Ranking Federer at the French Open? (Open Era)

[The_18th_Slam]

OK in that case I would agree Federer is definitely above Muster even in Masters.

In terms of ATP points:

4 FO runners-up = 4800
1 Semifinal = 720
3 Quarterfinals = 1080
9 Masters runners-up = 5400

That's a total of 12000 points.

Outside of Slams and Masters:
Federer has 4 claycourt titles
Muster has 33 claycourt titles

That's a differential of 29 claycourt titles. Muster has only 4 500 titles. If they are all on clay, that leaves 25 250 titles. So:

Total points = (4x500 + 25x250) = (2000 + 6250) = 8250

12000 > 8250.

I think, even being lenient to Muster and not considering the level of tournaments, Federer comes out ahead.

 

[mattosgrant]

Well I would never determine by points. By points 2 slam runner ups is better than 1 win and 2 Masters equals 1 slam which would be crazy of course.

 

[ktid]

i put top 5 but thinking about it now i would say 6th behind the obvious nadal, borg, lendl, wilander and kuerten

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Well I would never determine by points. By points 2 slam runner ups is better than 1 win and 2 Masters equals 1 slam which would be crazy of course.

You missed my point. In both the cases you mentioned, you have points from smaller tournaments adding up to become larger than the points from bigger tournaments. In this case, Muster has the smaller tournaments. And even then, he falls short of Federer. So, if anything, this kind of comparison favors Muster, but he's still short of Federer.

 

[helterskelter]

The question is being defined in two different ways:

1) who is better on clay?
2) who has a better record at Roland Garros?

The two aren't the same question. This would be harmless enough in itself if it weren't that the reasoning being used is allowed to slide between the two.

For example, although the "competition" argument is circular, it *might* have some relevance if the question were question 1. But it has no relevance whatsoever if it is question 2. A record is a record is a record. Thus, even if it were true that Kuerten's opponents were easier than Federer's (they weren't, they were harder, as the era was much, much deeper), it still would be irrelevant to an answer to question 2. The only thing that might be said there is that Federer has more finals and semi-finals than Kuerten. On the other hand, for question 1, the number of finals and semi-finals isn't of any more than passing relevance compared to the two extra titles.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Outside the top 5 for me but only just. Not sure how anyone can place Federer above players who have won it 3 or more times, of which there are 5 of them. This would be my order:

Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Wilander
Keurten
Federer
Courier
Bruguera

 

[Bukmeikara]

I doubt that even Federer would put himself above Guga on clay. Their RG meeting is like extra final in Kuertens resume. One time you can get lucky, two times proves that you are really good but three times makes you great.

 

[BGod]

If he had won those 5 times, the other guy would have 4 titles. See how that works?

No, it doesn't work that way. Federer on 5 occasions was unable to beat the GOAT at the tournament. It's not like I'm giving Federer 5 titles but of those 5 occasions it is difficult to argue he wouldn't have won the whole tournament at least twice and that's being conservative. On top of this there's Wawrinka but I'll concede Federer isn't beating Djokovic on clay these days.

Out of 6 years in his prime, Federer was stone-walled like Roddick. It's quite simply.

Now if Kuerten showed more consistency I'd undoubtedly put him above Federer, but he, like Wilander and Lendl just didn't produce as much over the long haul.

Federer at the French is 65-16, or 80.25%
Kuerten at the French is 36-8, or 81.81%

The win percentage is nice but when you play 37 less matches, that 1.56% advantage doesn't add up as nicely. His victory against Roger was 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Watch the match and then acknowledge Federer was not yet 23, not yet in his prime and that it was a pretty close match.

In 2000, Kuerten beat Magnus Norman in 4 in the Final.
Needed 5 sets to beat Ferrero (19 years old).
Needed 5 sets to beat Kafelnikov.

He was down 1-2 in both those matches and while the comebacks were nice, it showed where he stood. He was not a dominant French Open Champion except for one run.

