If Nadal and/or Djokovic break Federer’s GS record does the record become meaningless?

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
As bad as Federer allegedly is it’s amazing how he continues to live rent free in the heads of Djokdal fans. They can’t stop talking about him and obsessing over him.
And the worst haters are all Fed Fans... I mean I have seen in youtube and twitter Fedfans with a level of hate towards Rafa, Nole or Both of them to a level I have never seen in the other two..
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
As bad as Federer allegedly is it’s amazing how he continues to live rent free in the heads of Djokdal fans. They can’t stop talking about him and obsessing over him.
So does the record mean nothing now?
 

Fiero425

Legend
So does the record mean nothing now?

Fed fans might have had an argument if Federer had left the game graciously after winning Wimbledon in 2012! Hanging on, picking up 3 more majors over the next decade couldn't possibly help his legacy! Two players have had their way with Roger and his records are disappearing! ;) :laughing::-D:giggle::happydevil:
 

fedfan08

Professional
And the worst haters are all Fed Fans... I mean I have seen in youtube and twitter Fedfans with a level of hate towards Rafa, Nole or Both of them to a level I have never seen in the other two..
laughing-hysterically.gif
 

TopspintheTerrible

Hall of Fame
Fed fans might have had an argument if Federer had left the game graciously after winning Wimbledon in 2012! Hanging on, picking up 3 more majors over the next decade couldn't possibly help his legacy! Two players have had their way with Roger and his records are disappearing! ;) :laughing::-D:giggle::happydevil:
Fed has won 33 titles since 2012. You think this diminishes his legacy somehow?
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru

Fiero425

Legend
Yes he should have retired a decade ago to “protect his legacy.” What a cogent thought.

There are others who say "a mystery would still be alive" if Fed had retired at 17 Majors! He hung around for over 5 years to begin his run to make 20! IMO it just wasn't worth it when it comes to his legacy! As I said before, Pete retired and held the moniker of GOAT for a little over 8 years! We see what's happened to Roger over these last few years and it just hasn't been pretty! The last indignity being to drop that Wimbledon '19 Final! It just makes historians bring up the 2 USO SF's lost with a couple MP's! You have to admit, for an ordinary player, the record for this last decade is HOF noteworthy, but I think this puts a dent in the scenario when people think back! Nadovic have handled him time and time again! He doesn't have a H2H positive record when it comes to these 2! Just a thought, though crazy as some might say! The thing is I go back to the days of Court and Laver and their legend has been set for the time spent in the game, ALL thumbs up! Roger was on a pedestal on high! It was well deserved, but he didn't keep up with the top 2 the last 10 years! Though he kept his domination of all "also rans!" Making that FO SF a few years ago shows the NG are still struggling to assert itself! Nole and Rafa still rule going on AARP! :giggle: :-D:laughing::happydevil:
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Hall of Fame
I’m sure not many thought Sampras’s record would get broken (or at least not so soon after he retired). IF Nadal breaks Federer’s record while Federer is still playing and then Djokovic does the same soon after does it become meaningless? If one guy dominates like this you can argue he’s just a phenom and a freak. When three guys are doing it at the same time doesn‘t it signal the tour is weak and there’s a real lack of competition? It’s not good for the sport when going into a slam (or just about any tournament) you’re 99.9% certain one of three players will win it. Honestly the best thing that could happen to the sport in 2020 is if none of the big three win a slam. We need a changing of the guard. The sport is too predictable and boring right now.
Hehehehe, tell us more, please :D
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
As bad as Federer allegedly is it’s amazing how he continues to live rent free in the heads of Djokdal fans. They can’t stop talking about him and obsessing over him.
Why are you so hurt? Fed is still greater player than Rafa, and he will arguably remain so, even if Nadal wins RG2022.
 

TopspintheTerrible

Hall of Fame
There are others who say "a mystery would still be alive" if Fed had retired at 17 Majors! He hung around for over 5 years to begin his run to make 20! IMO it just wasn't worth it when it comes to his legacy! As I said before, Pete retired and held the moniker of GOAT for a little over 8 years! We see what's happened to Roger over these last few years and it just hasn't been pretty! The last indignity being to drop that Wimbledon '19 Final! It just makes historian bring up the 2 USO SF's lost with a couple MP's! You have to admit, for an ordinary player, the record for this last decade is HOF noteworthy, but I think this puts a dent in the scenario when people think back! Nadovic have handled him time and time again! He doesn't have a H2H positive record when it comes to these 2! Just a thought, though crazy as some might say! The thing is I go back to the days of Court and Laver and their legend has been set for the time spent in the game, ALL thumbs up! Roger was on a pedestal on high! It was well deserved, but he didn't keep up with the top 2 the last 10 years! Though he kept his domination of all "also rans!" Making that FO SF a few years ago shows the NG are still struggling to assert itself! Nole and Rafa still rule going on AARP! :giggle: :-D:laughing::happydevil:
Too many words and you must be a boomer with all dem emojis. Calm down.
 
