez, or Rosewall, considering the context of the times.
Relative to Sampras he really does need to win many more slams than Pete to offset the vast inferiority of the competition he faced relative to Sampras. Relative to Borg perhaps even moreso given that Borg would probably won as many or even more than 14 slams had the Australian been viewed as a real slam back then, and the superior competition Borg faced as well.
Relative to Sampras he really does need to win many more slams than Pete to offset the vast inferiority of the competition he faced relative to Sampras. Relative to Borg perhaps even moreso given that Borg would probably won as many or even more than 14 slams had the Australian been viewed as a real slam back then, and the superior competition Borg faced as well.
All-rounder
Legend
davey25
Banned
If *******s dont want that they should stop with all these "Federer undisputed GOAT" threads which is too much Federer oversaturation and too disrespectful of the great players past for many peoples liking.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Fed must be having sleepless nights not able to convince YOU!
It's all about getting davey25's approval.
Murray Mound
Banned
It's quality not quantity.
Feds competition prior to Nadal was not all that great. Sure he faced some great players but guys like baghdatis, or philopusis....well not so good.
Four of his wimbledons were against Roddick......come on .....Fed is 17-0 against Roddick.
Federers may actually be the goat right now but it's at least ARGUABLE. However if he beats Nadal at the FO I think the debate is over.
Murray Mound
Banned
And I never said that he did. WTF?
did ya watch any of the Fed vs Nadal matches, other than the Madrid one? ppl who know tennis know that Fed has a mental block against Nadal.
Fed started the Madrid match very shaky. guess you didn't see that either.
Whether you like it or not, Roddick is probably the 3rd best grasscourter of this current crop of players. Two of there matches were very good in 2004 and 2009 so it's not like Roddick completely fails at grass. Considering they slowed the courts down.
D
Deleted member 22147
Guest
Rod Laver has two calendar slams and missed several years during his peak...
Laver is the greatest player ever, but who cares anyway.
Laver is the greatest player ever, but who cares anyway.
MotherMarjorie
Banned
Federer is already the undisputed GOAT. Nothing that happends now will change it.
Omega_7000
Legend
LMAO!!! :lol:
Math isnt your strong suit
He only has 2 grand slams more than pete.Fed is already the the goat, undisputed will never happen as long as die hard sampras fans and people who deem h2h more important than titles or prize money.
Math isnt your strong suit
Fed is already the the goat, undisputed will never happen as long as die hard sampras fans and people who deem h2h more important than titles or prize money.
There was probably supposed to be a comma between 'slams' and 'more'.
Murray Mound
Banned
Math isnt your strong suit
Fed is already the the goat, undisputed will never happen as long as die hard sampras fans and people who deem h2h more important than titles or prize money.
There are two sides to the argument.
An argument can be made that Fed is the GOAT because he has won 16 slams.
On the other hand and argument can also be made that how can he be the GOAT when he has been beaten by Nadal on every surface.
Both arguments are valid . However if Federer is able to beat Nadal on clay the the debate is over.
FEDERERNADAL13
Legend
Fed is already GOAT, no question.
He beat nadal on clay last year in rome 6-4 6-4 which led to nadals downturn. There is nothing fed can do when nadal fails to make the finals like he has the last 4 grand slams.
H2h means nothing in tennis, your playing to win the tournament not beat a single opponenet. Fed has won twice as much money and 10 more grand slams, they arent even on the same level in terms of accomplishments in tennis.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
but, he's beaten Nadal on every surface..
so i'm not sure why him losing matches to the guy is such a big deal, i mean cmon, if the h2h was like his with roddick, i'd understand, but Fed's h2h with Nadal is respectable considering how many were played on clay..
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Total majors was never even a metric for who "the best" player was until Sampras brought it into the equation. There are plenty of of arguments for other players being the best. Federer's competition has certainly been poor outside of Nadal. Just look at who he won his majors against. These players will not be remembered as greats in any sense of the word.
Borg had 11 majors at 25, playing totally different styles to dominate the French and Wimbledon. Then he just quit. On top of that, won all of these majors when no one really played the Australian and he generally skipped it. If he had played it and dominated like he did the French and W, could have had 16-17 majors at 25. Surely there is an argument for him being the best player.
McEnroe at his best dominated the tour in a way Federer never did. 1984 people. Maybe the best tennis ever seen? Plus he was maybe the best doubles player ever as well. I don't think there has been another player with his touch or court sense.
Sampras - won majors against a veritable who's who of tennis. Agassi, Becker, Ivanesevic, among others...Federer just doesn't have this kind of list. Sampras also had a huge huge game, the type of game that when on is literally unbeatable. See Wimbledon 1999. His huge attacking style is just not on display anymore. There is surely an argument that he was the best.
Laver - 2 REAL Grand Slams (not the dumb way people use the term now, it has and always means winning all four in one year. If someone had "10 grand slams" it would mean they had 40 majors) and easily in the running for best to ever play.