 

[tennis_pro]

I don't care who he faced or who he beat. He played in a field full of the best players in the world and he won the French Open thrice. That puts him above any 1-time champion almost by default.

Is Gaudio a better player than Djokovic at the FO?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

No, it doesn't work that way. Federer on 5 occasions was unable to beat the GOAT at the tournament.

Nadal wouldn't be the GOAT at that tournament if Federer beat him 5 times. So which is it? Did Federer lose because Nadal is the GOAT, or did Nadal become the GOAT because Federer failed to beat him?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Is Gaudio a better player than Djokovic at the FO?

No, because I value 3 runners-up equal to 1 title.

 

[BGod]

Nadal wouldn't be the GOAT at that tournament if Federer beat him 5 times. So which is it? Did Federer lose because Nadal is the GOAT, or did Nadal become the GOAT because Federer failed to beat him?

Why are you even asking this? It's obviously that Federer lost because Nadal is the GOAT and essentially unbeatable in his prime except for Robin Soderling when many believe Nadal was hampered by injury via him missing Wimbledon that year. Basically nobody except Robin Soderling beat Nadal for 10 years.

No, because I value 3 runners-up over 1 title.

Okay, so:

3>1 Titles
5>3 Finals
7>3 Semifinals
11>5 Quarters

Or am I missing something?

 

[tennis_pro]

No, because I value 3 runners-up over 1 title.

So you can't say that Kuerten "almost beats Federer by default" because he has 3 titles compared to Federer's 1. Federer basically tops him everywhere other than the number of titles which is really only due to the fact that he faced Nadal 4 times in finals instead of Norman, Corretja and Bruguera on his last legs.

Do you honestly think....and can say it with a straight face that if Kuerten faced Nadal 3 times in those finals he'd have 3 titles? And if Federer faced Norman, Corretja or Bruguera on his last lags in 3 of his 5 finals he wouldn't've won at least 1 more title?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

So you can't say that Kuerten "almost beats Federer by default" because he has 3 titles compared to Federer's 1.

Yes, I can. I said almost by default, because there is no instance where a player with 2 fewer Slams has 5 more Slam runners-up.

Federer basically tops him everywhere other than the number of titles which is really only due to the fact that he faced Nadal 4 times in finals instead of Norman, Corretja and Bruguera on his last legs.

Competition is a circular argument, and I won't get into it. Both of them played against all the best players in the world. And Kuerten achieved more. No excuses.

Do you honestly think....and can say it with a straight face that if Kuerten faced Nadal 3 times in those finals he'd have 3 titles? And if Federer faced Norman, Corretja or Bruguera on his last lags in 3 of his 5 finals he wouldn't've won at least 1 more title?

I don't know what would have happened. I go by facts.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Why are you even asking this? It's obviously that Federer lost because Nadal is the GOAT and essentially unbeatable in his prime except for Robin Soderling when many believe Nadal was hampered by injury via him missing Wimbledon that year. Basically nobody except Robin Soderling beat Nadal for 10 years.

I'm asking this for the same reason you're thinking up hypotheticals about Federer playing in a different era and what-not. If this doesn't matter, neither does that. I go by facts, and Kuerten achieved more. They both played against the best players of their time, so "competition" is a circular argument.

Okay, so:

3>1 Titles
5>3 Finals
7>3 Semifinals
11>5 Quarters

Or am I missing something?

2 titles beat 4 runners-up.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes, I can. I said almost by default, because there is no instance where a player with 2 fewer Slams has 5 more Slam runners-up.

Competition is a circular argument, and I won't get into it. Both of them played against all the best players in the world. And Kuerten achieved more. No excuses.

I don't know what would have happened. I go by facts.

Ok, let me ask you this. Knowing now that Nadal is "worth" 9 FO's, Borg is worth 6 and Djokovic (currently) 0, what if Borg and Nadal competed in the same era, traded FO's, let's say Borg wins 4 and Nadal 5 while Djokovic has no real rivals and racks up 8 FO titles would you consider him a better FO player than Borg or Nadal?

