Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best

[sunof tennis]

RIGHT!!!!

That's all that history remembers and that's what gets you in the hall of fame.

Do you think anyone cares that Rios was ranked #1 in the world? Or do you think anyone cares that Boris Becker was never a year end #1 ?

It's all about the slams baby....the rest is just an anecdote.

So Nadal shouldn't treasure his Olympic gold and the 6 WTFs (maybe 5) that Federer has won mean nothing? How about all the Masters Shields that Nadal has won? I guess nobody should bother playing any tournaments but the slams.

 

[Cup8489]

I think it's funny that the h2h in slams is always brought up.

Despite the fact that Rafa can apparently cream Federer in majors, Fed has still won more since Rafa's first than Rafa, so I guess it doesn't matter too much, does it? Rafa can't even keep up with Federer even though he can beat him more often than not IN majors.. he didnt always get that far in the first place LOL.

 

[The Dark Knight]

So Nadal shouldn't treasure his Olympic gold and the 6 WTFs (maybe 5) that Federer has won mean nothing? How about all the Masters Shields that Nadal has won? I guess nobody should bother playing any tournaments but the slams.

If I were Federer I wouldn't bother.

Sampras did that near the end of his career.

Serena and Venus basically did that as well.

Just look at history.....do you think anyone cares that Boris Becker was never year end #1 ? Yet he is still considered one of the greatest of all time.

Take a look at the Laver era .....other than the grand slam winners can you even name anyone else from that time period?

Or you don't even need to go back that far.....look at the Borg era......does anyone care about Jose Luis Clerc or Harold Solomon?? An they were top players.....history doesn't care about anything else but the slams....

Rios was ranked freaking #1 in the world and Sampras was #2.......who cares??? .


.

 

[FlashFlare11]

If I were Federer I wouldn't bother.

Sampras did that near the end of his career.

Serena and Venus basically did that as well.

Just look at history.....do you think anyone cares that Boris Becker was never year end #1 ? Yet he is still considered one of the greatest of all time.

Take a look at the Laver era .....other than the grand slam winners can you even name anyone else from that time period?

Or you don't even need to go back that far.....look at the Borg era......does anyone care about Jose Luis Clerc or Harold Solomon?? An they were top players.....history doesn't care about anything else but the slams....

Rios was ranked freaking #1 in the world and Sampras was #2.......who cares??? .


.

So, in conclusion, since all of that doesn't matter, Federer is still the best because he has the most slams, right? Even if you think Federer played against a weak field, no one will remember that. Like you said, they'll only remember how many slams he won, and as of right now, he's the leader.

 

[sunof tennis]

So, in conclusion, since all of that doesn't matter, Federer is still the best because he has the most slams, right? Even if you think Federer played against a weak field, no one will remember that. Like you said, they'll only remember how many slams he won, and as of right now, he's the leader.

Good job in destroying his arguments, no matter how weak they were.

 

[TopFH]

So, in conclusion, since all of that doesn't matter, Federer is still the best because he has the most slams, right? Even if you think Federer played against a weak field, no one will remember that. Like you said, they'll only remember how many slams he won, and as of right now, he's the leader.

TDK has just been lawyered.

 

[The Dark Knight]

So, in conclusion, since all of that doesn't matter, Federer is still the best because he has the most slams, right? Even if you think Federer played against a weak field, no one will remember that. Like you said, they'll only remember how many slams he won, and as of right now, he's the leader.

Actually Yes and no ......on PAPER he is definitely the best......that's why he is regarded as the "GOAT".....but it's only on paper not reality.

Federer is an anomaly .....he is the only champion to have been dominated by his rivals .

This has never occurred before that's why everyone says that there is an asterisk on his record.

Forever more people will say "Federer had the greatest record only because he had virtually no real competition.....12 of his slams were Cake walks".

Capish?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Actually I have to give this a second thought.

Grandslams are really the only thing that counts in history.....

Fed does have the most but Laver had two actual grandslams rather than career slams.

Furthermore I believe Emerson ha more slams than Laver but everyone considers Laver the greater player.

So although slams are the only thing that counts as a place In history the number of slams you have doesn't necessarily mean you are the best.

I always thought it was unfair to say that Sampras was better than Agassi.

In fact Agassi was a far better clay court player and won on all surfaces .

I'm Agassi's book he said the number of slams you have we're meaningless when compared to winning on all surfaces . (maybe a bit self serving argument.....but it's also where I got the Emerson argument).

So in conclusion ......as far as getting to be considered great you need a slam......nothing else matters. Gaudio will always be considered greater than Rios even though rios was #1 in the world.

But when you have greatness measured with slam winners vs slam winners things get a bit more complicated.

I think this is the better opinion.

 

[FlashFlare11]

Actually Yes and no ......on PAPER he is definitely the best......that's why he is regarded as the "GOAT".....but it's only on paper not reality.

Federer is an anomaly .....he is the only champion to have been dominated by his rivals .

This has never occurred before that's why everyone says that there is an asterisk on his record.

Forever more people will say "Federer had the greatest record only because he had virtually no real competition.....12 of his slams were Cake walks".

Capish?

