D
So random TTW posters know more about @Spencer Gore than the actual poster does. Right.Yeah he watched many highlights of connors and borg matches in 2018, he has been watching tennis after 08 as proven by @zagor @mike danny @BeatlesFan and many posters here. Spencer BORE is masquerading as a historian who is 100+ years old but in reality we know he is phony.
Hewitt was better than Sampras in 00-02, never meant Hewitt the tennis player was a better player overall than Sampras. Sampras is a GOAT candidate and former GOAT while Hewitt is not even an ATG, he is in the league of Murray-Stan-Roddick and nothing more, however in 00-02 he was better than Sampras and so he won. Can't help it, you can say age brought down Sampras but then can't change history.
Well unfortunately for all concerned "EVERYONE" was better than Sampras during a period '00-02! After winninng Wimbledon in 2000, he fell off a cliff unable to win anything for over 2 years. IMO, a final indignity was losing a 2nd round match to some Swiss player at '02 Wimbledon I'd never heard of; George Bastl!![]()
You will never be able to realize that during his career, Fed already gave his best, all he had and more. He was never satisfied, he remained "hungry" and won all he was capable of.Stats don't determine who is greater.
Federer only had 14 as his target and he did not know that he needed to raise it to 20 and even that would not be safe, had he known this in 2010 then he would have done everything required to add more slams and would have desperately taken it to 24-25 if he knew that would be the mark. He raised his gear in 2014-2015 after taking his foot off the accelerator in 2010-2014 period, he would have made the racquet change much before if he knew what future lies. ...... Djokovic has an advantage of being younger and due to no rivals in the younger generation .... So stats wont be enough to judge, Federer will remain greater than always until the bar is raised really high.
You will never be able to realize that during his career, Fed already gave his best, all he had and more. He was never satisfied, he remained "hungry" and won all he was capable of.
I admire him for that, because both Novak and Rafa had their "mentally down" prolonged periods, Fed never spiraled down.
It's pity you're unable to recognize this great quality of his.
One can still argue 2nd place. Nadal needs another 2 slams to take over the #2 GOAT ranking IMO. Unless Nadal wins Australia then hes probably #2.. Nadal's problem is his lack of time #1 and no year end title which Fed has on him. Though Nadal does have the Olympic singles gold which Fed never got
So random TTW posters know more about @Spencer Gore than the actual poster does. Right.
You have less respect for Fed than I do, quite strange this is.No he was not hungry enough in the beginning of his career, was complacent at his peak and did loosen the grip in 2010-2011 period after breaking Sampras's record, he then did a few mistakes too which was a result of bad luck mixed with some bad decisions, anyway, I don't need you to teach me what quality he had and what he did not.
Nadal is G2OAT - Greatest No2 Of All Times, and he has weeks no2 to prove it.Is Tennis a record piling nerd fetish that we seek greatness with these sorts of parameters ???
For a common Tennis fan who watched Tennis for 30 years it was Sampras dominating the 90s, Federer dominating the 00s and Djokovic dominating the 2010s, even the rankings weeks and YECs say the same, Nadal IMO should never even be in the race compared to these 3, however Nadal despite being disqualified from the GOAT Race can be in league of his own because we remember him as a force on clay for 2 decades. These sort of GOAT Races are all media manufactured, you trying to find a 2 is further manufactured by you that is a bit faulty.
Nadal throughout his life has been 2 in both decades, he didn't have his era, how can he be GOAT ?
Hewitt woulda coulda shoulda be GOAT actually, he almost became one.@NoleIsBoat
Do you know why/how Sampras won US open in 02 ?
Sampras won it because Hewitt was on the opposite side of the draw with Agassi. Had Hewitt been on this side of the draw then he would have taken out Pete for sure, everybody who witnessed Tennis in that era knows that Hewitt was returning the Sampras serve even better than Agassi was and his passing shots were also much better than Andre's circa 01-02, Pete was completely sorted out by Hewitt, it was luck that Hewitt was taken out by Agassi and then Agassi was gassed out for the final, Pete tamed a tired Agassi in the final or else it was Agassi's slam if the draw was opposite with Hewitt-Sampras in the semis, that's how good Hewitt was back then....... So never talk of weak eras or other stupidity that you said earlier (some hours ago) like Medvedev/Thiem/Tsitsipas doing what Hewitt did if in that era. Senior posters in age here know what Hewitt was in early 00s and how he had brought down Sampras, you too should know, lol
Nadal is G2OAT - Greatest No2 Of All Times, and he has weeks no2 to prove it.
This is a terrible way to look at things, but the number you show for Djokovic is wrong. He would be at 8 if you take out his best surface.
Let me guess, your argument that Djokovic is the greatest is predicated on the fact that Federer beat Roddick in a Wimbledon final.How many slams did Roddick win going through an ATG? 0? Same as Thiem, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev who you all call losers and jokers![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's more likely predicated on Djokovic beating Federer in all 3 Wimbledon finals that they've played.Let me guess, your argument that Djokovic is the greatest is predicated on the fact that Federer beat Roddick in a Wimbledon final.
Christ but you are spectacularly dim, and unimaginably dull.It's more likely predicated on Djokovic beating Federer in all 3 Wimbledon finals that they've played.
Eh, no one seems to hold Laver's record against Pancho Gonzales against him.Christ but you are spectacularly dim, and unimaginably dull.
No 32 year old GOAT contender has ever been down match point to a 37 year old opponent. If you’re claiming to be the greatest, you win matches against the elderly without dropping sets.
#CashBetterThanCzechI wish Lendl had beaten him in 87’ so we never would have to hear from him
Eh, no one seems to hold Laver's record against Pancho Gonzales against him.