I mean you can't just go solely by titles, other factors have to be taken into consideration as well. Djokovic and Federer are fantastic clay court players, one of the best ever easily and how many FO titles do they have combined? 1. Because of Nadal.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Ok, let me ask you this. Knowing now that Nadal is "worth" 9 FO's, Borg is worth 6 and Djokovic (currently) 0, what if Borg and Nadal competed in the same era, traded FO's, let's say Borg wins 4 and Nadal 5 while Djokovic has no real rivals and racks up 8 FO titles would you consider him a better FO player than Borg or Nadal?

This is again a hypothetical. How do you know Borg would win 4, Nadal would win 5, and Djokovic would win 8? I don't know if that's how it would have happened, so I won't comment on it.

 

[tennis_pro]

This is again a hypothetical. How do you know Borg would win 4, Nadal would win 5, and Djokovic would win 8? I don't know if that's how it would have happened, so I won't comment on it.

My point is, you have to look at the competition as well. Not all FO's are worth the same. Beating Norman in a final isn't nearly as big of a feat as beating Djokovic, Nadal or Federer f.e.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

My point is, you have to look at the competition as well. Not all FO's are worth the same. Beating Norman in a final isn't nearly as big of a feat as beating Djokovic, Nadal or Federer f.e.

Nadal fans will argue beating Federer and Djokovic in Slam finals is tougher than beating Roddick and Hewitt in Slam finals. So does that mean Nadal > Federer?

When you tell someone to look at the competition, you're getting into circular reasoning. You could argue anything. I could argue Roddick > Sampras because Roddick faced Federer while Sampras faced Agassi, and Federer > Agassi. It's completely meaningless and the worst kind of reasoning you can come up with.

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal fans will argue beating Federer and Djokovic in Slam finals is tougher than beating Roddick and Hewitt in Slam finals. So does that mean Nadal > Federer?

When you tell someone to look at the competition, you're getting into circular reasoning. You could argue anything. I could argue Roddick > Sampras because Roddick faced Federer while Sampras faced Agassi, and Federer > Agassi. It's completely meaningless and the worst kind of reasoning you can come up with.

There is quite a difference between Roddick who is a Slam champion, a former world no 1, multiple multiple Slam finalist, Hewitt - a 2 Slam champion, 2 WTF champion, also former no 1, both won 30 something titles in their careers AND Norman who has reached 1 Slam final, won 1 Masters title and is basically a journeyman outside of the first half of the 2000 ATP season.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

There is quite a difference between Roddick who is a Slam champion, a former world no 1, multiple multiple Slam finalist, Hewitt - a 2 Slam champion, 2 WTF champion, also former no 1, both won 30 something titles in their careers AND Norman who has reached 1 Slam final, won 1 Masters title and is basically a journeyman outside of the first half of the 2000 ATP season.

By the same reasoning, there is also a difference between 1/2-time champions Roddick/Hewitt and 14/17-time champions Nadal/Federer. Does that mean Djokovic > Federer?

 

[tennis_pro]

By the same reasoning, there is also a difference between 1/2-time champions Roddick/Hewitt and 14/17-time champions Nadal/Federer. Does that mean Djokovic > Federer?

This IS a tough era with 3 all-time greats, maybe even the best 3 players in the Open era competing against each other so obviously they've all taken away titles from each other. You can't say the same about the late 90's/early 00's which had lots of good players but nobody who stood out.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

This IS a tough era with 3 all-time greats, maybe even the best 3 players in the Open era competing against each other so obviously they've all taken away titles from each other. You can't say the same about the late 90's/early 00's which had lots of good players but nobody who stood out.

That doesn't answer my question. Federer beat Nadal/Djokovic in only 3 Slam finals. Nadal beat Federer/Djokovic in 10 Slam finals. Does that mean Nadal>Federer?

