Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Thaks Cesc -- if you're the real Fabregas, you rule!
Rafael Nadal-Roger Federer: Logical Flaw Interpreting Rafa's 13-7 H2H Margin
- Thread starter dh003i
- Start date
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
grafselesfan
Banned
The best part is hearing the excuses ******* try to come up with for the poor head to head. Pure comedy. The best of all is the "if you take away all their clay court matches" one. Especialy given that these exact same *******s insist one must accept he is greater than Sampras due to his superior clay court record. So clay either means nothing at all, or it means everything and everything else means nothing, whatever suits *******s the best at that moment.
grafselesfan
Banned
Not quite. But he is currently my favourite player.
He is an awesome player. I often wished I lived in Europe so I could see more Soccer.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
I love the clay excuse aswell, they make it sound like Nadal gets to play to the doubles lines and Federer only the singles.
grafselesfan
Banned
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
He sure is. Fabregas, Iniesta and Xavi make the Spanish midfield a joy to watch.
grafselesfan
Banned
I always root for Spain in international play and they usually just miss out over the years. It seemed they always went out in the quarters in a really tough match. It was just amazing seeing them finally win at the Euro Cup though! I was so excited about that. How do you think Arsenal will do this season. I always root for them, but last year was a tough one.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
I think we should do well, but I think we will fall just short again. Chelsea will win the league imo, but Arsenal could win the a cup maybe which would be nice, ending our trophey drought. As for Spain yes it was fanastic seeing them win. After years of underachievment aswell. They have a great team now with the likes of Cesc, Alonso, Silva, Iniesta and Xavi competing for places in midfield aswell as the brilliant Torres and Villa upfront. They are a treat to watch!
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Every surface is a surface regardless. THe FO is probably the 2nd most prestigious slam after Wimbledon so it's VERY important and accumulates over 1/3 of the calender so it shouldn't be an excuse. Roger beats them all these clay experts (Coria,Ferrero,Gaudio,Gonzalez, Monfils) except Rafa? Too good.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
“Sounds like an Achilles' heel, but at the same time, what (Federer) has done is unmatched," Agassi said.
"We're watching two guys in the prime of their years compete against each other - and Nadal has an answer for him. But what criteria do you use to judge best ever? Roger's numbers - it's hard to disagree with. His domination on different surfaces - hard to disagree with."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/09/content_11510927.htm
“He’s never shown us with pressure that he won’t step up,” said Agassi. “He had to deal with this one guy named Nadal whose been his Achilles’ heel, but every time it was thought he would not step to the plate again or that the achievements and the records would get the better of him, he’s always risen to the occasion.”
“Two guys playing in their prime and having an overwhelming head to head, you certainly look at it and say, that’s not ideal,” Agassi said. “It’s a matchup problem, but there’s still a lot of tennis left, especially in Nadal’s career. How do you define greatness? Everybody has a bit of an Achilles’ heel and I still find what Roger’s done to be remarkable.”
http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/06/federer-overcome-history-win-14th-slam/
"It ends the discussion of where he fits in the history of the game," the American said during a visit to Roland Garros with his wife Steffi Graf.
"If it wasn't for (four-times champion Rafael) Nadal, he probably would have won a handful of these things. So nobody would underestimate where he deserves to fit in this game. This is going to mean so much to him, to have that hole filled. It's something he's going to earn tomorrow and I think it will change his life," said Agassi.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/federer-deserves-to-be-called-the-greatest-agassi/94327-5.html
Last edited:
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Borg never played in Australia and at the USO he had some terrible luck aswell as losing to all time greats like Connors and McEnroe in the finals. Federer got lucky this year at RG, Borg was never given that luck.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
LMAO! The only thing you do is push everything on luck.:lol:
Roger played all the slams,didnt retire when Borg the man himself boldly predicted he would,stayed consistent.At the end of the day he has them all and Borg dosent.And if Borg could beat Mcenroe on so many occasions there's no reason why should'nt have done it at the USO.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
So Borg losing to Connors and Mac is bad luck, yet Fed in the same era w/ the 2nd greatest CCer of all time, if not the greatest, running into him at 4 straight FOs isn't bad luck in your mind? Double standard at its best right there.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Borg dominated the fastest and slowest surfaces at the same time, something in which Federer has never done. You can't take count major's here either because Borg won many events that were as important as the majors's back in his era.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Hey -- IMO Roger Federer easily fits into the criteria as a GOAT-contender and I admire and love the guy. What's not to like?