There are others who say "a mystery would still be alive" if Fed had retired at 17 Majors! He hung around for over 5 years to begin his run to make 20! IMO it just wasn't worth it when it comes to his legacy! As I said before, Pete retired and held the moniker of GOAT for a little over 8 years! We see what's happened to Roger over these last few years and it just hasn't been pretty! The last indignity being to drop that Wimbledon '19 Final! It just makes historians bring up the 2 USO SF's lost with a couple MP's! You have to admit, for an ordinary player, the record for this last decade is HOF noteworthy, but I think this puts a dent in the scenario when people think back! Nadovic have handled him time and time again! He doesn't have a H2H positive record when it comes to these 2! Just a thought, though crazy as some might say! The thing is I go back to the days of Court and Laver and their legend has been set for the time spent in the game, ALL thumbs up! Roger was on a pedestal on high! It was well deserved, but he didn't keep up with the top 2 the last 10 years! Though he kept his domination of all "also rans!" Making that FO SF a few years ago shows the NG are still struggling to assert itself! Nole and Rafa still rule going on AARP! :giggle: :-D:laughing::happydevil:
Federer retiring in 2012 or 2013 would leave an enormous hole in tennis. Let's not forget who contested some of the most memorable and important matches of the last 10 years, added hours and hours of quality tennis and highlight reels, to watch, and, of course, won a lot and stayed at the very top practically all those years until 2019. This was not the most prolific period of Roger's career, but it is a significant one. It proved him to be in a different class of champions who combined insane peak domination with amazing longevity. I remember, like it was yesterday, when in Cincy 2015 he said "We have a few more years". Him being 34, how big of a deal that was and him delivering on the promise, despite going through a serious injury is amazing.

Some people need to stop measuring Federer only by the losses, ignoring the talent and effort that enabled Roger to accomplish so much past his physical prime with two younger ATGs in the mix.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Some people need to stop measuring Federer only by the losses, ignoring the talent and effort that enabled Roger to accomplish so much past his physical prime with two younger ATGs in the mix.

Well it's not the post physical prime that hurt Fed's slam total but it's 8-13 period where he couldn't win much and don't think those loses were due to his rivals being younger than him. 26-31 is not old in modern terms by any means.
 
Well it's not the post physical prime that hurt Fed's slam total but it's 8-13 period where he couldn't win much and don't think those loses were due to his rivals being younger than him. 26-31 is not old in modern terms by any means.
Aside from your reply not being relevant to the point I was making, it is just misleading to say Federer "couldn't win much" between 26-31 years old when Roger won 6 Slams and made 5 additional Slam finals in that period. Who apart from Djokovic did better in the same age?
 
Aside from your reply not being relevant to the point I was making, it is just misleading to say Federer "couldn't win much" between 26-31 years old when Roger won 6 Slams and made 5 additional Slam finals in that period. Who apart from Djokovic did better in the same age?
Laver won the Grand Slam when he was 31. He won 8 pro-slams and 5 out of 7 OE slams from 26-31.
 
Laver won the Grand Slam when he was 31. He won 8 pro-slams and 5 out of 7 OE slams from 26-31.
Laver, yes. Anyone else? If not, that would make a grand total of two tennis champions winning more than Federer around that age. As I said, it is misleading to say Roger couldn't win much at 26-31 years old. It was only not much by his insane standards.
 
Aside from your reply not being relevant to the point I was making, it is just misleading to say Federer "couldn't win much" between 26-31 years old when Roger won 6 Slams and made 5 additional Slam finals in that period. Who apart from Djokovic did better in the same age?

Roger Federer destroyed his legacy by winning 1 slam in 27 attempts from age 28-35, a complete failure he was, did not change his racquet, even lost at his fav hunting ground (probably the fastest HC in the world) Cincinnati to Nadal, allowed both rivals to overtake him!

Slams won between ages 28-35

Novak Djokovic - 11 and counting
Nadal - 7
Agassi - 5

Federer - 1 ? (2010FO to 2016USO) .. or maybe 2 if we include 2010AO as well.

