Now that the G.O.A.T argument is settled, who is the 2nd G.O.A.T behind Federer?

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

As for why some(you could say most I guess)Federer fans do not want him to face Nadal? The answer is very simple,because Nadal owns Fed.They know if Fed meets Nadal in a slam he has very little chance of winning.Same reason Roddick fans want him to avoid Fed if possible so he can shed that one slam wonder label,Nadal fans want him to avoid Delpo/Novak/Kolja/Sod on HC etc

Agreed. Fed will have his record Nadal or no Nadal, but as RF is the only serious threat to Federer during the latter's career, it would be nice to see him truly challenged by someone who will not fold like a lawn chair at the first sign of Federer's toolbox of skills opening up.

As for what will be good for tennis and that "true" tennis fans want another Fed-Nadal slam final,I'm getting a little tired of that shtick.If I for example primarily want Kolja,Nalbo or Cilic to win a slam it doesn't make me any less of a tennis fan than someone who wants to see Nadal's beatdown of Fed at RG #5.

Heck many so called true tennis who want another Fed-Nadal final want that precisely because Rafa has the best chance out of anyone to stop Fed from piling up slams rather because some grand tennis involved.

Good tennis is desired...well, for some...but, are we getting good tennis when it will likely be Federer in the next handful of slam finals (in other words, there's little to stop that from happening), against those who are almost guaranteed to fail? IF Federer is going to the finals in any case, the best chance for good tennis is against one who has beaten him with any measure of consistency in slam finals, and historically speaking, that title falls to Nadal.

 

[TMF]

Agreed. Fed will have his record Nadal or no Nadal, but as RF is the only serious threat to Federer during the latter's career, it would be nice to see him truly challenged by someone who will not fold like a lawn chair at the first sign of Federer's toolbox of skills opening up.

You either have short term memory or don't know about your tennis. Since the USO 2008, Roger didn't have any serious threat? Roger has beaten and losing to other players at the grand stage. Get your fact straight!

If nadal wants to be a threat to Roger, he better learn how to beat the top ten players b/c he's getting own!!! If he wants to reach home plate(facing roger), then he better reach 1st, 2nd and 3rd base safely. As of now, the only threat I'm seeing from Rafa is he's quitting early!

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Since the USO 2008, Roger didn't have any serious threat? Roger has beaten and losing to other players at the grand stage.

Federer's slam record since the 2008 US Open:

USO '08: WINNER: Federer.
AO '09 WINNER: Nadal.
FO '09 WINNER: Federer.
W '09 WINNER: Federer.
USO '09 WINNER: Del Potro.
AO '10 WINNER: Federer.

Result: Federer remains the likely winner of slams with little to no serious threats, while the rest of the field? Flukes (see: Del Potro and Djokovic) or Nadal's AO win. s it stands, there is no fact-based reason for anyone to assume Federer will not (at least) be one of the players in any of the slam finals--his record is too weighty in that regard. Moreover, considering the rest of the field's utter weakness as threats, the best chance for anyone to beat him--is for Federer to face one with an uncontested ability to beat him in slam finals more than once (and on different surfaces)--that man being Nadal.

Try a little harder, as nothing you've posted acts as a logical counter.

 

[TMF]

Federer's slam record since the 2008 US Open:

USO '08: WINNER: Federer.
AO '09 WINNER: Nadal.
FO '09 WINNER: Federer.
W '09 WINNER: Federer.
USO '09 WINNER: Del Potro.
AO '10 WINNER: Federer.

Result: Federer remains the likely winner of slams with little to no serious threats, while the rest of the field? Flukes (see: Del Potro and Djokovic) or Nadal's AO win. s it stands, there is no fact-based reason for anyone to assume Federer will not (at least) be one of the players in any of the slam finals--his record is too weighty in that regard. Moreover, considering the rest of the field's utter weakness as threats, the best chance for anyone to beat him--is for Federer to face one with an uncontested ability to beat him in slam finals more than once (and on different surfaces)--that man being Nadal.

Try a little harder, as nothing you've posted acts as a logical counter.

Funny how you can’t answer my post and only quote a portion of it. You are flat out wrong b/c your opinion doesn’t change the FACTS!!! DP beat Roger at the USO, and he plus Davy beat Roger again at the WTF. Nadal was never a threat to Roger at the USO and at the WTF. Get it through your thick skull. Nadal has been shield off by the elite players and can’t even make the finals. These guys are indeed a threat, not Rafa. To conclude Rafa is a threat but not these players has reach the height of absurdity!

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Funny how you can’t answer my post and only quote a portion of it. You are flat out wrong b/c your opinion doesn’t change the FACTS!!!

Ah. The ranting and nonsense begins.

In any case, it is amusing how the slam stats--which YOU have failed to challenge--stand. Now please tell us how Federer is potentially more threatened from a continuance of slam dominance by a fluke like Del Potro, the overhyped Murray, the here-one-minute-gone-the-next Djokovic or anyone else other than Nadal should they meet in a slam final. The only person with the ability to seriously threaten him in a slam final is the one with MORE EXPERIENCE beating him in slam finals.

Even one with your dim view should understand this...or perhaps not.

 

[bruce38]

Federer's slam record since the 2008 US Open:

USO '08: WINNER: Federer.
AO '09 WINNER: Nadal.
FO '09 WINNER: Federer.
W '09 WINNER: Federer.
USO '09 WINNER: Del Potro.
AO '10 WINNER: Federer.