Come back to me when you figure out how old they were at the time, and how large the age difference is.Against who? Gonzales or Laver?
Documented results show Laver leads Gozales 43-22 (14-7 in Finals) in H2H over a 7 year period. Not even close.
Come back to me when you figure out how old they were at the time, and how large the age difference is.
To be fair Rafa has 8 more masters titles than Fed and a significant H2H advantage over him too. Then Olympic gold like you say. I think all Rafa needs is 1 more slam then he’s ahead of Fed in my view.One can still argue 2nd place. Nadal needs another 2 slams to take over the #2 GOAT ranking IMO. Unless Nadal wins Australia then hes probably #2.. Nadal's problem is his lack of time #1 and no year end title which Fed has on him. Though Nadal does have the Olympic singles gold which Fed never got
Did you read my original post? I quoted the poster named Canta_Brian said "No 32 year old GOAT contender has ever been down match point to a 37 year old opponent "I never understand this particular comeback.
It is Tennis, it is a sport ... you can only play who you play. You can only beat who you beat.
If age is such an issue, the older players would retire earlier because they wouldn't have a chance to beat the younger ones. They continue because they think they have a chance of winning, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
The way you are talking ... a 35yo should NEVER beat a 25yo. Yet we see it happening all the time.
In any case, you don't know what you are talking about if you don't understand that ...
Biological Age DOES NOT EQUAL Chronological Age.
Did you read my original post?
So you're saying Federer has no claim to be the greatest because he lost a set to the elderly Agassi in the US Open final. Interesting.If you’re claiming to be the greatest, you win matches against the elderly without dropping sets.
Apologies for the mix up there.
He certainly got it wrong on several counts. But I'm not surprised that fanatics of a certain Big 3 player use age difference to justify their champion.
Personally, if I see Federer playing anyone, I assume he is playing to win and age is just a number. Otherwise why bother?
The minute tennis fas start using Federer's age as an excuse for poor performances is the time Federer should schedule and announce his Farewell Tour!
So you're saying Federer has no claim to be the greatest because he lost a set to the elderly Agassi in the US Open final. Interesting.
37 year old Federer fired 25 aces and 94 winners in that final. It’s disingenuous to call him “elderly”, when modern medicine, physios, nutrition and dedication has allowed Federer and the other big 3 to play prime tennis well into their 30s.Christ but you are spectacularly dim, and unimaginably dull.
No 32 year old GOAT contender has ever been down match point to a 37 year old opponent. If you’re claiming to be the greatest, you win matches against the elderly without dropping sets.
Federer played his worst Wimbeldon final in 2019.37 year old Federer fired 25 aces and 94 winners in that final. It’s disingenuous to call him “elderly”, when modern medicine, physios, nutrition and dedication has allowed Federer and the other big 3 to play prime tennis well into their 30s.
Very clearly better than 2009 and 2014. Any half decent version of Federer wouldn’t go 5 sets vs his pigeon.Federer played his worst Wimbeldon final in 2019.
2009 > 2014 > 2019Very clearly better than 2009 and 2014. Any half decent version of Federer wouldn’t go 5 sets vs his pigeon.
Not in my view - having mp vs prime Djokovic > going 5 sets vs career pigeon.2009 > 2014 > 2019
2 or 3 in my view.To be fair Rafa has 8 more masters titles than Fed and a significant H2H advantage over him too. Then Olympic gold like you say. I think all Rafa needs is 1 more slam then he’s ahead of Fed in my view.
It depends where he wins. If he wins off clay for his next one I think one is enough. If it’s just another french then yeah he probably needs another to make it more clear cut.2 or 3 in my view.
All that proves is Fed’s greatness. It says nothing about Djok37 year old Federer fired 25 aces and 94 winners in that final. It’s disingenuous to call him “elderly”, when modern medicine, physios, nutrition and dedication has allowed Federer and the other big 3 to play prime tennis well into their 30s.
I just find it very hard to give advantage to the guy with average ATG no1 record and below-ATG YEC record, against recent GOAT. Rafa's also behind Fed in BOAT criteria. These are all important factors.It depends where he wins. If he wins off clay for his next one I think one is enough. If it’s just another french then yeah he probably needs another to make it more clear cut.
Yes, owning the Wimbledon record holder in 3/3 finals means nothing and is irrelevant.All that proves is Fed’s greatness. It says nothing about Djok
Yes, owning the Wimbledon record holder in 3/3 finals means nothing and is irrelevant.
What did Djokovic do in the 2019 final that made him better than 2014/2015 when he played Federer?Not in my view - having mp vs prime Djokovic > going 5 sets vs career pigeon.
2015 was his best but 2014/2019 are comparable. 2019 was more clutch in the big points than 2014. Overall level similar though, precision and depth from both sides , deep returns to feet, BH winners, clutch serving.What did Djokovic do in the 2019 final that made him better than 2014/2015 when he played Federer?
Djokovic had way better stats in the 2014 match vs a better Federer bar one little slip at end of the fifth. Did you say the returning and power hitting was equal?2015 was his best but 2014/2019 are comparable. 2019 was more clutch in the big points than 2014. Overall level similar though, precision and depth from both sides , deep returns to feet, BH winners, clutch serving.
Which stats were “way better”? Federer was better in 2019Djokovic had way better stats in the 2014 match vs a better Federer bar one little slip at end of the fifth. Did you say the returning was equal?
Djokovic 68 winners to 27 errors in 2014Which stats were “way better”? Federer was better in 2019
Djokovic donated a 1-6 set in 2019 which affects the stats. His play in tiebreaks and championship points was top, and he saved it for those big moments.Djokovic 68 winners to 27 errors in 2014
Djokovic 54 winners to 52 errors in 2019
Djokovic was broken less in 2014 and broke once more as well.