He lost the slams race because of this.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Aside from your reply not being relevant to the point I was making, it is just misleading to say Federer "couldn't win much" between 26-31 years old when Roger won 6 Slams and made 5 additional Slam finals in that period. Who apart from Djokovic did better in the same age?

2008-2013 he won 6 slams? 2008 us open , 2009 FO, 2009 Wimbledon , 2010 Ao , 2012 Wimbledon , it's a total of 5 slams and here he lost Most of the slams to his main rivals and it made the difference, had he stopped them in even 2 slams he would be sitting on 22. Btw Nadal from a period of 2013to 2018 Won 6 slams and he stopped Djokovic in 2013 USO ,2013FO , 2014 FO , something Fed couldn't do to Nadal and it has nothing to do with him being old . He won those 6 slams and was lucky to not meet Nadal in most of them.
 

Nadal - GOAT

Hall of Fame
Roger Federer destroyed his legacy by winning 1 slam in 27 attempts from age 28-35, a complete failure he was, did not change his racquet, even lost at his fav hunting ground (probably the fastest HC in the world) Cincinnati to Nadal, allowed both rivals to overtake him!

Slams won between ages 28-35

Novak Djokovic - 11 and counting
Nadal - 7
Agassi - 5

Federer - 1 ? (2010FO to 2016USO) .. or maybe 2 if we include 2010AO as well.

He lost the slams race because of this.
Very good numbers. He should have been more competitive in this period. If he had won more then Novak would have probably won fewer slams. Maybe even Nadal by 1-2. Then the slam race would still be a 3 horse race. Now it is just about how much further Rafa and Novak get.
 
Very good numbers. He should have been more competitive in this period. If he had won more then Novak would have probably won fewer slams. Maybe even Nadal by 1-2. Then the slam race would still be a 3 horse race. Now it is just about how much further Rafa and Novak get.

Yes, after he recovered from Mono in 08 clearly the field had become stronger, Nadal belted him at FO08, then exploited that to win Wimbledon, then beat him again at AO09, at this point in life Federer should have understood that he was in his late 20s and winning on serve+forehand alone was over, the backhand was a big issue and he needed more power on his racquet.

He should have decided that by the end of the year 2009 he will change his racquet no matter what to address the Nadal issue which was getting worse and worse every year, nature was "kind" to him in 09 as he won FO and then somehow beat Roddick at wimbledon, then he again lost to Del Potro, this was another signal that change your racquet.

He refused, he could have easily tried his new racquet at the AO 2010, he would still have beaten Murray, even if he lost it then I am sure he would have taken wimbledon, perhaps could have even had a shot at 2010USO, he would have clearly beaten Novak and it would have been Nadal standing in his way.

2011 as we know it was Federer who actually had a shot at stopping Djokovic in slams, Nadal was clearly helpless, Federer again with his new racquet could have taken W + USO ..... Nobody could have stopped him, not even Nadal

He changed his racquet by the end of 2013, LOL, too late, he had already become a loser at that point, he did not realize because he had 16 slams at the beginning of 2010 and thought it was a big number, but it was not, in the homogeneous era the equivalent of Sampras's 14 was now 20-22+, Federer failed to understand this.

He should have known from the slam counts of the ladies that 20+ was coming, he had to reach 20 by 2013 to have a shot at adding more later on, he failed clearly.
 
Last edited:

Nadal - GOAT

Hall of Fame
Yes, after he recovered from Mono in 08 clearly the field had become stronger, Nadal belted him at FO08, then exploited that to win Wimbledon, then beat him again at AO09, at this point in life Federer should have understood that he was in his late 20s and winning on serve+forehand alone was over, the backhand was a big issue and he needed more power on his racquet.

He should have decided that by the end of the year 2009 he will change his racquet no matter what to address the Nadal issue which was getting worse and worse every year, nature was "kind" to him in 09 as he won FO and then somehow beat Roddick at wimbledon, then he again lost to Del Potro, this was another signal that change your racquet.

He refused, he could have easily tried his new racquet at the AO 2010, he would still have beaten Murray, even if he lost it then I am sure he would have taken wimbledon, perhaps could have even had a shot at 2010USO, he would have clearly beaten Novak and it would have been Nadal standing in his way.

2011 as we know it was Federer who actually had a shot at stopping Djokovic in slams, Nadal was clearly helpless, Federer again with his new racquet could have taken W + USO ..... Nobody could have stopped him, not even Nadal

He changed his racquet by the end of 2013, LOL, too late, he had already become a loser at that point, he did not realize because he had 17 slams and thought it was a big number, but it was not, in the homogeneous era the equivalent of Sampras's 14 was now 24-25, Federer failed to understand this.