Result: Federer remains the likely winner of slams with little to no serious threats, while the rest of the field? Flukes (see: Del Potro and Djokovic) or Nadal's AO win. s it stands, there is no fact-based reason for anyone to assume Federer will not (at least) be one of the players in any of the slam finals--his record is too weighty in that regard. Moreover, considering the rest of the field's utter weakness as threats, the best chance for anyone to beat him--is for Federer to face one with an uncontested ability to beat him in slam finals more than once (and on different surfaces)--that man being Nadal.

Try a little harder, as nothing you've posted acts as a logical counter.

Likelihood based on 6 instances is very statistically unsound.

 

[zagor]

Good analysis Zagor. I agree almost completely with all of this. As as aside, TW Poster Borgforever has uploaded footage of Borg-Connors from the 1981 US Open (straight set semifinal win). This footage dispels two "myths". Remember Jimmy Connors won Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. The first myth is that Borg was "on the decline" or "washed up" by 1981, though only 25. The second myth was that he really "was not a good hard court player". Check this out and don't forget the racquets.

TW Poster Borgforever will upload Part 2 in a few weeks, and I thank him again for providing this. See Borg when he has in that "zone":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUb8m6-lH0

Note 2 things that Borgforever points out on the YouTube Upload:

Not only did Connors win Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. Yet, Connors won ALL his matches versus McEnroe in 1981, and guess what? Lendl was 4-0 versus McEnroe in 1981. So, it's just not true that McEnroe was head and shoulders above Connors, Borg, or Lendl. It was a 4 man race by 1981, with Borg right in the thick of things, with him and McEnroe at the very top.

Borgforever's the man,I'll watch those clips now,thanks for pointing them out.That year must have been something,3 all time greats playing at the top of their game.

As for not a good HC player,I agree it's a myth.You don't reach 3 slam finals on a fast HC slam without being able to play some great tennis on that surface.Not to mention that from what I know Borg struggled with the whole USO atmosphere,ambient,crowd etc. more than the surface itself although imagine if AO was more of a factor then and played on rebound ace.Borg would have had a HC slam in that case IMO,I imagine rebound ace would have suited his game quite well.

 

[zagor]

This ...Borg quitting is the only reason I can't put him above sampras. It hurt him in 2 ways : longevity and earned him the tag of a 'quitter' ( even though in his playing years, he was one of the , if not the most, mentally toughest players ) . Otherwise his achievements/play impresses me more than that of sampras

Yes,but are you convinced that Mcenroe was the main factor in Borg retirement? I'm not,I would hold it more against him If I was but reading about Borg in former pro section and similar I don't think that was the main reason.One of the reasons sure but if Borg had the treatment at tournaments the stars have today(especially a star of his stature)IMO he would not have retired then.

As for longevity,well Borg was a prodigy who started winning slams very early,something you certainly can't say for Fed and neither for Pete as well(despite his 90 USO win which was more of a 2 great weeks than the start of domination),I mean he won a slam for 8 years in a row,that's is longevity IMO,he was likely spent physically and mentally more than Fed/Pete at the same age.It's not just about age but about mileage as well.I mean why do you think Andre was able to play so well in his 29-30s? His game which was brutally efficient at running the other guy ragged and his fitness regime sure but also due to the fact that he was fooling around wasting his potential in some of his younger years so he wasn't as spent as other players are by that age.

 

[zagor]

Agreed. Fed will have his record Nadal or no Nadal, but as RF is the only serious threat to Federer during the latter's career, it would be nice to see him truly challenged by someone who will not fold like a lawn chair at the first sign of Federer's toolbox of skills opening up.

Yes but at the FO the matches between Nadal and Fed are predictable as Fed's slam finals versus guy not named Nadal(or Delpo in that one sole case)so I wouldn't really look forward to another one.At wimbledon I would love to see them,their 2007 and 2008 matches were golden and I honestly wouldn't know who would win at this point.

At USO Nadal has yet to reach the final and Delpo did beat last year so Fed is not unbeatable so to speak there anymore but yeah I wouldn't mind seeing Fed-Nadal face off in one slam they didn't meet yet before Fed's age or Nadal's injuries make that impossible to happen.

Good tennis is desired...well, for some...but, are we getting good tennis when it will likely be Federer in the next handful of slam finals (in other words, there's little to stop that from happening), against those who are almost guaranteed to fail? IF Federer is going to the finals in any case, the best chance for good tennis is against one who has beaten him with any measure of consistency in slam finals, and historically speaking, that title falls to Nadal.

Can't argue with that.

 

[borg number one]

Yes,but are you convinced that Mcenroe was the main factor in Borg retirement? I'm not,I would hold it more against him If I was but reading about Borg in former pro section and similar I don't think that was the main reason.One of the reasons sure but if Borg had the treatment at tournaments the stars have today(especially a star of his stature)IMO he would not have retired then.

As for longevity,well Borg was a prodigy who started winning slams very early,something you certainly can't say for Fed and neither for Pete as well(despite his 90 USO win which was more of a 2 great weeks than the start of domination),I mean he won a slam for 8 years in a row,that's is longevity IMO,he was likely spent physically and mentally more than Fed/Pete at the same age.It's not just about age but about mileage as well.I mean why do you think Andre was able to play so well in his 29-30s? His game which was brutally efficient at running the other guy ragged and his fitness regime sure but also due to the fact that he was fooling around wasting his potential in some of his younger years so he wasn't as spent as other players are by that age.