Actually, no. There are very few people that look at it the way you do (you would need to have a deep hatred for Federer to look at it that way). No one down the line will put an asterisk next to Federer's achievements because there's no need for one. And no, he was not dominated by his rivals. He is being beaten by players in the generation after his own, similar to how Sampras and Agassi lost more to players much younger than them as they progressed into their twilight. However, just as no one cares that Sampras was being beaten by Federer, Safin, Roddick and the other players of Federer's generation and is remembered for what he did against the players of his own time, Federer will be remembered the same way. Actually, it's impressive for Federer to still be so competitive in the generation of players after his own.

Actually I have to give this a second thought.

Grandslams are really the only thing that counts in history.....

Fed does have the most but Laver had two actual grandslams rather than career slams.

Furthermore I believe Emerson ha more slams than Laver but everyone considers Laver the greater player.

So although slams are the only thing that counts as a place In history the number of slams you have doesn't necessarily mean you are the best.

I always thought it was unfair to say that Sampras was better than Agassi.

In fact Agassi was a far better clay court player and won on all surfaces .

I'm Agassi's book he said the number of slams you have we're meaningless when compared to winning on all surfaces . (maybe a bit self serving argument.....but it's also where I got the Emerson argument).

So in conclusion ......as far as getting to be considered great you need a slam......nothing else matters. Gaudio will always be considered greater than Rios even though rios was #1 in the world.

But when you have greatness measured with slam winners vs slam winners things get a bit more complicated.

I think this is the better opinion.

Yes, you do need to give it a second thought since the first one didn't work out for your ideal agenda and you were called on it. This is absolutely hilarious. You just keep changing your parameters so that they suit your view.

There's no need for me to take your arguments seriously anymore, since you, yourself, cannot stand by what you say.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Federer is an anomaly .....he is the only champion to have been dominated by his rivals .

Wrong. Agassi was dominated by Sampras.

Sampras was dominated by Krajicek.

Nadal has been dominated by Davydenko and Hrbaty .

The h2h argument in terms of rating players in the GOAT stakes is about 10th down the list of important critera for GOATNESS. It is explained on page one of the book "Tennis Logic for Idiots".

Unless of course you're a teenager and/or partisan Nadal fan who hasn't developed an ability to realise there different relative weightings of various achievements.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Wrong. Agassi was dominated by Sampras.

Sampras was dominated by Krajicek.

Nadal has been dominated by Davydenko and Hrbaty .

The h2h argument in terms of rating players in the GOAT stakes is about 10th down the list of important critera for GOATNESS. It is explained on page one of the book "Tennis Logic for Idiots".

Unless of course you're a teenager and/or partisan Nadal fan who hasn't developed an ability to realise there different relative weightings of various achievements.

Can we just try and not twist things for just one second.....

Sampras was #1 in the world and he dominated the #2 in the world Agassi

That's very different than one player on the tour bothering a number one.

Never before has a #2 dominated a #1......NEVER.

.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Actually, no. There are very few people that look at it the way you do (you would need to have a deep hatred for Federer to look at it that way). No one down the line will put an asterisk next to Federer's achievements because there's no need for one. And no, he was not dominated by his rivals. He is being beaten by players in the generation after his own, similar to how Sampras and Agassi lost more to players much younger than them as they progressed into their twilight. However, just as no one cares that Sampras was being beaten by Federer, Safin, Roddick and the other players of Federer's generation and is remembered for what he did against the players of his own time, Federer will be remembered the same way. Actually, it's impressive for Federer to still be so competitive in the generation of players after his own.

Yes, you do need to give it a second thought since the first one didn't work out for your ideal agenda and you were called on it. This is absolutely hilarious. You just keep changing your parameters so that they suit your view.

There's no need for me to take your arguments seriously anymore, since you, yourself, cannot stand by what you say.

I'm not the one who invented the "asterisk " or "blemish" argument....acutually I believe it was Agassi who first said that there is a black cloud over Federers record....does he have a hatred against Federer? What about Wilander? pat Cash? How about John Mcenroe?


It's amazing....anyone who points out the truth is automatically a hater.

I have nothing against the guy.....I don't mow ohm to hate him and by the way you don't know him to love him......


But the facts are the facts......


For at least 12 grand slams his competition was subpar.....unless you think guys like Baghdatis or Gonzalez are as great as Joker.

The fact that The #2 player in the world dominates Federer clearly puts an astersisk on his record.....

Personally I agree with the argument that how can fed be considered the greatest when he isn't even the greatest of his own time.

Sorry.....but it's true.

 

[firepanda]

Can we just try and not twist things for just one second.....

Sampras was #1 in the world and he dominated the #2 in the world Agassi

That's very different than one player on the tour bothering a number one.

Never before has a #2 dominated a #1......NEVER.

I'd say Agassi quite neatly beat Sampras. He could get Sampras' serves back and was the cleaner ball striker. And Nadal is an exception. They are allowed to exist, no? His game was tailored to be anathema to Federer's.

I'll side with the guys who say it's the slams that count. Us tennis nerds obsess over percentages and H2H's, but most people know a player by their slams. The only asterisk was over Sampras, when he was ahead since he never won the French.

 

[FlashFlare11]

I'm not the one who invented the "asterisk " or "blemish" argument....acutually I believe it was Agassi who first said that there is a black cloud over Federers record....does he have a hatred against Federer? What about Wilander? pat Cash? How about John Mcenroe?