He should have known from the slam counts of the ladies that 20+ was coming, he had to reach 20 by 2013 to have a shot at adding more later on, he failed clearly.
Good points. Totally agree that only he was challenging Novak in 2011. Nadal was clearly struggling against Novak and it took him until 2013 USO to make a notable comeback.
It is actually surprising that he took so long to change the racquet even though everyone thought it was the obvious thing to do. Maybe some of the blame lies on his coach/ team as well. Nonetheless now we are left with the possibility that he ends up a distant 3rd despite being dominant for so many years and having such a beautiful game.
 
2008-2013 he won 6 slams? 2008 us open , 2009 FO, 2009 Wimbledon , 2010 Ao , 2012 Wimbledon , it's a total of 5 slams and here he lost Most of the slams to his main rivals and it made the difference, had he stopped them in even 2 slams he would be sitting on 22. Btw Nadal from a period of 2013to 2018 Won 6 slams and he stopped Djokovic in 2013 USO ,2013FO , 2014 FO , something Fed couldn't do to Nadal and it has nothing to do with him being old . He won those 6 slams and was lucky to not meet Nadal in most of them.
Even Nadal won 6 slams even though he had a slump of 2 years .
I said Federer won 6 between 26-31 years old, which is the age bracket you specified. Didn't fit your narrative unfortunately, I understand. And of course you found some context for how amazing Nadal was as opposed to Federer's "couldn win much" when Federer actually had better Slam results at the same age.

It's the "I don't care about GOATs but will do the utmost to prop up Nadal and diminish Federer's achievements" for me. The hypocrisy is probably worse than stupid trolling.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
I said Federer won 6 between 26-31 years old, which is the age bracket you specified. Didn't fit your narrative unfortunately, I understand. And of course you found some context for how amazing Nadal was as opposed to Federer's "couldn win much" when Federer actually had better Slam results at the same age.

It's the "I don't care about GOATs but will do the utmost to prop up Nadal and diminish Federer's achievements" for me. The genuine hypocrisy is probably worse than stupid trolling.


Okay let's put it that way he couldn't stop his main rivals from 2008-2013 ,i am sure just change of few months made fed Old but can you tell us why could Fed not best his main rivals and stop them in a single slam during 2008-2031? was he old ?

Well, i don't need to prop up Nadal or Djokovic since they have surpassed Fed and will win atleast 22-25 slams .
 
Good points. Totally agree that only he was challenging Novak in 2011. Nadal was clearly struggling against Novak and it took him until 2013 USO to make a notable comeback.
It is actually surprising that he took so long to change the racquet even though everyone thought it was the obvious thing to do. Maybe some of the blame lies on his coach/ team as well. Nonetheless now we are left with the possibility that he ends up a distant 3rd despite being dominant for so many years and having such a beautiful game.

Jim Courier had said during the AO 09 Final commentary that Nadal is using a big racquet and Federer lacks power.
Later Roddick stretched Federer so hard at wimbledon.
Potro beat Roger

So many indicators but god knows why Roger was so submissive in that period, winning in the absence of Nadal maybe gave him false confidence?? Maybe !

Everytime I think of 08-13 period it angers me much more than 2019 Wimbledon, I dont care much about 2019 Wimbledon to be honest, it is not that important to make a difference, the main fight was lost in 08-13 due to his own negligence, it is not surprising that in 11 Federer fought Novak so hard, because that period of 08-12 should still have belonged to Roger with most slams, but results shows it very different due to his own foolishness.
 
Difference between 08-12 and 14-16 period for Federer

08-12 - Despite the level of Nadal he was beatable in this period outside clay, this period should have belonged to Roger Federer but his refusal to address his problems in 09 cost him 3 good years (10+11+12) and probably 4 slams too.

14-16 - Federer did everything right but the ship had sailed, his own levels had dropped more and Novak was actually invincible, to beat this Novak you needed peak Federer in 20s, not this 34 year old man.

His actual prime from 03-12 could have been his peak instead of short peak of 04-07 and then looking weak, as the baseline era had begun the tour had become more and more grindier, Federer did nothing to counter the decline in his speed and the lack of power in his shots until it was too late, thats why today he is looking like 3rd.
 
Okay let's put it that way he couldn't stop his main rivals from 2008-2013 ,i am sure just change of few months made fed Old but can you tell us why could Fed not best his main rivals and stop them in a single slam during 2008-2031? was he old ?