Very true Zagor. Borg was certainly not "afraid" of any player, including McEnroe. In fact, he really believed (like Federer does now) that no one could really beat him if he was playing well, quite rightly. What you point out about his "longevity" is true. The guy won a Davis Cup match at 15, having started playing pro events at 14! He won Junior Wimbledon and was playing in the main draw at Wimbledon at 17. He was a prodigy before he even went to the top of the Tennis ladder. So, he did have more "mental wear" and some physical wear and tear (though no serious injuries) by 25. THAT is likely why he wanted to start cutting back on his schedule starting in 1982, but then came the fight with Tour Organizers about a minimum # of tournaments to be played and him possibly having to qualify for the Grand Slams, like Wimbledon!

You also had him receiving death threats at the 1981 US Open right after that Connors win in the video above. That 1981 US Open was WEIRD. Borgforever points out that there was security all around the Court watching for anything suspicious, and Borg was checking with his coach as to security. He lost in 4 sets to McEnroe, and raced off the Court before the trophy presentation, and that was his LAST official match. So, I think, that if he could have cut back his schedule (he didn't want to be required to play at least 10 official events in 1982, a new rule) and focused on Slams primarily (as Federer is doing now), that may have done the trick, but it didn't work out that way.

Borg chose to start his life outside the Game and pursued business interests, but he also missed the Game a LOT. Nothing could replace Tennis for him. In addition, Borg and other stars were not so "insulated" at hotels and tourneys as they are now from the "masses" and their fans/groupies. There was a good side to that, but I'm sure Borg paid a heavy price, especially with the fame he had back then. So, his departure is more complicated than many people/tennis fans realize.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Likelihood based on 6 instances is very statistically unsound.

Not at all--another member picked USO 08 as his or her marker, so using/projecting from his or her choice, Federer is the most dominate player, and there is no overwhelming countering evidence suggesting this so-called "elite" field he's facing (deliberately excluding Nadal) will stop RF from winning more.

He's already started 2010 by beating Murray (one of the so-called "elite") beyond convincing fashion, so if you were a betting person, and Federer makes the FO finals, who among this group would you pick (based on experience, success on the surface, etc.) to have the best chance of defeating him?

 

[All-rounder]

Not at all--another member picked USO 08 as his or her marker, so using/projecting from his or her choice, Federer is the most dominate player, and there is no overwhelming countering evidence suggesting this so-called "elite" field he's facing (deliberately excluding Nadal) will stop RF from winning more.

He's already started 2010 by beating Murray (one of the so-called "elite") beyond convincing fashion, so if you were a betting person, and Federer makes the FO finals, who among this group would you pick (based on experience, success on the surface, etc.) to have the best chance of defeating him?

What if Federer and nadal are on the same side of the draw which, now that AO is over seems very likely

 

[TMF]

Ah. The ranting and nonsense begins.

In any case, it is amusing how the slam stats--which YOU have failed to challenge--stand. Now please tell us how Federer is potentially more threatened from a continuance of slam dominance by a fluke like Del Potro, the overhyped Murray, the here-one-minute-gone-the-next Djokovic or anyone else other than Nadal should they meet in a slam final. The only person with the ability to seriously threaten him in a slam final is the one with MORE EXPERIENCE beating him in slam finals.

Even one with your dim view should understand this...or perhaps not.

No, that is not what I was addressing you. This is your initial post....

"Agreed. Fed will have his record Nadal or no Nadal, but as RF is the only serious threat to Federer during the latter's career, it would be nice to see him truly challenged by someone who will not fold like a lawn chair at the first sign of Federer's toolbox of skills opening up."

If Nadal can beat Roger at the slam and he’s a threat, but another player beat him is not? Isn’t that sound moronic?
And how exactly they are folded when DP and Davydenko beat him last year? Wasn’t Rafa the one who’s been folding since May of last year?

Funny how weak of you using "fluked", "overhyped", as you think you are presenting facts, but it can only comes from biased fanboy.

 

[ksbh]

Boy wouldn't that be strange! A Federer - Nadal 4th round will likely draw in more crowds that a final involving other players but I'd rather see them play the final.

What if Federer and nadal are on the same side of the draw which, now that AO is over seems very likely

 

[NonP]

While borg number one is clearly a delusional Borg fanatic (and Federer hater given his comments in other threads) your statement here is just wrong. Borg was far superior to Federer on clay without doubt.

I wouldn't bother with the kid. Just know that he has admitted he has seen little of Mecir, and wasn't even familiar with the fundamentals of tennis footwork, but he thinks he can judge Borg's clay-court game. And the "if not for Nadal..." logic is a typically half-witted fallacy anyway. One can easily flip this around and say Federer wouldn't have achieved as much with two or more Nadals as contenders.

But I must say you're being rather unfair to borg number one. Though you're right that Borg is his hero and he doesn't try to hide it, he's generally respectful of the players past and present, including Federer. That can't be said of many if not most posters on this board.

 

[Changmaster]

I wouldn't bother with the kid. Just know that he has admitted he has seen little of Mecir, and wasn't even familiar with the fundamentals of tennis footwork, but he thinks he can judge Borg's clay-court game. And the "if not for Nadal..." logic is a typically half-witted fallacy anyway. One can easily flip this around and say Federer wouldn't have achieved as much with two or more Nadals as contenders.