Pancho Gonzalez - Go read up on the guy...he could possibly be the best to ever play the game. Major count simply doesn't come into the equation for him at all forever.
This idea that total majors is the sole metric, is quite myopic and also ignorant. It just wasn't really a factor until the last 10 years or so, and you're talking well over a hundred years for the sport, and 40+ years for the open era. Just because something or someone is good in your time, does not mean it is the best ever. I know that tends to happen since people are generally narcissistic about these sorts of things, but 100 years ago really isn't that long. People back then were just as great athletes as people are now, unless you think speed, strength and hand eye coordination developed in the 21st century.
Federer is not, and never will be "the best ever." Even if he won 25 majors. He simply doesn't have the competition (and the one person he does have, he has failed against), and there are plenty of other players who have a stake on that claim. It will always be down to someone's opinion.
Borg had 11 majors at 25, playing totally different styles to dominate the French and Wimbledon. Then he just quit. On top of that, won all of these majors when no one really played the Australian and he generally skipped it. If he had played it and dominated like he did the French and W, could have had 16-17 majors at 25. Surely there is an argument for him being the best player.
McEnroe at his best dominated the tour in a way Federer never did. 1984 people. Maybe the best tennis ever seen? Plus he was maybe the best doubles player ever as well. I don't think there has been another player with his touch or court sense.
Sampras - won majors against a veritable who's who of tennis. Agassi, Becker, Ivanesevic, among others...Federer just doesn't have this kind of list. Sampras also had a huge huge game, the type of game that when on is literally unbeatable. See Wimbledon 1999. His huge attacking style is just not on display anymore. There is surely an argument that he was the best.
Laver - 2 REAL Grand Slams (not the dumb way people use the term now, it has and always means winning all four in one year. If someone had "10 grand slams" it would mean they had 40 majors) and easily in the running for best to ever play.
Pancho Gonzalez - Go read up on the guy...he could possibly be the best to ever play the game. Major count simply doesn't come into the equation for him at all forever.
This idea that total majors is the sole metric, is quite myopic and also ignorant. It just wasn't really a factor until the last 10 years or so, and you're talking well over a hundred years for the sport, and 40+ years for the open era. Just because something or someone is good in your time, does not mean it is the best ever. I know that tends to happen since people are generally narcissistic about these sorts of things, but 100 years ago really isn't that long. People back then were just as great athletes as people are now, unless you think speed, strength and hand eye coordination developed in the 21st century.
Federer is not, and never will be "the best ever." Even if he won 25 majors. He simply doesn't have the competition (and the one person he does have, he has failed against), and there are plenty of other players who have a stake on that claim. It will always be down to someone's opinion.
reversef
Hall of Fame
It comes more from the Samprastards than from the *********s IMO. Nadal is not a goat candidate and will never be. Samprastards question Federer's goatness, but sometimes they are vicious enough to pretend being Nadal's fans.
Anyway, Federer has achieved much more than Sampras. The only ones who could compete with him for the title are players of the pre-Open era or players who at least started their career in that era (like Laver).
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
Ok sorry for being insensitive, murraymound, but when I posted that Nadal, if he were to win the French Open vs. Fed would have no claim to GOAT status whatsoever, I was assuming "both sides" of the argument meant Fed as GOAT or Nadal as GOAT, since both in the title of the thread and in every post leading up to my comment, Fed and Nadal were the only guys mentioned. I clearly see how the debate is Fed: undisputed GOAT or NOT.
Sorry I'm just so sick of these purely speculative "undisputed GOAT" threads, I'm way past the point of throwing up. It is what it is.
There is absolutely zero way anyone can claim undisputed GOAT status. Period.
See:
1. Fed '04-'07 weak era & weak h2h vs. contemporary argument
2. borg's early retirement and refusal to play aussie open argument-still 11
3. laver's long stint as an amateur argument-what 12 majors still
4. sampras' tougher competition argument-still 14
5. what a drug-free, fit, focused jmac could've done argument
list goes on . . .
Gosh!!! It doesn't end does it. To some... depending on who their idol is or which era they grew up in... Federer would never be the GOAT. There will always be some reason... valid or not... to deny him that honour.
To most... as shallow as it may seem... Number of GSs would be the best measure. There is no scientific way of endorsing anyone with that title. We have to consider... the technology and equipments used today., the physical and mental training .. of course the era in which they played in. I personally believe the game has evolved and become more competetive because of the superior fitness, power and precision these days. Its more than serve and volleying anymore.
The problem is I did not grow up watching Gonzales and Rod Lever play. I have seen clips of them on Youtube.... but that's not enough. We can find impressive clips from any top ten players today.
The debate goes on.. but at the moment 16 is still the number.