It's amazing....anyone who points out the truth is automatically a hater.

I have nothing against the guy.....I don't mow ohm to hate him and by the way you don't know him to love him......


But the facts are the facts......


For at least 12 grand slams his competition was subpar.....unless you think guys like Baghdatis or Gonzalez are as great as Joker.

The fact that The #2 player in the world dominates Federer clearly puts an astersisk on his record.....

Personally I agree with the argument that how can fed be considered the greatest when he isn't even the greatest of his own time.

Sorry.....but it's true.

Agassi has never said that, nor do I believe he would. Care to provide some proof?

Secondly, you are obviously here with an anti-Federer crusade, since everything you say is against Federer. Most of your posts and all of your threads so far support this. You come here trying to act like you're some kind of "messiah" who knows the "truth" about Federer, but it turns out you actually know less than we've given you credit for. You've contradicted yourself numerous times (within the same post no less!). Clearly you have something against him, which harkens to your unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion with anyone here.


Federer was the greatest of his own time because his time is now over. Djokovic and Nadal are in their time. Federer's time ended in 2008. It's actually Nadal who is not the greatest in his own time since he is being dominated by Djokovic while both of them are relatively close in age. For Federer, you're trying to compare him with players five-six years younger than him. No matter how much you want it to fit together, it won't.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but simply because you think something is true doesn't make it the truth nor a fact. It's only your opinion.

 

[firepanda]

For at least 12 grand slams his competition was subpar.....unless you think guys like Baghdatis or Gonzalez are as great as Joker.

The fact that The #2 player in the world dominates Federer clearly puts an asterisk on his record.....

Personally I agree with the argument that how can fed be considered the greatest when he isn't even the greatest of his own time.

Sorry.....but it's true.

You can't argue that. Competition is relative. Unless you were playing you cannot comment on the standard. Its possible Federer was simply very dominant.
Either way, it doesn't matter Federer struggled against the #2. Nadal is an exception. He tailored his game to beating Federer, especially on the clay. Federer is a great volleyer? Nadal was the best passer. Federer hit a lot of winners? Nadal had the best movement. There is no clause regarding invincibility in becoming GOAT: all that matters is success.

Finally, you first and last quoted paragraphs contradict. I'll let you figure out the fallacy.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Can we just try and not twist things for just one second.....

Never before has a #2 dominated a #1......NEVER.

You sure about that?

Let's look at Becker and Lendl's head to head.

In slams finals it's 3-0 to Becker - Lendl was #1 on two of those occasions.

In all slam matches it's 5-1 to Becker - Lendl's sole win coming in the 4th round of the US Open in 1992. He was ranked higher than Becker on all but one occasion.

In important matches Lendl was effectively Becker's pigeon but who is considered the greater player? Lendl of course.

 

[augustobt]

I don't know why are you trying to argue with a kid that can't see the difference between a one-handed backhand and a two-handed backhand. Even the number of hands used.

 

[Cup8489]

I'm not the one who invented the "asterisk " or "blemish" argument....acutually I believe it was Agassi who first said that there is a black cloud over Federers record....does he have a hatred against Federer? What about Wilander? pat Cash? How about John Mcenroe?


It's amazing....anyone who points out the truth is automatically a hater.

I have nothing against the guy.....I don't mow ohm to hate him and by the way you don't know him to love him......


But the facts are the facts......


For at least 12 grand slams his competition was subpar.....unless you think guys like Baghdatis or Gonzalez are as great as Joker.

The fact that The #2 player in the world dominates Federer clearly puts an astersisk on his record.....

Personally I agree with the argument that how can fed be considered the greatest when he isn't even the greatest of his own time.

Sorry.....but it's true.

Ok, what are you talking about? Are you saying that all but the last four he won (from 2008 USO on) don't count? If that's the case, then why has he been able to win more from 2005 FO onwards than Nadal, and why do you apply such a double standard?

You imply that guys like Gonzalez and Bagdhatis were subpar opponents, but yet, Gonzalez CREAMED Nadal enroute to his lone Grand Slam final, and yet somehow he's not as worthy as a guy like Murray?

Are you serious? He's just as worthy an opponent as Murray, as he went about making his first major final in much the same way as Murray, and even put up a better fight than 0-sets-won-in-3-major-finals Murray!

Your inability to use logic is astounding, and you have absolutely no credibility.

Nor did you address the fact that even if we don't count ANY of his majors before Nadal's full arrival as a slam contender at the 2005 FO, Federer is still ahead by two majors! How do you explain that if he was in a weak era? If his era was so weak, then why couldnt Nadal reach a hardcourt final till 2009, fully 4 years later? Why was Rafa losing so often to these weak players?

If you say Rafa hasn't fully matured until 2009, we should discount all of his majors before his first HC final, and then he's left with, what? 5 majors? And then he can't even beat Djokovic in 3 of the 4 major finals they've contested? Nadal can't beat his main rival when it counts most these days, so he must surely ALSO have been in a weak era, as your whole argument suggests?

But.. then wouldn't that also mean that Djokovic isn't facing tough competition either, since apparently both Federer and Nadal are chumps, by your logic?

Get a clue.

 

[sonicare]

Can we just try and not twist things for just one second.....