But I must say you're being rather unfair to borg number one. Though you're right that Borg is his hero and he doesn't try to hide it, he's generally respectful of the players past and present, including Federer. That can't be said of many if not most posters on this board.

Sorry? If you're referring to me, you're either confusing me with someone else, or you're lying. I can practically guarantee that I'm better at tennis than the vast majority of posters here (I have D1 college experience), so of course I know a lot about footwork.

And I did not judge Borg's claycourt game. I AGREED with Borg#1 that Borg is of course better than Fed on clay. However, I don't think Borg is FAR superior to Fed on clay. Maybe I'm being a little picky here, but still. Fed is outstanding on clay, one of the greatest clay-courters in history. I don't think anyone in history would give Fed as much trouble on clay as Nadal. I would think most people thinking objectively and rationally would agree with that. Do you disagree?

 

[Greek Goliath]

Sorry? If you're referring to me, you're either confusing me with someone else, or you're lying. I can practically guarantee that I'm better at tennis than the vast majority of posters here (I have D1 college experience), so of course I know a lot about footwork.

And I did not judge Borg's claycourt game. I AGREED with Borg#1 that Borg is of course better than Fed on clay. However, I don't think Borg is FAR superior to Fed on clay. Maybe I'm being a little picky here, but still. Fed is outstanding on clay, one of the greatest clay-courters in history. I don't think anyone in history would give Fed as much trouble on clay as Nadal. I would think most people thinking objectively and rationally would agree with that. Do you disagree?

Actually, I do disagree. Sampras was the GOAT on clay, and therefore would have beat Federer on it.










Okay just kidding.

But my real opinion is that there are several others who, with the same equipment, would have given Federer a lot of trouble, e.g. Mecir, Borg, Wilander, and Lendl.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

 

[Changmaster]

Actually, I do disagree. Sampras was the GOAT on clay, and therefore would have beat Federer on it.










Okay just kidding.

But my real opinion is that there are several others who, with the same equipment, would have given Federer a lot of trouble, e.g. Mecir, Borg, Wilander, and Lendl.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

I didn't say that no one besides Nadal would give Fed a challenge on clay. I said that no one would give him AS MUCH trouble as Nadal.

 

[bruce38]

Not at all--another member picked USO 08 as his or her marker, so using/projecting from his or her choice, Federer is the most dominate player, and there is no overwhelming countering evidence suggesting this so-called "elite" field he's facing (deliberately excluding Nadal) will stop RF from winning more.

He's already started 2010 by beating Murray (one of the so-called "elite") beyond convincing fashion, so if you were a betting person, and Federer makes the FO finals, who among this group would you pick (based on experience, success on the surface, etc.) to have the best chance of defeating him?

Yeah ok, I'll go with Fed being the most likely to win.

 

[borg number one]

I didn't say that no one besides Nadal would give Fed a challenge on clay. I said that no one would give him AS MUCH trouble as Nadal.

Changmaster, I know you know a lot about tennis, because you have played it a lot. I have played a lot of tennis as well and watched it intently since the mid to late 1970's.

Having said that I know I am a Borg "fan". I am also not one to disparage Federer without reason, in any way. He has few "weaknesses" on his resume, as is true of other guys at the "summit" of Tennis (Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer in my opinion).

Yet, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. We just have different opinions, that's all. Very few things in Tennis are "set in stone", especially when all time Greats face off and play each other. Of course, as to how Federer would have done against past greats on Clay is purely hypothetical.

You say that "few would trouble him as much as Nadal", but I would disagree with that. I've watched all these players play in their prime at the French Open and also Federer. I'm not contending that Federer is not a great clay courter. He is, and has impressive results at the French, but there just is not the same level of "clay court expertise" now as there was in the past. A big reason for that is that so much of the Tour is now devoted to hard court tennis, with less emphasis on clay, but of course the French Open is still a big Slam. There are not very many "clay court specialists" around these days. In the late 1970's you had Dibbs, Solomon, Orantes, and the list goes on. They LIVED to play on Clay primarily. They would dig their heels in and dare you to beat them and with wood racquets, believe me, it was not easy to beat clay masters. Yet, on clay, Borg had it all, power, finesse, speed, quickness, stamina, patience, resolve, mental toughness, and even sliding ability. He skipped the 1977 FO, and lost to Panatta once when he was "of age", but besides that he was untouched from 1974-1981. He took on all comers and retired as clearly the best clay courter in the World. Wilander won in 1982 (5 sets over Vilas), was practicing with Borg that year and said "he couldn't win a set against him".

All the following players, in my opinion, would give Federer "lots of trouble" and several would more often than not beat Federer on clay (especially Borg and Lendl) but I know you disagree with that:

Rosewall, Laver, Borg, G. Vilas, Clerc, Wilander, Lendl, Courier (his best years), S. Bruguera, Kuerten, Muster, and Nadal.
(This is assuming that the players were using the same equipment, with both playing with wood frames or both with modern technology (latest frames, with Luxilon/Gut, in hypo matches at RG)

Here's an example (Wilander vs. Lendl 1985 FO, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGvW40l43e0, and 1987 FO, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxmgflWQsUg)

How? As I've mentioned before, all these guys were amazingly consistent AND they would not easily be overpowered by Federer either. Plus, they all have great stamina, but I'm not saying that Federer is not a great athlete as well, he is. All the guys above, except for perhaps Laver, LOVED to beat guys on clay. They thrived on it and relished it. They would make opponents suffer greatly, and had all the skills to back up such an approach. I know Federer would try and hit lots of service and forehand winners, but I think most of the guys above would eventually break down the Federer backhand over the course of matches on Red Clay. Eventually, I think that would outweigh Federer's ability to hit forehand winners to somewhat compensate for that.