Well, i don't need to prop up Nadal or Djokovic since they have surpassed Fed and will win atleast 22-25 slams .
He was not old, no. But 2008 was the year he started visibly struggling with his form throughout the season, which was in start contrast to the 4 previous years. If you want to argue his form didn't drop and he started losing to players he routinely beat in the past because of his main rivals, be my guest.

In 2009 Federer lost the AO final to Nadal in an tough 5-setter, I don't see it as damning loss because Nadal playes one of his best AO matches.

2010 again some unusual Slam results across the board. Again, the drop in form that had little to do with playing Djokodal.

2011 was a very good prime year. That's where the amazing rival competition came in to spoil the results. Still Federer did stop Djokovic who entered the Punisher mode and then was a point away from stopping him two times. Quite a feat as a Rafa fan would know.

2012 was a very solid year, more positives from that than negatives. Really not much to explain because Federer had great results, clear second only to Djokovic who he beat for the Wimbledon title. The loss to Nadal at the AO was not egrigious at all. Roger was playing well enough, Nadal was simply better. It happens to the best of them.

2013 doesn't need any comments.

I'm glad for you, now that you get to boast you fave's Slam record. It is a great feeling. But think twice before you decide to be a hypocrite and make BS claims about Federer, because on this forum there are plenty of posters to call you out, and that's probably not a great feeling.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
:unsure: :unsure:
He was not old, no. But 2008 was the year he started visibly struggling with his form throughout the season, which was in start contrast to the 4 previous years. If you want to argue his form didn't drop and he started losing to players he routinely beat in the past because of his main rivals, be my guest.

In 2009 Federer lost the AO final to Nadal in an tough 5-setter, I don't see it as damning loss because Nadal playes one of his best AO matches.

2010 again some unusual Slam results across the board. Again, the drop in form that had little to do with playing Djokodal.

2011 was a very good prime year. That's where the amazing rival competition came in to spoil the results. Still Federer did stop Djokovic who entered the Punisher mode and then was a point away from stopping him two times. Quite a feat as a Rafa fan would know.

2012 was a very solid year, more positives from that than negatives. Really not much to explain because Federer had great results, clear second only to Djokovic who he beat for the Wimbledon title. The loss to Nadal at the AO was not egrigious at all. Roger was playing well enough, Nadal was simply better. It happens to the best of them.

2013 doesn't need any comments.

I'm glad for you, now that you get to boast you fave's Slam record. It is a great feeling. But think twice before you decide to be a hypocrite and make BS claims about Federer, because on this forum there are plenty of posters to call you out, and that's probably not a great feeling.

Well, he also struggled in 2007 Wimbledon final and clutched it out in the fifth set while Nadal played better off ground. Also, he reached Wimbledon 2008 without losing a set . Well, you can be as angry as you want and call me names but it's true he didn't stop his main rivals during 2008-2013 period except 2012 Wimbledon and this is where it hurts him the most. As for he declined , interestingly enough he was back to his winning ways in 2009 fo, Wimbledon, australian open when he didn't have to face Nadal :unsure: i am not concerned about those posters since they are all Abmk and the likes. I am boasting slam record ? May be on internet forums for decade your fan base did this thing but that was cute , no ? now, go call out posters in this thread who ridiculed Nadal's chances of winning 20+ . No, you won't call them out since they are all fed fans. How dare we even tell them that they were wrong ? Now, shun the hypocrisy and call out your fan base.
 
:unsure: :unsure:

Well, he also struggled in 2007 Wimbledon final and clutched it out in the fifth set while Nadal played better off ground. Also, he reached Wimbledon 2008 without losing a set . Well, you can be as angry as you want and call me names but it's true he didn't stop his main rivals during 2008-2013 period except 2012 Wimbledon and this is where it hurts him the most. As for he declined , interestingly enough he was back to his winning ways in 2009 fo, Wimbledon, australian open when he didn't have to face Nadal :unsure: i am not concerned about those posters since they are all Abmk and the likes. I am boasting slam record ? May be on internet forums for decade your fan base did this thing but that was cute , no ? now, go call out posters in this thread who ridiculed Nadal's chances of winning 20+ . No, you won't call them out since they are all fed fans. How dare we even tell them that they were wrong ? Now, shun the hypocrisy and call out your fan base.
I'm not going to call out everyone on this forum, that's impossible. You replied to my post and I replied back. Calling you names? If the shoe fits.

Anyway, this discussion is turning into an unpleasant experience for both of us so better end it here.
 
Top