Sampras was #1 in the world and he dominated the #2 in the world Agassi

That's very different than one player on the tour bothering a number one.

Never before has a #2 dominated a #1......NEVER.

.

So what you are sayin is that it is better to be dominated by a worse player ranked low than being dominated by a very good player ranked 2.

Wtf kind of logic is this?

 

[The Dark Knight]

10 characters

 

[The Dark Knight]

So what you are sayin is that it is better to be dominated by a worse player ranked low than being dominated by a very good player ranked 2.

Wtf kind of logic is this?

I'm saying a couple of things :

1- that although on paper Federer has the most slams ever that a strong argument can be made that he is the GOAT----technically and only on "paper". However just as strong am argument can be made that his achievements are only on paper because in reality he was dominated by his chief rival and 12 of those slams were against subpar players....a lack of competition.

2- does winning the most slams ever qualify you automatically even on paper as the GOAT? Or is it the quality of those slams that are more important .
Emerson won more slams than Laver....and yet Laver is recognized as the greater player.

With Laver you have to take into consideration that he won two calendar slams and that he was older by the time he won them as he was an "amateur" for a long time.

COnclusion:

An argument can be made for both sides .....both are valid . But it is my personal opinion that although on paper Fed has 16 slams he is the modern day "Emerson". To me it's not the number of slams but the quality of those slams......and Feds quality was pretty bad for at least 12 were pretty low.

This is further proven by the fact that Fed has not won a slam in quite some time since the rise in the level of competition.

I truly believe this is a valid argument even though wildly unpopular here at TW.

 

[1970CRBase]

Try not to swallow everything they too at you hook line and sinker. Two things to bear in mind, tennis commentators are essentially talk show hosts paid by the network. They just happen to be talking about tennis. But don't take it as anything other than what it really is : only entertainment, not exactly expert testimony. Secondly, ex pros may have once been top in the world in playing their game; they're not necessarily particularly bright. Don't repeat what they opine as fact just because it is what you want to hear without thinking it over.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Try not to swallow everything they too at you hook line and sinker. Two things to bear in mind, tennis commentators are essentially talk show hosts paid by the network. They just happen to be talking about tennis. But don't take it as anything other than what it really is : only entertainment, not exactly expert testimony. Secondly, ex pros may have once been top in the world in playing their game; they're not necessarily particularly bright. Don't repeat what they opine as fact just because it is what you want to hear without thinking it over.

I agree with what you say ; however in this particular case I think they have a point.

I see both sides to the arguments .....neither is right and neither is wrong.

I personally agree with the lack of competition argument.

I think it's actually unfortunate for Federer and all of us because if Federer did have more competition he would have risen to a
Much higher level .

Roger became complacent and even he believed in te illusion . That's why when Nadal came along he didn't adapt and just played the same way. He thought his game was perfect and he didn't need to change a thing.....

In Feds case as you pointed out the commentators , the ex pros and even Fed were all wrong. It was all just an illusion created because of a lack of competition .

However even during Feds hey day there were people who were saying that there was a lack of competition but no one listened . If you remember there were commentators and ex pros who said that pros gave up before they even went on the court against Federer. There was no fight in them.

 

[Cup8489]

I'm saying a couple of things :

1- that although on paper Federer has the most slams ever that a strong argument can be made that he is the GOAT----technically and only on "paper". However just as strong am argument can be made that his achievements are only on paper because in reality he was dominated by his chief rival and 12 of those slams were against subpar players....a lack of competition.

2- does winning the most slams ever qualify you automatically even on paper as the GOAT? Or is it the quality of those slams that are more important .
Emerson won more slams than Laver....and yet Laver is recognized as the greater player.

With Laver you have to take into consideration that he won two calendar slams and that he was older by the time he won them as he was an "amateur" for a long time.

COnclusion:

An argument can be made for both sides .....both are valid . But it is my personal opinion that although on paper Fed has 16 slams he is the modern day "Emerson". To me it's not the number of slams but the quality of those slams......and Feds quality was pretty bad for at least 12 were pretty low.

This is further proven by the fact that Fed has not won a slam in quite some time since the rise in the level of competition.

I truly believe this is a valid argument even though wildly unpopular here at TW.

You cannot compare Emerson to Federer. Emerson won all of his majors without the presence of the players who were CLEARLY better than he that were playing at the same time as him, as they were on the professional tour and unable to play majors. Laver is held higher because of his two grand slams spread several years apart, and his ability to come back and win the second one against a stronger field than the one that Emerson faced and didn't win a grand slam against.

This can't be compared to today, as Federer was clear and away the best player during his dominance, if he wasn't tell me who was? The tour was international, open to everyone, and so the best players were able to play the majors, unlike in Emerson's day, so your entire argument is based on faulty 'logic'.

If you count only the majors Federer has won since 2005 FO, the first major Nadal won, and thus comparing the exact same period of time, Federer still has 12 majors to Nadal's 10.

Your theory is crap, and based in nothing but bias and lack of tennis knowledge. If Federer's majors were won against a weak field, why did he still win more than Nadal in the same period of time? Nadal was a slam contender, why couldn't he win more than Federer if he's the better player? You still haven't acknowledged this... now you're beginning to look a fool.