Anyway, I know you disagree with that, which is fine, you have a different opinion, and it is an educated opinion, that's not just a guess or feeling. I don't think you are trying to "take shots at Borg" either. I'll put Federer much higher on the "clay list" if he wins another RG title, especially if he either beats Nadal or if Nadal does not perform as well as he does at RG this year.

If Federer beats another 7 guys and takes FO title #2 that will really speak to his versatility (like holding serve after breaking). As of now, even if Nadal does not win the FO, I do not see Federer as a lock. Del Potro is also a big threat there if healthy (he's one year wiser and more "grizzled" which will serve him well the next time he plays Federer). I do think that his chances of winning at the FO this year are much better than they are for Murray, Davydenko, or Djokovic even. It should be a great tourney.

 

[Changmaster]

(Sigh). Again, I repeat that I am not saying that Fed would not have trouble on clay against any other player besides Nadal. I am saying that he would probably have RELATIVELY less trouble against any other claycourt great. Again, I'm not even saying that I think he would have a winning record against every other claycourt great.

I'll put it this way: Fed is 2-9 against Nadal on clay. I think that if Fed were to play 11 matches on clay against any other clay-court great, with both players in their prime/equal equipment, etc., his record against every player would be BETTER than 2-9 (NOT NECESSARILY A WINNING RECORD, i.e. 3-6, 4-5). I would think this is a conservative statement, and I would be surprised if anyone were to seriously disagree with it.

 

[borg number one]

Ok, got it, thanks for that clarification Changmaster. I would ALMOST agree with that entirely, except in the case of Federer against both Borg and Lendl from that list I just posted.

I think those 2 guys could have similar clay court records vs. Federer. They were that good. In my opinion, match ups between Nadal (4 time FO champ), Borg (6 time FO champ), and Lendl (3 time FO champ) on red clay would have been amazing. In my opinion, Federer is around ten or so on clay all-time (peak performance, not results), which is saying a whole lot. Top ten in the history of the Game is saying a lot.

As to Lendl, note, current frames and Luxilon, which would have boosted his game on clay especially.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

If Nadal can beat Roger at the slam and he’s a threat, but another player beat him is not? Isn’t that sound moronic?

"Isn't that sound moronic.."

Aside from being another pointless flame, your line is grammatically incorrect.

And how exactly they are folded when DP and Davydenko beat him last year?

Once again TMF, I am talking about the slams (hence the bolded "slam" as repeatedly seen in a previous post). Davy's win means nothing in this discussion (unless you want to talk about his match-up against Federer at the 2006 AO and USO, where....you know the rest), and from the point YOU selected (USO 2008 ), what--exactly--has Davy proved against Federer in a slam during your timeline?

Wasn’t Rafa the one who’s been folding since May of last year?

How can you possibly misread this: Nadal is the only active player with repeatedly proven skill and experience at taking Federer out of slam finals. Del Potro is a fluke (and his AO performance was no wonder to behold, so there's no guarantees), Roddick has been reduced to the eternal bride's maid, Murray is more hype than slam results, Davy...already covered...and Djokovic...please. For all of this "elite" talk, none of the aforementiond players have managed to do to Federer what Nadal has.

There is no point in pretending Nadal lacks the credentials to stop Federer in a slam final more than once, which keeps him in a special place far above the likes of Del Potro. Moreover, history has already proven Federer to be the most dominant force in slams during your selected timeline--right up to his trouncing of Murray only a few weeks ago at the AO.

Heading toward the FO, who would seriously bet against Federer repeating if the opposition is only culled from your "elite" squad?

 

[Tennis_Monk]

"Isn't that sound moronic.."

Aside from being another pointless flame, your line is grammatically incorrect.




Once again TMF, I am talking about the slams (hence the bolded "slam" as repeatedly seen in a previous post). Davy's win means nothing in this discussion (unless you want to talk about his match-up against Federer at the 2006 AO and USO, where....you know the rest), and from the point YOU selected (USO 2008 ), what--exactly--has Davy proved against Federer in a slam during your timeline?



How can you possibly misread this: Nadal is the only active player with repeatedly proven skill and experience at taking Federer out of slam finals. Del Potro is a fluke (and his AO performance was no wonder to behold, so there's no guarantees), Roddick has been reduced to the eternal bride's maid, Murray is more hype than slam results, Davy...already covered...and Djokovic...please. For all of this "elite" talk, none of the aforementiond players have managed to do to Federer what Nadal has.

There is no point in pretending Nadal lacks the credentials to stop Federer in a slam final more than once, which keeps him in a special place far above the likes of Del Potro. Moreover, history has already proven Federer to be the most dominant force in slams during your selected timeline--right up to his trouncing of Murray only a few weeks ago at the AO.