But is it forbidden to give Roger constructive feedback and criticism for certain aspects in Fed's formidable achievements?
I am one who never argues against the fact that Fortress never EVER won USO. Fed and Borg at USO IMO? Fed by a wide margin. But, must be added, Björn played on a faster cement than Federer does now -- and he lost 6-4 in the fifth against great Mac, while seesawing in form during the whole match and serving very badly for his usual standard, so he was so close he coould smell it. Even WITH late season sickness. Still, based on records pure and simple, Federer dominates Borg at USO by a wide margin.
What I do argue against however is when someone states that Borg NEVER, EVER COULD WIN USO given enough chnaces to do so.
Which is bullcrap pure and simple.
Borg went into the finals of 75% of all Deco Turf II USO championships he entered, while suffering from clear Rafa late season sickness -- ask Bill Norris, Gene Scott, Pancho Gonzalez, John McEnroe. All agreed, were adamant in fact, that Borg would've won USO had he not suffered from late season sickness, injuries and his early retirement basically robbing him of a further 3-4 starts at Deco Turf II USOs -- his early retirement mainly caused by his intrusive celebrity as the world's most famous person during his prime -- more well known than Reagan, Elvis, Mother Theresa, you name them.
Mohammad Ali could challenge Borg's fame though -- but on such global fame level exact figures are impossible to come by.
Finally -- Roger, IMO, could be the ultimate GOAT -- I just want him to cement that fact by bettering his Rafa H2H so his clutch looks better -- doesn't have to surpass Borg's (exact numbers aren't the be all and end all after right?) -- and polish his weaknesses a bit.
I believe he easily could achieve this -- it's up to him.
What's wrong with that. I have criticisms on Borg on some other guys too -- you can be assured of that -- but this OP was specifically about the Fed-Rafa H2H -- so, me bad, for not trying to derail the debate...
But is it forbidden to give Roger constructive feedback and criticism for certain aspects in Fed's formidable achievements?
I am one who never argues against the fact that Fortress never EVER won USO. Fed and Borg at USO IMO? Fed by a wide margin. But, must be added, Björn played on a faster cement than Federer does now -- and he lost 6-4 in the fifth against great Mac, while seesawing in form during the whole match and serving very badly for his usual standard, so he was so close he coould smell it. Even WITH late season sickness. Still, based on records pure and simple, Federer dominates Borg at USO by a wide margin.
What I do argue against however is when someone states that Borg NEVER, EVER COULD WIN USO given enough chnaces to do so.
Which is bullcrap pure and simple.
Borg went into the finals of 75% of all Deco Turf II USO championships he entered, while suffering from clear Rafa late season sickness -- ask Bill Norris, Gene Scott, Pancho Gonzalez, John McEnroe. All agreed, were adamant in fact, that Borg would've won USO had he not suffered from late season sickness, injuries and his early retirement basically robbing him of a further 3-4 starts at Deco Turf II USOs -- his early retirement mainly caused by his intrusive celebrity as the world's most famous person during his prime -- more well known than Reagan, Elvis, Mother Theresa, you name them.
Mohammad Ali could challenge Borg's fame though -- but on such global fame level exact figures are impossible to come by.
Finally -- Roger, IMO, could be the ultimate GOAT -- I just want him to cement that fact by bettering his Rafa H2H so his clutch looks better -- doesn't have to surpass Borg's (exact numbers aren't the be all and end all after right?) -- and polish his weaknesses a bit.
I believe he easily could achieve this -- it's up to him.
What's wrong with that. I have criticisms on Borg on some other guys too -- you can be assured of that -- but this OP was specifically about the Fed-Rafa H2H -- so, me bad, for not trying to derail the debate...