Ok, what are you talking about? Are you saying that all but the last four he won (from 2008 USO on) don't count? If that's the case, then why has he been able to win more from 2005 FO onwards than Nadal, and why do you apply such a double standard?

You imply that guys like Gonzalez and Bagdhatis were subpar opponents, but yet, Gonzalez CREAMED Nadal enroute to his lone Grand Slam final, and yet somehow he's not as worthy as a guy like Murray?

Are you serious? He's just as worthy an opponent as Murray, as he went about making his first major final in much the same way as Murray, and even put up a better fight than 0-sets-won-in-3-major-finals Murray!

Your inability to use logic is astounding, and you have absolutely no credibility.

Nor did you address the fact that even if we don't count ANY of his majors before Nadal's full arrival as a slam contender at the 2005 FO, Federer is still ahead by two majors! How do you explain that if he was in a weak era? If his era was so weak, then why couldnt Nadal reach a hardcourt final till 2009, fully 4 years later? Why was Rafa losing so often to these weak players?

If you say Rafa hasn't fully matured until 2009, we should discount all of his majors before his first HC final, and then he's left with, what? 5 majors? And then he can't even beat Djokovic in 3 of the 4 major finals they've contested? Nadal can't beat his main rival when it counts most these days, so he must surely ALSO have been in a weak era, as your whole argument suggests?

But.. then wouldn't that also mean that Djokovic isn't facing tough competition either, since apparently both Federer and Nadal are chumps, by your logic?

Get a clue.

Still didn't address this, either.

 

[Cup8489]

I agree with what you say ; however in this particular case I think they have a point.

I see both sides to the arguments .....neither is right and neither is wrong.

I personally agree with the lack of competition argument.

I think it's actually unfortunate for Federer and all of us because if Federer did have more competition he would have risen to a
Much higher level .

Roger became complacent and even he believed in te illusion . That's why when Nadal came along he didn't adapt and just played the same way. He thought his game was perfect and he didn't need to change a thing.....

In Feds case as you pointed out the commentators , the ex pros and even Fed were all wrong. It was all just an illusion created because of a lack of competition .

However even during Feds hey day there were people who were saying that there was a lack of competition but no one listened . If you remember there were commentators and ex pros who said that pros gave up before they even went on the court against Federer. There was no fight in them.

Ok.. if Federer is such a weak tennis player, why is he able to beat Nadal MORE often today than when in his prime? Here's a hint: He actually adapted to use his skills in a planned manner to exploit Nadal's weaknesses, something he never did in his prime against Nadal. anyone with half a brain could see that, and if Federer had done so in his prime, this who discussion would be moot, as Federer wouldn't have been as unsuccessful against Nadal if he'd used a game plan.

Even saying that, he's 10-18 against Rafa. Hardly a horrible record, just not a winning one, and it will only matter if Nadal can even get CLOSE to 16 majors... increasingly unlikely considering recent events.

Get a clue man!

 

[The Dark Knight]

I've also made a realization ....

Remember Joker last year? I think it was the AO.....

He was tired from his dogfight in the prior match ( I think it was against fed?) and then he had to play Nadal in the final.

Rafa cruised and was well Rested and most people said that Nadal had the advantage.

I disagree.....I think having stiff competition makes you tougher.....joker was ready for a dogfight and I think a tough draw helped him.

I find the same thing happening to me in USTA......I hate beating someone 6-0 6-0 because I know the next match I won't be ready mentally.

Or how many times have you seen someone lose the first set in usta. 6-0 only to come back roaring and win the match? It's the fight , the competition the being backed into a corner that makes us rise......there is no substitute for it.

Roger Federer and tennis fans were cheated......Fed could have been so much better but unfortunately he was not really tested until later in his career.

He is being tested now.....can he rise to the occasion or is it too late? We shall see ......but Fed finally has some competition and he is now being tested......let's see what he has got......can he become even better?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Ok.. if Federer is such a weak tennis player, why is he able to beat Nadal MORE often today than when in his prime? Here's a hint: He actually adapted to use his skills in a planned manner to exploit Nadal's weaknesses, something he never did in his prime against Nadal. anyone with half a brain could see that, and if Federer had done so in his prime, this who discussion would be moot, as Federer wouldn't have been as unsuccessful against Nadal if he'd used a game plan.

Even saying that, he's 10-18 against Rafa. Hardly a horrible record, just not a winning one, and it will only matter if Nadal can even get CLOSE to 16 majors... increasingly unlikely considering recent events.

Get a clue man!

In my opinion only grand slams count.....

That's all that history remembers. People forget that Boris Becker never was a year end #1 .......but it doesn't really matter.....no one cares.

Second......back in the day all matches were 5 sets. Today only the grand slams are 5 sets. Rafas greatest weapon is his strength and lasting 5 sets.

Playing a best of three sets is like playing 4 innings of a baseball game. It's just not the rules of tennis and was invented so that the promoters can make more money......but it's only half a match.....it's b.s. in my opinion.

 

[The Dark Knight]

And.....

I never said Federer is a weak tennis player....in fact a very strong argument can be made that he is the greatest of all time.

 

[1HBH Rocks]

This is further proven by the fact that Fed has not won a slam in quite some time since the rise in the level of competition.

I truly believe this is a valid argument even though wildly unpopular here at TW.