 

[tennis_pro]

That doesn't answer my question. Federer beat Nadal/Djokovic in only 3 Slam finals. Nadal beat Federer/Djokovic in 10 Slam finals. Does that mean Nadal>Federer?

Of course, you can look at it this way. My point still stands that beating one of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in a Slam final is way harder than beating Norman in a Slam final as evidenced by Norman's results elsewhere.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Of course, you can look at it this way.

Do you look at it that way? Is Nadal > Federer?

 

[tennis_pro]

Do you look at it that way? Is Nadal > Federer?

I don't because unlike you I also look at other factors like age, surfaces etc.

Listen, you can use your "stats" as much as you like and spin them around to fit your argument but anyone with half a brain knows that beating Norman in a Slam final isn't that big of a deal when you're an all-time great.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I don't because unlike you I also look at other factors like age, surfaces etc.

So you use "competition" as an argument only when it favors Federer.

Listen, you can use your "stats" as much as you like and spin them around to fit your argument but anyone with half a brain knows that beating Norman in a Slam final isn't that big of a deal when you're an all-time great.

Hey, I might not have half a brain but at least I'm consistent. Thanks for the insult, though.

 

[tennis_pro]

So you use "competition" as an argument only when it favors Federer.

Since when does beating a particular player in a final turn into a "who's better - Federer or Nadal?" battle? What does 1 have to do with the other?

The difference between you and me is that you take your stats from wikipedia and stick with them. I watch the matches.

Hey, I might not have half a brain but at least I'm consistent. Thanks for the insult, though.

Yes, very consistent in replying to me using dry stats that often have nothing to do with reality. Tell you what, you keep reading wikipedia and I'll keep watching the actual matches.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Since when does beating a particular player in a final turn into a "who's better - Federer or Nadal?" battle? What does 1 have to do with the other?

Because Federer beat Nadal/Djokovic in 3 of his Slam finals, and Nadal beat Federer/Djokovic in 10 of his Slam finals. Do you have comprehension issues?

The difference between you and me is that you take your stats from wikipedia and stick with them. I watch the matches.

No, the difference is that I base my opinions on facts, and you on your hard-on for Federer.

Yes, very consistent in replying to me using dry stats that often have nothing to do with reality. Tell you what, you keep reading wikipedia and I'll keep watching the actual matches.

I've watched 4 matches today. Look up my posts on the Pro Match results board. You probably took a day off because Federer wasn't playing.

 

[tennis_pro]

Because Federer beat Nadal/Djokovic in 3 of his Slam finals, and Nadal beat Federer/Djokovic in 10 of his Slam finals. Do you have comprehension issues?

The discussion was about how impressive it was for Kuerten to beat Norman in a Slam final compared to other all-time greats, then you turned it into a "who's better - Federer, Nadal or Djokovic?" discussion and asked me if I had comprehension issues. You're just too much, bro.

No, the difference is that I base my opinions on facts, and you on your hard-on for Federer.

Here are some facts you can chew on, then - Kuerten beat a journeyman who did almost nothing outside of the first half of the 2000 season while Nadal beat a 17-time Slam champion in his finals. Equally impressive from a statistical point of view, right? If so, keep with the stats, then.

I've watched 4 matches today. Look up my posts on the Pro Match results board. You probably took a day off because Federer wasn't playing.

I saw a little bit of everything, including a big part of Kyrgios-Raonic as much as my pauses from work allowed me to. Unfortunately, I'm not a teen like you who gets his bills paid by his parents, that's why I can't afford to watch 4 matches a day in the working days.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

The discussion was about how impressive it was for Kuerten to beat Norman in a Slam final compared to other all-time greats, then you turned it into a "who's better - Federer, Nadal or Djokovic?" discussion and asked me if I had comprehension issues. You're just too much, bro.

If you're gonna argue Federer > Kuerten on clay because Nadal > Norman, by the same reasoning Nadal > Federer because Djokovic > Roddick. You can't have it both ways.