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
Borg had miserable luck and incredibly tough opponents at the U.S Open:
1976- lost an amazing 4 set final to Connors, a match that turned when Connors saved 2 set points in the 3rd set tiebreak.
1977- would have had an incredible shot to win since his pigeon Vilas ended up winning the title, and he had recently broken his mental strangehold against Connors by beating him on grass so would have had a great shot on green clay. However had to retire midway through his round of 16 with Dick Stockton with a shoulder injury. Really tough break.
1978 U.S Open- probably would have lost anyway that day to a charged up Connors on his home turf but had a bad blister on the thumb of his racquet hand in the final. I dont think I need to explain how tough it is to play with that, and the final was a rout.
1980 U.S Open- lost a very tough 5 setter to someone named John McEnroe in the final.
1981 U.S Open- after an outstanding performance in crushing his U.S Open nemisis Connors in the semis, lost a 4 set final to McEnroe.
Honestly I cant see how Federer could ever be above Borg. First of all I already broke down their games on another thread and how Federer would have virtually no shot vs Borg. If Rafa completely owns Federer from the backcourt overall then Borg would as well. Unlike Rafa who has a much weaker serve than Federer, Borg's serve is atleast equally as good as Federer's if not better. Borg has a much superior return of serve to Federer. Borg comes to net much more regularly and has a much better net game than Federer. Borg is far mentally tougher too. What would Federer ever do against Borg? He would have to have the day of his life with his forehand and serve both and hit 40 forehand winners that day, plus 50 aces or something like he did in the Wimbledon final (vs a much better returner than Roddick) just to even win a match. He would have virtually nothing to hurt Borg with.
Now lets break them down from their best surface to their worst of the 3 main slam surfaces. Federer's best surface could be either hard courts or grass, Borg's is obviously clay. Borg is clearly greater and more untouchable on clay than Federer on either hard courts or grass. The 2nd best surface for Borg is grass. Borg is atleast as good on grass as Federer on either grass or hard courts. Lastly Borg is definitely a better hard court player than Federer is a clay court player, despite that Borg failed to win a hard court slam in only 4 chances and Federer got a quite lucky French Open. So going from best surface to worst Borg is better everywhere too. Then breaking down just the surfaces directly, ok Federer is better on just hard courts, his best surface and Borg's worst. Big deal.
1976- lost an amazing 4 set final to Connors, a match that turned when Connors saved 2 set points in the 3rd set tiebreak.
1977- would have had an incredible shot to win since his pigeon Vilas ended up winning the title, and he had recently broken his mental strangehold against Connors by beating him on grass so would have had a great shot on green clay. However had to retire midway through his round of 16 with Dick Stockton with a shoulder injury. Really tough break.
1978 U.S Open- probably would have lost anyway that day to a charged up Connors on his home turf but had a bad blister on the thumb of his racquet hand in the final. I dont think I need to explain how tough it is to play with that, and the final was a rout.
1980 U.S Open- lost a very tough 5 setter to someone named John McEnroe in the final.
1981 U.S Open- after an outstanding performance in crushing his U.S Open nemisis Connors in the semis, lost a 4 set final to McEnroe.
Honestly I cant see how Federer could ever be above Borg. First of all I already broke down their games on another thread and how Federer would have virtually no shot vs Borg. If Rafa completely owns Federer from the backcourt overall then Borg would as well. Unlike Rafa who has a much weaker serve than Federer, Borg's serve is atleast equally as good as Federer's if not better. Borg has a much superior return of serve to Federer. Borg comes to net much more regularly and has a much better net game than Federer. Borg is far mentally tougher too. What would Federer ever do against Borg? He would have to have the day of his life with his forehand and serve both and hit 40 forehand winners that day, plus 50 aces or something like he did in the Wimbledon final (vs a much better returner than Roddick) just to even win a match. He would have virtually nothing to hurt Borg with.