Federer's last slam is AO 2010... Ever seen a chart splitting slam victories by age? 25 was the age at which most slam winners touched their trophies; beyond 27, it was super low.

To the contrary of facing poor competition, Federer faced very comparable competition to that of other champions in other eras. I don't know how you infer that his competition was so inferior to that of others, but if you simply compare results, you're committing what I have called the Era fallacy. You can't go from lower results to poorer quality as it could be as much explained by poorer competition as by a greater champion -- to overlook one of the two is a mistake and no argument which does so is valid; they're all non sequiturs.

To the contrary I would say, Federer still performs wonderfully at an advanced age for tennis in the times of the most physically demanding matches. His performances were bound to fall and fall they did, as anyone knowing about statistics would have foretold simply due to his age. But if he was simply the result of an easy go, you wouldn't expect the old 29 and 30 years old Federer to hand tennis lessons in prestigious events to both of his main contenders, let alone doing it in such physically demanding conditions. And what do we find? Two end of year championship. He's got six by now, one more than any other ever had. Besides, what do we notice from Federer when he faces Nadal or Djokovic in slams? A great match. He even was the man to beat Djokovic and he recently overtook Nadal in the score for the second spot...

Get back to Earth. He's 3rd at 30, nearly 31, while his competition in the top four is probably the harshest in history.

 

[1HBH Rocks]

Playing a best of three sets is like playing 4 innings of a baseball game. It's just not the rules of tennis and was invented so that the promoters can make more money......but it's only half a match.....it's b.s. in my opinion.

You realize that this would give elite players an even greater advantage over their competition? As far as I can tell, 5 sets never helped Nadal win the USO before he got in 2010, when Federer was 29; nor did it prevent him from keeping a poor record at the AO until 2009...

However, five sets were good for Federer on hard courts. From 2004 first round to 2009 final, Federer didn't lost a match at Flushing Meadows. I mean, he did wonders out of these 2000 points events, but he would have won even more matches had competed in five sets; and Nadal would have lost more hard court events -- he was able to win some masters on hard, but not a single slam final until 2009 on hard courts.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Federer's last slam is AO 2010... Ever seen a chart splitting slam victories by age? 25 was the age at which most slam winners touched their trophies; beyond 27, it was super low.

To the contrary of facing poor competition, Federer faced very comparable competition to that of other champions in other eras. I don't know how you infer that his competition was so inferior to that of others, but if you simply compare results, you're committing what I have called the Era fallacy. You can't go from lower results to poorer quality as it could be as much explained by poorer competition as by a greater champion -- to overlook one of the two is a mistake and no argument which does so is valid; they're all non sequiturs.

To the contrary I would say, Federer still performs wonderfully at an advanced age for tennis in the times of the most physically demanding matches. His performances were bound to fall and fall they did, as anyone knowing about statistics would have foretold simply due to his age. But if he was simply the result of an easy go, you wouldn't expect the old 29 and 30 years old Federer to hand tennis lessons in prestigious events to both of his main contenders, let alone doing it in such physically demanding conditions. And what do we find? Two end of year championship. He's got six by now, one more than any other ever had. Besides, what do we notice from Federer when he faces Nadal or Djokovic in slams? A great match. He even was the man to beat Djokovic and he recently overtook Nadal in the score for the second spot...

Get back to Earth. He's 3rd at 30, nearly 31, while his competition in the top four is probably the harshest in history.

There' a lot of truth and valid points you make here....
And I can't say that they are not valid.....but I personally don't agree with them.

The "era fallacy" is a great label. Very smart ....but in my opinion and it's only an opinion ....not true.

I'm sorry I just don't consider wins over guts like Baghdatis , Gonazalez , philopusis even Roddick all that great. I don't think those guys compare to Borg McEnroe Connors Lendl edberg Becker nadal or Joker to name a few.

Federer has gotten older but players peak at 27 and even on to 30.....guys like Sampras .......I don't think that Fed has slowed down one bit......not a millisecond .


Federer is #3 in the world . His issue is not his age but it is simply Nadal and the Joker.

It has always been Nadal that has been a thorn in his side . And people used to say "bad matchup"......but now that Joker has raised hos level you can't say that anymore .

Feds problem is not his age but rather it's Nadal & Djokovic who are just better.....and that's why he is #3 in the world.

 

[Cup8489]

I'm done with this imbecile. Obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I'm done with this imbecile. Obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

Debate is like intercourse .....both parties need to consent and enjoy it.

Obviously you do not want to engage in an interesting debate and therefore I agree with you that you should go.

 

[tudwell]

I'm sorry I just don't consider wins over guts like Baghdatis , Gonazalez , philopusis even Roddick all that great. I don't think those guys compare to Borg McEnroe Connors Lendl edberg Becker nadal or Joker to name a few.

I hate to break whatever illusion you seem to have, but it takes seven matches to win a major - not one.

Slam winners that Federer's beaten at majors:

Pete Sampras
Andy Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Rafael Nadal
Marat Safin
Juan Martin del Potro
Michael Chang
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Novak Djokovic
Carlos Moya

Slams in which he didn't face a grand slam champion en route to the title:
2009 French Open (though del Potro won his first slam a couple months later)
2006 Australian Open

 

[The Dark Knight]

I hate to break whatever illusion you seem to have, but it takes seven matches to win a major - not one.