To most... as shallow as it may seem... Number of GSs would be the best measure. There is no scientific way of endorsing anyone with that title. We have to consider... the technology and equipments used today., the physical and mental training .. of course the era in which they played in. I personally believe the game has evolved and become more competetive because of the superior fitness, power and precision these days. Its more than serve and volleying anymore.
The problem is I did not grow up watching Gonzales and Rod Lever play. I have seen clips of them on Youtube.... but that's not enough. We can find impressive clips from any top ten players today.
The debate goes on.. but at the moment 16 is still the number.
You bring up good points in bringing up the strong-points of these players. However, the reality is, competition today is much tougher and deeper. Players are stronger, faster, bigger, and more fit. Now, you may not think that is a good way to compare, and that is fine. However, this argument about Federer having "weak" competition is nonsense. His competition doesn't have many slams to their names because Federer won most of the slams over the last 5 years, and most of these he didn't win, Nadal did.
The idea that Federer never dominated the competition like McEnroe did is ridiculous. I guess you haven't bothered to look at Federer's 2005 year, right? Or even more impressive, perhaps, was his 2006 year. As far as I'm concerned, his 2006 year was clearly superior to McEnroe's best year.
To say Sampras was better than Federer is to completely ignore the fact that Federer is just flat-out a better clay-court player than Sampras was. If they played eachother 10 times on clay, Sampras would have been lucky to win one. Federer would certainly have been a multi-FO winner if not for having to play against arguably the greatest claycourter ever for 4 years in a row.
Laver won the GS twice, and if you add professional slams (e.g., Wembley), he has a lot more to his name. However, I don't think he would have done any better than Federer did if you put him up against a Borg or Nadal on clay.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
I think Fed will be considered the GOAT until someone breaks his slam record in the future. Which could easily be in 10 yrs seeign at how fast Pete's slam record was broken. It didn't even take a decade. Wow. I bet Pete thought it would take another 30+ years like it took for someone to break Emerson's slam record. Boy was he wrong.
Rhino
Legend
Well then you're not a Nadal fan irritated by Federers success are you, so I wasn't talking about you.
davey25
Banned
The sad truth is that most people- fans, non tennis fans if they had an opinion, experts, analysts, former and current players, do feel Federer is the greatest player ever. However that is very unfortunate IMO as he is not really the best tennis player ever, and if he were playing with Sampras, Borg, Laver, and possibly even Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, he would be exploited as a lesser player than those which is what he really is despite that few will ever realize it. He is a player who has the record he has due to a variety of circumstances, and even with that there are still a number of players with better records if one looked beyond the overly simplistic slam count which is only a reasonable barometer for players since 1985 when the 4 slams are the most prestigious events hands down throughout a players entire playing career.
Safin - multiple slam champion, beating Sampras and Federer to win his slams, 4 slam finals in total.
Hewitt - multiple slam champion, breadsticking twice Sampras at the USO final, 4 slam finals in total.
Agassi - 8 times slam champion, numerous finals.
Nadal - 6 times slam champions, 2 times finalist, still a lot to play for
Roddick - 6 times slam finalist - 1 time champion, still to play for some more.
Djokovic - 1 times slam finalist, 1time champion, at the age of 22
Murray - 2 times slam finalist, age 22
Del Potro - 1 time slam champion, age 21
So players like Hewitt, Safin, won't be remembered? In that case neither should Rafter.
Nadal, Agassi should be remembered, no?
Who's to say Murray,Djoko,Delpowon't win 4+ slams in 10 years?
Borg was 1-3 in majors against 21-22 years old Mac before he even peaked. Who's to say he wouldn't hve owned him in his late 20's? If's and buts are fictional stuff.
Mac never played a final at the AO and went past the QF's of RG twice. having one hot year does not equal 3 years in which Federer was in ALL GS finals in a calendar year. Neither would it equal being in the SF in all but 1 occasions for 6+years in a row. Neither it would equal being 8 and 10 times in a row at consecutive GS finals.
Agassi, Courier, Becker, Chang,Moya, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin.
Only Agassi, Becker,Courier and Rafter are multiple slam champions out of those.
Will Chang,Moya, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin be remembered?
Not to mention that Ivanisevic, Pioline, Martin, Chang didnt even won 1 slam in the 90's.
1 REAL GS - pro/amateur tour divided, remember? Sure, he's in contention.
yet the competition back then simply doesn't come into the equation compared to todays.
you mean 100 years back when people were wearing long sleeves and pants just as great athletes?
who had the competition then? It was not Borg it seems, as he was owned by Mac in majors. Neither is Mac who was owned by Becker and Lendl, Neither is Sampras who sucked at clay and certainly had not the better competition compared to Federer(especially past 95), neither should/would be Laver due to pro/amateur tour, neither should be Pancho as the competition back then was not the same as today?
edberg505
Legend
Just out of curiosity, how much tennis do you actually play?