Now lets break them down from their best surface to their worst of the 3 main slam surfaces. Federer's best surface could be either hard courts or grass, Borg's is obviously clay. Borg is clearly greater and more untouchable on clay than Federer on either hard courts or grass. The 2nd best surface for Borg is grass. Borg is atleast as good on grass as Federer on either grass or hard courts. Lastly Borg is definitely a better hard court player than Federer is a clay court player, despite that Borg failed to win a hard court slam in only 4 chances and Federer got a quite lucky French Open. So going from best surface to worst Borg is better everywhere too. Then breaking down just the surfaces directly, ok Federer is better on just hard courts, his best surface and Borg's worst. Big deal.
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Its not Federer's fault the sufaces are so homogenized today :wink:
And just like you boldly claim how one cannot take count of majors here its reasonable to claim that dominance is measured against the field and not against one guy who serves as a bad match-up for you naturally and its convenient to say that its one surface that dominates the H2H so again it dosent matter,especially when you're competing against a guy, well on his way to become the best clay couter ever.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
How come you don't do the same for Fed and Pete? If we say Fed's best is HC, Pete's is Grass, Fed is at least as good on Pete's favorite, Pete w/ slight edge, Pete is close on HC, Fed w/ slight edge, but on clay it's not even close. In that case Sampras shouldn't even be in the same discussion as Fed, using your method, yet you rate Pete above Fed. You're using double standards here.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Besides Roger Federer is far from over. He luckily doesn't play during the hysterical, unorthodox, Lennon-Reagan-shooting era that Borg was forced to live through with minimum security and stuff.
But Roger can surpass all very soon. Maybe in 2010 or 2011 he'll have a calendar Grand Slam -- over Rafa at RG too maybe.
Then I'll kneel. Don't worry.
But Roger can surpass all very soon. Maybe in 2010 or 2011 he'll have a calendar Grand Slam -- over Rafa at RG too maybe.
Then I'll kneel. Don't worry.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Of course not,it's perfectly okay to criticize any player,including Fed.
I agree with you in general that Fed needs to get a few big wins(slams) against Nadal to be the undisputed GOAT or whatever although for me personally that isn't of that big importance as Fed's my favourite player because of his beautiful smooth game regardless if he's GOAT or not.I like players like Nalbo and Tsonga for the same reason.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
My point wasnt to make a comparison between Borg and Roger in the first place.I admire and respect Borg though admittedly have never seen him play-Except on the DVD's and official films :lol:
The Fed-haters can go on a parody of era-arguments all they want but thats not my point.
Nor do I believe in the GOAT talk.My point is-There are dents on Borg's resume-and there's like one on Roger's.Seriously there's a difference between calling someone an all-time great and calling someone a perfect player.I'm not calling Roger perfect.But he deserves to be in the group of all-time greats after all that he's done.
As for Borg not being able to win the USO-His sickness was unfortunate.That said IMO he should've stayed in the game and kept himself motivated instead of going away and then coming back in totally different times.At the end of the day,all said and done,he dosent have the USO trophy in his collection.
Last edited:
flyinghippos101
Legend
Congratuations for proving absolutely nothing in that post besides spouting generic and obvious comments about fed's H2H that does nothing to solidify your "point"
grafselesfan
Banned
Since that is not my opinion on how Pete and Roger compare. I believe Pete is far greater on grass. He was more dominant vs a much tougher grass court field, and on true grass unlike today. I believe Sampras is slightly better on hard courts since his best was better than Roger's, and he has only 1 less hard court slam right now with much tougher competition, and lost a virtually certain U.S Open in 1999 with last minute WD. I believe Federer is better on clay but not by nearly the margin as their achievements on the surface as Sampras had far tougher clay court competition than what Roger has, and has bigger wins (eg- actual opponents he beat) at the French Open than Federer has thus far.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Absolutely brilliant post! Wonderfully argued and well-founded points.
GrafSelesfan? Would you like to marry me?
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
LOL :lol:
Fed-haters are on era-argument again.Yep,the modern game is being compared the 70s and 80s :lol:
Funny how Roger gets 'lucky' all the time :lol:
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Although IMO -- a nit-pick Grafseles-fan beauty -- the 1978 wasn't an easy win for Jimbo even if the blister didn't occur.
IMO Jimbo could've won it in five, or Borg could've won it in five or maybe four sets.
No straight-setter for any of them on the hypothetical horizon IMO.