Slam winners that Federer's beaten at majors:

Pete Sampras
Andy Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Rafael Nadal
Marat Safin
Juan Martin del Potro
Michael Chang
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Novak Djokovic
Carlos Moya

Slams in which he didn't face a grand slam champion en route to the title:
2009 French Open (though del Potro won his first slam a couple months later)
2006 Australian Open

Good points on paper.....just like on paper Fed has 16 slams. Nice and simple and a strong argument.....but if you look deeper you see a much different picture .....

Agassi although great in his hey day was an old old man by the time he faced Fed. In fact he limped out of the FO skipped wimbledon and barely made it to the USO. He was shot up with so much cortisone that a heroin addict would wince . He could barely walk......and yet grandpa made it to the finals.....that shows how weak the generation was.

Fed did have a good win against Sampras. I never said Fed wasn't good.....but he lost that Wimbledon ......what's even more amazing is that same year he lost to Rafter on every surface known to man.

Safin.....was amazing and horrible at the same time . You never know which safin would show up . Just look at his slams and how far part they were!

Hewitt style was good against serve and volleyers but he was not that great later on. The fact that Hewitt and guys like Blake were in the top 10 is scary.

Roddick.....was #1 in the world. If that's not a weak era then I don't know what is?

Joker.... The joker that fed beat was a different player as was nadal

I'm not going to go through each one because I have to go to work.....but I think you see where I'm going with this.

I do see your points and you also have a good argument even though I personally don't agree with it.

 

[merlinpinpin]

I personally love the "Sampras peaking at 30" argument. Don't go slow on the booze and keep these gems coming, TDK! :lol:

 

[The Dark Knight]

I personally love the "Sampras peaking at 30" argument. Don't go slow on the booze and keep these gems coming, TDK! :lol:

Never said he peaked at 30. I said 27....but there is no rule on the human body.....everyone is different.

Isner for example is 27 and he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Sampras won the USO I believe around 30 and he was still playing great tennis IMO. I think Fed beat him legitimately .

 

[Flash O'Groove]

The "era fallacy" is a great label. Very smart ....but in my opinion and it's only an opinion ....not true.

I'm sorry I just don't consider wins over guts like Baghdatis , Gonazalez , philopusis even Roddick all that great. I don't think those guys compare to Borg McEnroe Connors Lendl edberg Becker nadal or Joker to name a few.

The "era fallacy" is a great label and totally true.

You argue that Baghdatis, Gonzales, Roddick were not that good.

I argue that in 2011, Nadal was far from his best, Federer past his peak, and over players weren't factors. Thus, Djokovic profited of a sub-form from Nadal to beat him in 6 finals.

I argue as well that Nadal had no opposition on clay until his level drop last year, as he has only to face Federer, who I argue is a hard-court and grass specialist (I can argue that looking at his record), Djokovic, who was still progressing, and Ferrer, who is Ferrer. In fact, the best year of Nadal, 2010, happened just because their was no opposition anywere. Post AO, Fed lost his game as show his result in IW, Miami, RG, Wimby and US Open (he lost to an only incoming Djokovic). Djokovic too had a bad year, being ousted at RG by Melzer and Wimby by Berdych. Only at the end of the year he peaked. And of course, Soderling and Berdych, while they are no so bad, aren't really good either (just like Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzales and Andy Roddick).

Well, we can argue forever, there is no way to be sure. Thus, the era fallacy is a great theory.

 

[TMF]

Never said he peaked at 30. I said 27....but there is no rule on the human body.....everyone is different.

Isner for example is 27 and he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Sampras won the USO I believe around 30 and he was still playing great tennis IMO. I think Fed beat him legitimately .

Fed beat Sampras legitimately because both players were not in their prime. However prime Murray never take a set from Fed at the slam. It took Nole to reach his prime to overtake past prime Fed's ranking.

 

[FlashFlare11]

Good points on paper.....just like on paper Fed has 16 slams. Nice and simple and a strong argument.....but if you look deeper you see a much different picture .....

Agassi although great in his hey day was an old old man by the time he faced Fed. In fact he limped out of the FO skipped wimbledon and barely made it to the USO. He was shot up with so much cortisone that a heroin addict would wince . He could barely walk......and yet grandpa made it to the finals.....that shows how weak the generation was.

Fed did have a good win against Sampras. I never said Fed wasn't good.....but he lost that Wimbledon ......what's even more amazing is that same year he lost to Rafter on every surface known to man.

Safin.....was amazing and horrible at the same time . You never know which safin would show up . Just look at his slams and how far part they were!

Hewitt style was good against serve and volleyers but he was not that great later on. The fact that Hewitt and guys like Blake were in the top 10 is scary.

Roddick.....was #1 in the world. If that's not a weak era then I don't know what is?

Joker.... The joker that fed beat was a different player as was nadal

I'm not going to go through each one because I have to go to work.....but I think you see where I'm going with this.

I do see your points and you also have a good argument even though I personally don't agree with it.

Volley King, is that you?

Your problem is two-fold. For one, you cannot accept anyone's opinion but act as though your's is a solid fact. Secondly, you say "it looks good on paper" when talking about Federer but use the same method of judgment for everyone else.