Heading toward the FO, who would seriously bet against Federer repeating if the opposition is only culled from your "elite" squad?

You can put as many logical statements as you can. It doesnt make any difference to some of our posters.

Fact is that there is only ONE player in the past few years that has repeatedly beat Federer in the slams.

I dont know what part is unclear for people especially when we talk about French open. Yes, other players are capable of beating federer but they are yet to do it (atleast at french open) and they have to play beyond their comfort zone. Nadal's game matches up against Federer's pretty well and hence he can stay within limits of his game and that still is good enough to beat Federer.

 

[Green374]

Where is the Nadal button?

 

[abmk]

Yes,but are you convinced that Mcenroe was the main factor in Borg retirement? I'm not,I would hold it more against him If I was but reading about Borg in former pro section and similar I don't think that was the main reason.One of the reasons sure but if Borg had the treatment at tournaments the stars have today(especially a star of his stature)IMO he would not have retired then.

well, it was one of the main factors, IMO, not the only one though

As for longevity,well Borg was a prodigy who started winning slams very early,something you certainly can't say for Fed and neither for Pete as well(despite his 90 USO win which was more of a 2 great weeks than the start of domination),I mean he won a slam for 8 years in a row,that's is longevity IMO,he was likely spent physically and mentally more than Fed/Pete at the same age.It's not just about age but about mileage as well.I mean why do you think Andre was able to play so well in his 29-30s? His game which was brutally efficient at running the other guy ragged and his fitness regime sure but also due to the fact that he was fooling around wasting his potential in some of his younger years so he wasn't as spent as other players are by that age.

I didn't mean to say borg didn't play for long enough or didn't have longevity , just that he could've played at a high level for longer than he did ( atleast 2 years more IMO )

 

[NonP]

Sorry? If you're referring to me, you're either confusing me with someone else, or you're lying. I can practically guarantee that I'm better at tennis than the vast majority of posters here (I have D1 college experience), so of course I know a lot about footwork.

If you're as good at tennis as you say or think you are, you've done a poor job showing that your actual knowledge of the sport itself is up to par. Judging by some of your posts that I've bothered to read I frankly find your technical analysis of the game wanting to say the least. But considering that you're a relative newcomer I gave you a chance (more than one, in fact) to explain yourself when you told me that the difference between Connors' and Fed's footwork is only stylistic (and it's not), and you couldn't. You can't expect people to take you at your word. I don't.

And I did not judge Borg's claycourt game. I AGREED with Borg#1 that Borg is of course better than Fed on clay. However, I don't think Borg is FAR superior to Fed on clay.

First of all, you are judging Borg's clay-court game when you compare it to Fed's own. This contradiction is apparently lost on you.

Second and more importantly, the point was that it's very unlikely for someone who has seen little of Mecir, one of the top players of the mid-to-late '80s, to be qualified to judge the game of a player who retired several years before the Big Cat's prime. You often talk like you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't. There are some posters on this board who did follow the careers of these past greats of the game and who have been playing it much longer than you have. And a number of them have even played competitively and/or worked as an instructor/trainer for many years. It'd do you some good to be a little more modest and try to learn from them. Or you can keep scribbling ignorant rigmarole on something you know next to nothing about just to defend your favorite player, as you did on those other threads regarding Segura's forehand and Rosewall's footwork. Up to you.

Maybe I'm being a little picky here, but still. Fed is outstanding on clay, one of the greatest clay-courters in history. I don't think anyone in history would give Fed as much trouble on clay as Nadal. I would think most people thinking objectively and rationally would agree with that. Do you disagree?

There's very little objective and rational about judging a player's game that one's not familiar with, so drop the pretensions as a start.

And what do you mean by Borg or anyone else giving Fed "as much trouble on clay as Nadal"? You mean Fed would make it competitive against the other clay-court greats? If so, no, I don't disagree, but that's an empty tautology. The ignoramuses here blather as if Sampras or Becker would get triple-bageled by Borg or Nadal (and they're often the same ones who take the stats on face value while offering no insight or analysis of their own), when the fact is that any player with 6 or more major titles would give one another trouble on every surface. Little to disagree on here.

But if you mean Fed would win more matches on clay against Borg than he has against Nadal, hard to say. Who knows how Borg would've developed in today's conditions. If you still care what I think, my guess is that the only way Fed would have a good chance on clay against Borg at his peak is by attacking the net a la Panatta. That's not Fed's strong suit, and pulling it off successfully would be especially hard against Borg as he had top-notch passing shots and would take full advantage of today's oversize racquets and poly, so I'm not convinced that Borg wouldn't give Fed as much trouble as Nadal (whatever that means). Make of this what you will.

 

[Changmaster]

If I did say that the difference between Connors' and Fed's footwork was ONLY stylistic, then I didn't mean that. I was only repeating what other experts had said about their footwork. Oftentimes, Fed will take large, lunging steps to get to a ball, while Connors' will try to take smaller steps. At least part of that has to do with a different style.