We we're all robbed of another classic a' la USO F 1976, Wimby F 1977 and Wimby SF 1981 between these titanic giants in peak form -- because of a silly blister. Well, well. Life's not perfect. And it shouldn't be. That's boring.
But life's unfair many times...
IMO Jimbo could've won it in five, or Borg could've won it in five or maybe four sets.
No straight-setter for any of them on the hypothetical horizon IMO.
We we're all robbed of another classic a' la USO F 1976, Wimby F 1977 and Wimby SF 1981 between these titanic giants in peak form -- because of a silly blister. Well, well. Life's not perfect. And it shouldn't be. That's boring.
But life's unfair many times...
Last edited:
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
grafselesfan
Banned
Yeah it was too bad we didnt see Borg able to play without such a major drawback that day. Borg had really begun to dominate the rivalry with Connors after beginning to turn the tide of it a little over a year earlier, and played one of his finest matches to date to crush Connors at Wimbledon. However Connors is a very proud champion and was obviously smarting and no doubt had done alot of hard work after Wimbledon, and was more determined than ever on his turf and his surface to get revenge. It made for a mouth watering potential match. Had Borg been able to play without such a major hinderance it might have been another of their amazing classics.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
I can see that-I just want one good reason for why exactly you are debating over two eras that hardly have anything in common.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Thanks -- great so see you Zagor -- been a while I've seen you -- probably my fault -- AND I agree with you all on all points here...
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
When Roger Federer won Wimby in 2003 I was beaming. I said to everyone -- FINALLY after watching tennis for 40 years straight -- here's the real deal -- such an elegant, stylish and deadly player.
A champion in a tuxedo was my nickname for EL RELOJ SUIZO -- a genius, brilliant player who's got it all and the potential for everything.
But for a GOAT-contender, despite all his unmatched prowess -- must dominate OR AT LEAST be very, very close to his main rival in H2Hs during his prime -- and Roger is, arguably, in his prime still.
In short, no one should dominate a GOAT-contender during his era to such a marked degree when he is at his best. It will never be forgotten otherwise. I know Federer can beat Rafa at RG. I know it. I want Roger to BELIEVE IT TOO -- with a madman's conviction -- and then IMO he will make it. Do it.
QED the GOAT-debate maybe.
That said -- it's VERY true that all GOAT-contenders have blemishes on their records. How big these blemishes should be regarded is up for debate.
Should Federer fix this H2H-deal, which is probable (JUST HOLD FAST ROG, NEVER EVER BUCKLE), then he will be, at least very arguably, head and shoulders above the others...
Would I like to witness this!?
Heck yeah!
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
I fully agree with those of you who saw Roger has to improve his head to head with Rafa to move into more serious GOAT consideration of any sort. No GOAT is owned by their nearest contemporary rival. Even his head to head with Murray needs to be improved given that Murray is looking like potentialy one of the top few players of the next several years.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
That said this is a very good and worthy debate. Please don't sink to name-calling just because we have differing views on certain things.
Cesc, Grafseles, JamesBlakefan, Zagor and Mandy and others ALL MAKE VERY GOOD POINTS and create a fine debate.
What more could one ask?
Cesc, Grafseles, JamesBlakefan, Zagor and Mandy and others ALL MAKE VERY GOOD POINTS and create a fine debate.
What more could one ask?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Heh,well you mostly post in former pro section and I post in general and match results so we miss each other.However while I don't post in former pro section much at all I do lurk quite a lot there as I like to read about tennis history(beyond 90s and 2000s which I witnessed).