"If that is not a weak era then I don't know what is". The only people that say that about Roddick are those that never saw him play before 2010. If you're not someone who's never watched tennis before then I don't know who is

 

[Evan77]

The "era fallacy" is a great label and totally true.

You argue that Baghdatis, Gonzales, Roddick were not that good.

I argue that in 2011, Nadal was far from his best, Federer past his peak, and over players weren't factors. Thus, Djokovic profited of a sub-form from Nadal to beat him in 6 finals.

I argue as well that Nadal had no opposition on clay until his level drop last year, as he has only to face Federer, who I argue is a hard-court and grass specialist (I can argue that looking at his record), Djokovic, who was still progressing, and Ferrer, who is Ferrer. In fact, the best year of Nadal, 2010, happened just because their was no opposition anywere. Post AO, Fed lost his game as show his result in IW, Miami, RG, Wimby and US Open (he lost to an only incoming Djokovic). Djokovic too had a bad year, being ousted at RG by Melzer and Wimby by Berdych. Only at the end of the year he peaked. And of course, Soderling and Berdych, while they are no so bad, aren't really good either (just like Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzales and Andy Roddick).

Well, we can argue forever, there is no way to be sure. Thus, the era fallacy is a great theory.

well, I argue that Novak was far from his 'best' in 2007/08/09 ... and Safin is far from best (oh he retired, oops) ... whatever man. complete nonsense ... and yeah, who is Ferrer? you are just another ******** Rafa fan, sick and tired of NSKs multiplying like rats on this board.

 

[kiki]

There's been countless of posters have explained it to you that Kodes is a good player, not great, but good player. However if you need to believe he's some kind of a greek god just to help you sleep well at night, good for you.

In that case, he is the best ever " good player" ( or, at least, the one with the best record)

 

[kiki]

I normally let such drivel go, but let me see we can break this down more simply for you. Let's do a comparision of the strokes, etc., each man at his prime.

Serve-Federer wins, no contest
Forehand-Fed wins-greatest stroke in history. Nadal probably has best forehand on clay.
Backhand-slight edge to Federer on all surfaces except clay and slow, high bouncing hard courts which neutralizes Fed's slice,
Volleys- while Nadal may be more consistent now, at their peak, Federer is still a better volleyer.
Overhead- Both have very good, consitent overheads-even
Speed- Edge to Nadal
Footwork-both excellent, slight edge to Federer.

When actually analyzed, the head-to-head dispariity is due primarily to one factor-the overhwhelming majority of their matches were played on clay. Take the clay results out, Federer is ahead.

By the way, I will take Agassi's opnion as expressed in his book over Pat Cash's any day.

blue crystal led opinions?

 

[kiki]

Much less, actually, as Roddick has the added benefit of having played Federer and Djokovic.

Cash played Lendl,Connors,Mac,Becker,Edberg and Wilander.Off the " Magnificient seven" of the 80´s ( Golden Age of Tennis), he just missed Borg...

 

[kiki]

Segura was the second best player of the 1950s, in my opinion, behind Gonzales, and just beating Sedgman to that second spot. I would include Kramer, but he barely played after 1953 ended.

Kodes isn't in the same league as Segura. Let's keep things in perspective. But yes, the list is nonsense. It's comical how low players like Vines, Segura and Riggs are rated.

I don´t think Segura can ever compare to true great all timers such as Rosewall,Hoad,Trabert...he was an excellent player but, much like Nusslein in the 30´s, a second stringer...

 

[kiki]

Listen, I understand you have your own top 100 list, everyone can have their own list and they would all be difference. Just because your list doesn't matches with the list from the Tennis Channel doesn't means it's nonsense. You act like you know more than Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson and the rest of their team. LOL

Mere journeymen, except for Collins,Barret,Evans and Bodo.Flink is OK what he doesn´t have a deep knowledge of history...

 

[kiki]

History only remembers grand slams .....

Did you know that Boris Becker was never the year end #1 in the world ? And yet he is considered one of the greatest players of all time . Why do you think that is?

Or take Rios for example ....he was the #1 player in the world ......but it's Yanick Noah who made it to the hall of fame with only one FO to his name.

Murray will never be considered great unless he wins a grandslam.....on te other hand Gaston Gaudio who never did much of anything other than win the FO will be a hall of fame contender. Murray will be nothing in the eyes of history sort of like Tim Mayotte .

Unless you win a grandslam you are not really rembered.....you might not like it , you might not agree with it.....but it's true .

Right.Rios hahahahaha

 

[merlinpinpin]

Cash played Lendl,Connors,Mac,Becker,Edberg and Wilander.Off the " Magnificient seven" of the 80´s ( Golden Age of Tennis), he just missed Borg...

Nicely off-topic, as usual. In case you forgot, Cash was passing judgment on Federer and Djokovic.

 

[kiki]

Nicely off-topic, as usual. In case you forgot, Cash was passing judgment on Federer and Djokovic.

"Magnificient 7 " as opposed to " big three"...can you cope with the difference?

 

[TMF]

Mere journeymen, except for Collins,Barret,Evans and Bodo.Flink is OK what he doesn´t have a deep knowledge of history...

One thing for sure is neither one of these experts put Roger at tier III great(except you).