Here are some facts you can chew on, then - Kuerten beat a journeyman who did almost nothing outside of the first half of the 2000 season while Nadal beat a 17-time Slam champion in his finals. Equally impressive from a statistical point of view, right? If so, keep with the stats, then.

Federer is not a 17-time champion on clay. He's a 1-time champion.

Kuerten beat Federer, Ferrero, Chang, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Coria, and Corretja at the French Open. Who did Federer beat?

I saw a little bit of everything, including a big part of Kyrgios-Raonic as much as my pauses from work allowed me to. Unfortunately, I'm not a teen like you who gets his bills paid by his parents, that's why I can't afford to watch 4 matches a day in the working days.

1. So I do watch more Tennis than you do
2. It's long weekend, dear boy. But keep being bitter

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer has the 2nd most match wins(behind Nadal) at the French Open.

Roger Federer 65
Guillermo Vilas 56
Ivan Lendl 53
Andre Agassi 51
Bjorn Borg 49
Mats Wilander 47

Djokovic is on 48 match wins there.

 

[gcollins]

Ranking him 3rd is utterly laughable. 1 title with a bunch of final losses is not better than 3 titles and some other final and semi losses for others. Plus we see by Kuerten vs Federer at the 04 FO when Kuerten was well past his prime that people like that are simply better clay courters.

At just RG (not clay overall where he would be lower) he would clearly be behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten at the very least. So outside the top 5 for sure. I would put him behind Bruguera and Courier too for the simple fact they defended a RG title, not just won a 2nd time but defended it.

I chose to put him in the top 5, because I agree that titles DO mean something, but in this case Roger got SCREWED. He happened to play in the same era as the person I consider the undoubtedly best clay court player EVER. ALL Roger's late round losses are to prime Nadal, the guy who BEAT prime Nadal, or Djokovic once Fed was in decline. Oh yea, and there was that time this year he lost to the eventual champion.

Even IF Roger only takes 2 of those finals... (realistically he takes 3 because he pretty much owns whoever he plays in Finals if they're not Nadal.) We're looking at 3 titles, a final from 2005, two finals from whenever he loses 2 of his 4 finals... plus a semi against Djo, which likely becomes a final because they'd be on opposite draw sides.

Conservatively, 3 titles, 4 finals, and a bunch of deep results to back him up.

And, like OP said, this applies to Nadal on grass (and Roddick, too.) Either of Federer/Nadal without the other, automatically becomes the greatest player to ever live, in my opinion.

 

[tennis_pro]

If you're gonna argue Federer > Kuerten on clay because Nadal > Norman, by the same reasoning Nadal > Federer because Djokovic > Roddick. You can't have it both ways.

The funny part is that Roddick leads Djokovic in the h2h, lawl.

Federer is not a 17-time champion on clay. He's a 1-time champion.

Doesn't change the fact that Norman isn't a Slam champion nor is a calibre of a player remotely close to Federer or anyone mentioned in the discussion earlier, including Roddick.

Kuerten beat Federer, Ferrero, Chang, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Coria, and Corretja at the French Open. Who did Federer beat?

I know where this is heading. You've pointed out only FO champions (and finalists). Explain this to me - how can there be multiple FO champions in one era if one guy wins almost every edition?

Anyway, Federer also had some impressive wins at the FO including Djokovic in 2011 who was virtually unbeatable at the time, Del Potro a few times, Moya, Davydenko a few times, Soderling, Wawrinka a few times.

1. So I do watch more Tennis than you do
2. It's long weekend, dear boy. But keep being bitter

Good job assuming everyone is from the USA and that your free days apply to the rest of the world. We don't care about your independence day, bro. Anyway, the only match I could watch freely today in my spare time was Isner-Cilic, what a treat.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

The funny part is that Roddick leads Djokovic in the h2h, lawl.

And Kuerten leads Federer, and Corretja leads Federer, and Bruguera leads Federer, and Medvedev leads Federer. H2H is a completely useless statistic in terms of career achievements.