This is off topic but I really enjoyed your Borg-Nastase Wimbledon final youtube clips,I do not use youtube for tennis much as videos there are mostly crappy quality there however your clips were of amazing quality.They were a joy to watch,thanks for taking the effort to post them there.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Zagor -- really thanks man!
abmk
Bionic Poster
umm, no, since borg is not a leftie, he won't find fed's BH with as much regularity as nadal as , fed can keep up on the baseline with borg on HC/grass
umm no, borg's serve is inferior to fed's although they're both pretty much very clutch; lets not forget that rafa is a lefty server and borg a right-hander
no, he most definitely does not , fed's returning>borg's returning
conditions favoured it that time
definitely not
uh, his serve+ FH+movement
borg >> fed on clay
fed > borg everywhere else
Last edited:
Murray's barely in Fed's era.
grafselesfan
Banned
Valid point but I still dont feel the removal of the lefty factor is enough to prevent the great Borg from dominating Federer from the backcourt. Keep in mind Murray, Djokovic, Nalbandian, all have the clear edge over Federer from the backcourt. Even Roddick and Davydenko usually outplay Federer overall from the backcourt, it is only Roddick's horrible return which means Federer gets many more free points on serve than Roddick does, and Davydenko's much weaker serve and nerve, that allows Federer to dominate and win almost every match.
Federer's serve is overrated. Federer's serve is not better than Borg's. Borg's is atleast as good. Borg has a much superior serve to Nadal so Federer would not enjoy the service edge he has vs Nadal.
Federer just blocks and chips almost all returns back, and often even drops them short or in the middle of the court. Borg actually drives them with great location. That is why Borg's return of serve is better.
True but do you really believe this is the only reason Borg came in more?
Watch Borg at the net. He almost never misses an easy volley, unlike Fed, and he has better reflexes, mechanics, and feel up there.
Nadal is able to completely neutralize Federer's forehand and still dominate Federer from the backcourt. Borg would also. He is simply much too consistent, solid, and strong off both wings, too quick and great on defense, and too crafty and good at constructing points and moving the ball around, for Federer to hang with him from the backcourt.
Borg is superior on grass based on his superior combined serving/returning ability, his superior athleticism and mobility on grass, his superior net game and volleying, and even his superior overall ground and passing game. Borg is also clearly a superior player on carpet, or indoors. Only on outdoor hard courts is Federer better, though Borg never came close to fullfilling his true potential on hard courts.
REally? Sampras & FO, Borg & USO--- are these less "awful" than Fed's h2h with Nadal? Wait, don't answer me, I know you think it indeed is. LOL
Oh, btw, here is what FedFan1234 had to say in a different thread:
If that's true, then you don't have much of an argument w.r.t Fed Vs. Nadal.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Abmk -- here's all my responses to you in visual proof of everything Grafseles says above, strengthening all points.
Remember this is old, hard-baked, fast grass with wooden teaspoons for sweetspots -- i. e. the fastest surface of the age -- waaaay faster than todays USO or particularly todays Wimby PLUS that on this old, superfast grass the ball skidded much more (had bad bounces) and after the bounce the ball flew very low -- all going against ALL BORG'S NATURAL STRENGTHS. Borh had to bend his knees enourmously to expound the excessive pace and spin on the ball to force the play.
On todays USO with waist-high bounces WHICH BORG LOVED and much slower cement and racquets playing right into his strengths, well --
-- enjoy and read 'em and weep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugw-pjROUQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU0SG-ZkUA4&NR=1
Remember this is old, hard-baked, fast grass with wooden teaspoons for sweetspots -- i. e. the fastest surface of the age -- waaaay faster than todays USO or particularly todays Wimby PLUS that on this old, superfast grass the ball skidded much more (had bad bounces) and after the bounce the ball flew very low -- all going against ALL BORG'S NATURAL STRENGTHS. Borh had to bend his knees enourmously to expound the excessive pace and spin on the ball to force the play.
On todays USO with waist-high bounces WHICH BORG LOVED and much slower cement and racquets playing right into his strengths, well --
-- enjoy and read 'em and weep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugw-pjROUQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU0SG-ZkUA4&NR=1
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Fedrulz -- you're right -- I should've prased that differently.
I agree with you -- I stand corrected; ALL GOAT-CONTENDERS HAVE BLOTCHES ON THEIR RECORDS.
But very few, if any, as such bad H2H against their main rival in their prime/peak as Federer, who'm I love.
Name another era-dominating GOAT-contender who has such a one-sided and negative H2H against their fiercest rival throughout tennis history -- regardless of surface-conditions...?
I agree with you -- I stand corrected; ALL GOAT-CONTENDERS HAVE BLOTCHES ON THEIR RECORDS.