When I said Borg wouldn't give Fed as much trouble as Nadal, I simply meant that I think Fed would have won a higher % of matches on clay against Borg than against Nadal (with both Fed and Borg in their prime, equal technology, etc.). Not necessarily that Fed would have a winning record, but just that he would have, say, better than a 2-9 record. Considering that Fed in his prime has lost to no one but Nadal at the French (or almost anywhere else on clay, for that matter), and a significant part of that is due to the fact that Nadal is a lefty, I think that's a very reasonable statement. If you really have issues with that, fine, knock yourself out.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

If you're as good at tennis as you say or think you are, you've done a poor job showing that your actual knowledge of the sport itself is up to par. Judging by some of your posts that I've bothered to read I frankly find your technical analysis of the game wanting to say the least. But considering that you're a relative newcomer I gave you a chance (more than one, in fact) to explain yourself when you told me that the difference between Connors' and Fed's footwork is only stylistic (and it's not), and you couldn't. You can't expect people to take you at your word. I don't.



First of all, you are judging Borg's clay-court game when you compare it to Fed's own. This contradiction is apparently lost on you.

Second and more importantly, the point was that it's very unlikely for someone who has seen little of Mecir, one of the top players of the mid-to-late '80s, to be qualified to judge the game of a player who retired several years before the Big Cat's prime. You often talk like you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't. There are some posters on this board who did follow the careers of these past greats of the game and who have been playing it much longer than you have. And a number of them have even played competitively and/or worked as an instructor/trainer for many years. It'd do you some good to be a little more modest and try to learn from them. Or you can keep scribbling ignorant rigmarole on something you know next to nothing about just to defend your favorite player, as you did on those other threads regarding Segura's forehand and Rosewall's footwork. Up to you.



There's very little objective and rational about judging a player's game that one's not familiar with, so drop the pretensions as a start.

And what do you mean by Borg or anyone else giving Fed "as much trouble on clay as Nadal"? You mean Fed would make it competitive against the other clay-court greats? If so, no, I don't disagree, but that's an empty tautology. The ignoramuses here blather as if Sampras or Becker would get triple-bageled by Borg or Nadal (and they're often the same ones who take the stats on face value while offering no insight or analysis of their own), when the fact is that any player with 6 or more major titles would give one another trouble on every surface. Little to disagree on here.

But if you mean Fed would win more matches on clay against Borg than he has against Nadal, hard to say. Who knows how Borg would've developed in today's conditions. If you still care what I think, my guess is that the only way Fed would have a good chance on clay against Borg at his peak is by attacking the net a la Panatta. That's not Fed's strong suit, and pulling it off successfully would be especially hard against Borg as he had top-notch passing shots and would take full advantage of today's oversize racquets and poly, so I'm not convinced that Borg wouldn't give Fed as much trouble as Nadal (whatever that means). Make of this what you will.

Normally what you said holds true. But Sampras on Clay against likes of Federer /Nadal? . If Sampras was that good, he would have held a french open. Its subjective but my opinion is that his record on clay (and his losses to journeymen on clay) doesnt elicit that confidence in me.

 

[abmk]

Normally what you said holds true. But Sampras on Clay against likes of Federer /Nadal? . If Sampras was that good, he would have held a french open. Its subjective but my opinion is that his record on clay (and his losses to journeymen on clay) doesnt elicit that confidence in me.

he was good enough to takes quite a few games off borg/nadal and occasionally sets when playing real well and borg/nadal are not , on clay ... At times when a player is in the zone, the surface doesn't matter too much !

 

[borg number one]

he was good enough to takes quite a few games off borg/nadal and occasionally sets when playing real well and borg/nadal are not , on clay ... At times when a player is in the zone, the surface doesn't matter too much !

Yes, I think that's true abmk, perhaps if he was really on and had a pretty "quick" match, say 3 sets, or a quick 4 sets, he could win against a great clay courter (see McEnroe almost winning the FO in 1984 against Lendl, leading 2 sets to love before losing in 5 sets).

I really think that at the French Open especially, when it was hot and humid, his inherited blood disorder, and not just his "tennis ability", cost him a lot. He was likely talented enough to win a FO title, but that stamina hindrance may have cost him in longer matches there in hot conditions. He did make the SF once at the FO. Sampras inherited the blood disorder "thalassemia" which can lead to anemia.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Ok, so Greek Goliath voted for Sampras, may I ask why do you think Sampras deserves his place above Laver? The same Sampras who sucked on clay and never reached a single French Open final?

And you wonder why Rippy and JennyS busted you on your thread title? Because this wasn't about GOATs or 2nd GOATS. This was a Fed Fanboy piece using 'code'

Sampras won 70% of his career matches on clay.

And at Roland Garros, Sampras has wins over:

- Jim Courier (multi French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)
- Thomas Muster (French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)
- Sergi Bruguera (multi French Open champion)

Beat Agassi (former French Open champion) on red clay at Houston.

As for the guy (Kafelnikov) that beat him in the semis at Roland Garros, go check Sampras' "single-handedly" Davis Cup antics in Moscow (and on red clay).

Very "thinly veiled intent" on your part (with this thread title) Fanboyette. ;-)

 

[dropshot winner]

And you wonder why Rippy and JennyS busted you on your thread title? Because this wasn't about GOATs or 2nd GOATS. This was a Fed Fanboy piece using 'code'

Sampras won 70% of his career matches on clay.

And at Roland Garros, Sampras has wins over:

- Jim Courier (multi French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)
- Thomas Muster (French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)
- Sergi Bruguera (multi French Open champion)

Beat Agassi (former French Open champion) on red clay at Houston.

As for the guy (Kafelnikov) that beat him in the semis at Roland Garros, go check Sampras' "single-handedly" Davis Cup antics in Moscow (and on red clay).