Doesn't change the fact that Norman isn't a Slam champion nor is a calibre of a player remotely close to Federer or anyone mentioned in the discussion earlier, including Roddick.

Just like Roddick and Hewitt aren't of the same caliber as Federer or even Djokovic for that matter.

I know where this is heading. You've pointed out only FO champions (and finalists). Explain this to me - how can there be multiple FO champions in one era if one guy wins almost every edition?

How can there be one dominant champion like Nadal when there were so many Slam-caliber claycourters during Kuerten's time? Circular reasoning. I can do it too

Good job assuming everyone is from the USA and that your free days apply to the rest of the world. We don't care about your independence day, bro. Anyway, the only match I could watch freely today in my spare time was Isner-Cilic, what a treat.

I didn't make that assumption. You have reading issues

 

[tennis_pro]

And Kuerten leads Federer, and Corretja leads Federer, and Bruguera leads Federer, and Medvedev leads Federer. H2H is a completely useless statistic in terms of career achievements.

How old was Federer at the time of the losses, again?

How can there be one dominant champion like Nadal when there were so many Slam-caliber claycourters during Kuerten's time? Circular reasoning. I can do it too

This is where brain and logic come in play. They were all scooping single FO champions per 1 player cause there wasn't a dominant force at the time. There was no daddy who showed them how much they still needed to learn. Nadal wouldn't have any more issues winning 9 FO titles in the 90's compared to now just looking at 1 single stat - up until this year he was, what, 11-0 against Federer and Djokovic combined at the FO?

I didn't make that assumption. You have reading issues

You said it's a long weekend. Quit being a smart**s, obviously you thought the long weekend also applied to me. Well I told you that the whole world doesn't spin around the USA and that there are in fact people who live outside of your country. Can you imagine?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

How old was Federer at the time of the losses, again?

He was in his prime when Kuerten schooled him at the French Open.

This is where brain and logic come in play. They were all scooping single FO champions per 1 player cause there wasn't a dominant force at the time. There was no daddy who showed them how much they still needed to learn. Nadal wouldn't have any more issues winning 9 FO titles in the 90's compared to now just looking at 1 single stat - up until this year he was, what, 11-0 against Federer and Djokovic combined at the FO?

Empty conjecture. You don't know how Nadal would have done in the '90s. Nobody does. So stop pretending to.

You said it's a long weekend. Quit being a smart**s, obviously you thought the long weekend also applied to me.

I said it was a long weekend for me. And I asked you to stop being bitter toward people who could sit at home and watch some Tennis. Reading issues

Well I told you that the whole world doesn't spin around the USA and that there are in fact people who live outside of your country. Can you imagine?

I can, and I have. You still need to work on your reading comprehension, though

 

[tennis_pro]

He was in his prime when Kuerten schooled him at the French Open.

One match, inconclusive, just as I never mention the 2001 4th round between Federer and Sampras when discussing who's better on grass.

Empty conjecture. You don't know how Nadal would have done in the '90s. Nobody does. So stop pretending to.

Suit yourself. Some people just need stats to back everything they say. I, on the other hand, am certain the guy would've owned whichever clay era he'd play in.

I said it was a long weekend for me. And I asked you to stop being bitter toward people who could sit at home and watch some Tennis. Reading issues
I can, and I have. You still need to work on your reading comprehension, though

Your direct quote: "It's long weekend, dear boy."

I must've missed the "for me" part somewhere, then. Oh the irony.

Anyway, I'm bored with this endless conversation that's going nowhere. I'm done with you.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

One match, inconclusive, just as I never mention the 2001 4th round between Federer and Sampras when discussing who's better on grass.

I don't care, man. I've already said I don't care for H2Hs.

Suit yourself. Some people just need stats to back everything they say. I, on the other hand, am certain the guy would've owned whichever clay era he'd play in.

Yes, because you're a seer

Your direct quote: "It's long weekend, dear boy."