But very few, if any, as such bad H2H against their main rival in their prime/peak as Federer, who'm I love.
Name another era-dominating GOAT-contender who has such a one-sided and negative H2H against their fiercest rival throughout tennis history -- regardless of surface-conditions...?
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Won't go into comparing Fed and Borg but bolded is simply not true,I know you don't like Fed but try to be atleast a bit objective.
I can give you Murray maybe,although even then Fed just beat him 6-2 in Cincy serving 36%.On top of that don't forget that Murray has a bigger first serve than Fed and also has the best return of serve on tour(better than Fed's which declined compared to his best years).Also Fed and Murray have yet to meet on clay and grass to see who has the upper edge on those surfaces from the baseline.
Djokovic has a great serve,both first and second and his return of serve is at the very least comparable to Fed's so for Fed to be 8-4 against him and 3-1 in slams he almost has to win the baseline war.
Davydenko outplayed Fed from the baseline a few times but again the majority of times Fed outplays him from every part of the court.Also Kolja has been among the top returners of serve for years so he can atleast partially soften up the edge Fed has over him in the serve department with his return of serve.
Nalbandian hasn't been beating Fed with any regularity since 2003.Also Nalbo always had one of the best return of serves on tour which again as in Davydenko's case softens up the edge Fed has over them with his serve.Also don't forget the fact that Fed leads their encounters on clay,I really don't think I need to mention the fact that the impact the serve has on the match is diminished on that surface and who is better from the baseline most often decides the match.
As for Roddick,if you don't think that in the vast majority of their meetings Fed outplayed him from the backcourt,I don't know what to say really.Despite what people here say I consider Roddick's serve to be clearly better than Fed's and despite the fact that Fed has a better return of serve than Roddick,Roddick does get his fair share of free points of his serve,even against Fed.For Fed to have such a H2H against Roddick,he has to have outplayed him off the ground the vast majority of times.
I mean for Christ sake,saying that Roddick usually outplays Fed from the baseline,amazing stuff.Heck even Roddick fans would disagree with you.
None. But... name another GOAT contender with as many slams as Fed AND with such dominance during prime years AND with 5 consecutive wins in 2 different slams AND with a career slam etc.
Fed isn't perfect, but nobody else is either. Compared with his other achievements, his Nadal H2H ain't that important. It's flawed for a few reasons anyway. Sure, it's a bit of a blotch, but I don't think it prevents Fed being GOAT.
I don't see why for somebody to be a GOAT contender he must have a positive H2H with his fiercest rival. I mean, that's a very arbitary way of picking GOAT contenders isn't it? How about this? For somebody to be a GOAT contender, he has to have won slams on all surfaces. That puts Sampras out of the picture, how ridiculous is that?
Seriously, every GOAT contender has their unique blotch on their record. Stop penalising Fed so much just because he's the one who's achieving the most right now and hence the one for people to criticise.
the surface might be faster but after the serve the ball isn't moving anywhere near as quickly. this is one of many reasons that it's difficult and pointless comparing eras in order to determine how players rank in relation to each other.
Last edited:
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Fair enough -- we all have our opinions AND THEY ALL MATTER AS MUCH...
Federer is just incomparable. When he finally retires -- which I hope will be far into the future -- I will shed a tear and miss him terribly.
To each his own...
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
And take it easy guys, please
We have no exact proof. This is a debate. A rewarding one I hope.
And you who believe Roger Federer is the GOAT could very well be absolutely correct...
We have no exact proof. This is a debate. A rewarding one I hope.
And you who believe Roger Federer is the GOAT could very well be absolutely correct...
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
My issues with Federer who is together with Nadal, by far, my favorite players who I always follow (and cheer for but don't tell anyone, okey?) are nit-pickings. Not Titanic-sinking catastrophies.
But as Federer-fans could be stone-cold correct in their opinions -- so could also Cesc, Grafseles, Zagor and all others here on these boards...
But as Federer-fans could be stone-cold correct in their opinions -- so could also Cesc, Grafseles, Zagor and all others here on these boards...
Similar threads