Very "thinly veiled intent" on your part (with this thread title) Fanboyette. ;-)

Sampras didn't suck on clay, but he was average.

Neiher Courier, Muster or Bruguera were in any kind of decent form when they lost to Sampras. Just check the their "playing activity" during those years on the ATP site.

Actually it's nearly impossible to find any win by Sampras on clay over a big and inform clay courter.

 

[jazzyfunkybluesy]

Sampras beeby.

 

[abmk]

Sampras won 70% of his career matches on clay.

wrong , 63%

And at Roland Garros, Sampras has wins over:

yes

- Jim Courier (multi French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)

courier was on the downslide and that would be his final year of decent tennis

- Thomas Muster (French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)

a year after muster's accident, muster wasn't playing well at all in those years, esp compared to his 95-96 form, sampras proceeded to lose to champion , who'd be triple bagelled by bruguera in 93 RG

- Sergi Bruguera (multi French Open champion)

returning from injury and having his worst ever claycourt and overall year performance b/w 93 and 97

Beat Agassi (former French Open champion) on red clay at Houston.

that was green clay and he proceeded to lose to roddick , who btw we all know is how great on clay !

As for the guy (Kafelnikov) that beat him in the semis at Roland Garros, go check Sampras' "single-handedly" Davis Cup antics in Moscow (and on red clay).

his most impressive performance on clay, agreed !

Very "thinly veiled intent" on your part (with this thread title) Fanboyette. ;-)

umm, atleast get *some* facts right while contradicting someone !

 

[bruce38]

Boy, the more I read on this thread, the more I see how much better Borg was than Sampras.

 

[TMF]

Boy, the more I read on this thread, the more I see how much better Borg was than Sampras.

That’s because there are more Borg’s fans and the older generations are around here to express their opinions/arguments in supporting Borg’s position. Before, other tennis board were flooded with Sampras fans only argue for Sampras, which left Borg’s name out of the picture. Simply, there weren’t much(or lack thereof) Borg fans around to voice their opinions. Now you see the opposite effect.

 

[abmk]

Yes, I think that's true abmk, perhaps if he was really on and had a pretty "quick" match, say 3 sets, or a quick 4 sets, he could win against a great clay courter (see McEnroe almost winning the FO in 1984 against Lendl, leading 2 sets to love before losing in 5 sets).

I really think that at the French Open especially, when it was hot and humid, his inherited blood disorder, and not just his "tennis ability", cost him a lot. He was likely talented enough to win a FO title, but that stamina hindrance may have cost him in longer matches there in hot conditions. He did make the SF once at the FO. Sampras inherited the blood disorder "thalassemia" which can lead to anemia.

I disagree, sampras simply wasn't good enough to win the FO, I don't think thalassemia minor that he had was a "major" factor either

As for mcenroe was concerned, he was simply a better CCer than sampras, and that was his best year , where he was red-hot and yes , lendl was clearly inferior to nadal/borg on clay

 

[1Sampras]

You either have short term memory or don't know about your tennis. Since the USO 2008, Roger didn't have any serious threat? Roger has beaten and losing to other players at the grand stage. Get your fact straight!

If nadal wants to be a threat to Roger, he better learn how to beat the top ten players b/c he's getting own!!! If he wants to reach home plate(facing roger), then he better reach 1st, 2nd and 3rd base safely. As of now, the only threat I'm seeing from Rafa is he's quitting early!

Rafa may be quitting early but he has been injured. Thats the only reason Federer won the Frrench and wimbledon last year. Nadal doesnt fold or bow over to him like the rest of the headcases of this era. Nadal is a true competitor unlike Roddick, murray, djoker, and all the rest of the lineup. Nadal has a handicapped with his serve. It sucks and he cant win any free points so that makes his wins over Federer even more impressive. I hope Nadal gets healthy again and improves his serve because its nice to see a player who doesnt give into pressure. He shows how beatable Federer really is because Federer cant take it to Nadal like a Sampras could. Sampras would be into the net on first and second serves and Nadal would never get any rythm on his groundstrokes and Pete would attack the hell out of Nadals serves. Sampras already proved what he could do to Roger in the exos that they played. Sampras was able to hold his own and was hard to break. Both in their primes they would very close matches against each other and we will never know who would have come out on top or hold the number 1 ranking. Bottom line

 

[SLD76]

Didnt we already tell you to find another board to spew your ridiculous tennis opinions on Sampras1.


You already revealed you know jack all about tennis when you said Federer didnt have an attacking tennis game :shock:

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Sampras won 70% of his career matches on clay.

And at Roland Garros, Sampras has wins over:

- Jim Courier (multi French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)
- Thomas Muster (French Open champion; former #1 ranked player)
- Sergi Bruguera (multi French Open champion)

As for the guy (Kafelnikov) that beat him in the semis at Roland Garros, go check Sampras' "single-handedly" Davis Cup antics in Moscow] (and on red clay).

Very "thinly veiled intent" on your part (with this thread title) Fanboyette. ;-)

Like abmk said, at least get your facts right before. contradicting someone.

Beat Agassi (former French Open champion) on red clay at Houston.

Wow, I'm impressed. Agassi was almost unbeatable on the red clay at Houston. And losing to Roddick after was no shame either, afterall Roddick is a former clay master winner.















Yes, Sampras sucked on clay.