I must've missed the "for me" part somewhere, then.

I don't see a "for you" there, either.

Anyway, I'm bored with this endless conversation that's going nowhere. I'm done with you.

Right

 

[BGod]

2 titles beat 4 runners-up.

I agree with this, BUT, I don't think the margins are too vast, so we look at:

2 Semifinals against 0
4 Quarters against 2

The two additional semifinals to me balance things out and I won't put too much stock into the quarters but basically I think their achievements are on par.

That's when I consider the competition.

It's not as if I'm looking at one guy who has 3 Slams and another who has 1 and saying " well the guy with 1 Slam faced better players so the fact he has 2 less Slams doesn't matter, MEH! ".

It's the fact Roger's consistency FAR outweighs Kuerten and THEN when you consider Roger's competition you may lean towards him, which I do.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I agree with this, BUT, I don't think the margins are too vast, so we look at:

2 Semifinals against 0
4 Quarters against 2

The two additional semifinals to me balance things out and I won't put too much stock into the quarters but basically I think their achievements are on par.

That's when I consider the competition.

It's not as if I'm looking at one guy who has 3 Slams and another who has 1 and saying " well the guy with 1 Slam faced better players so the fact he has 2 less Slams doesn't matter, MEH! ".

It's the fact Roger's consistency FAR outweighs Kuerten and THEN when you consider Roger's competition you may lean towards him, which I do.

For me, competition is a complete non-argument. The achievements at a specific tournament in any era is a sum zero. You can't say one era is tougher by specifically pointing out to one or two players to suit your argument.

 

[BGod]

For me, competition is a complete non-argument. The achievements at a specific tournament in any era is a sum zero. You can't say one era is tougher by specifically pointing out to one or two players to suit your argument.

If you have two guys who both won 3 Grand Slams. Are you then not going to evaluate their runs side by side? Or are you just calling it a draw and moving on?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

If you have two guys who both won 3 Grand Slams. Are you then not going to evaluate their runs side by side? Or are you just calling it a draw and moving on?

There are other achievements besides titles, like runners-up, semifinals, quarterfinals, 4Rs, 3Rs, 2Rs, etc. I've yet to see two players being equally matched all along.

 

[GabeT]

Well I would never determine by points. By points 2 slam runner ups is better than 1 win and 2 Masters equals 1 slam which would be crazy of course.

Are you trying to measure skills or prestige?

 

[90's Clay]

I love the Fed fanatic logic.

"But but but... Fed played in an era with the greatest clay court player ever, so that automatically makes him an open era clay court elite".

Yet don't you dare question his crapola 2003-2007 competition. (WIth Pre Puberty post grade school Nadal, mid 30s Sampras era holdover Agassi, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Slam Clown Nalbandian, Missing in action his entire career Safin etc. Which no doubt enabled Federer to inflate the living crap out of his resume resulting in 3 easy slams a year with barely being tested until a prime Nadal/Nole came along.


Soo... Fed gets the benefit of the doubt because he played in the same clay era with Nadal... But don't you dare question his QUESTIONABLE Serena-like competition from 03-07. ROFLMAO!!!

Double standards much? Hypocritical much????


If you're gonna to give him the benefit of the doubt and inflate his clay resume due to playing in the same era as Nadal, then you have to take deflate some of the rest of his resume due to very QUESTIONABLE Serena-like competition at the time for a good 5 year period there.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I love the Fed fanatic logic.

"But but but... Fed played in an era with the greatest clay court player ever, so that automatically makes him an open era clay court elite".

Yet they don't apply this SAME LOGIC to when you question his crapola 2003-2007 competition. (WIth Pre Puberty post grade school Nadal, mid 30s Sampras era holdover Agassi, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Slam Clown Nalbandian, Missing in action his entire career Safin etc.

And I love your logic:

Muster >>>> Federer because of his claycourt winning streak and dominance

But Federer is not > Sampras on grass despite his 65-match winning streak and 8 Halle titles

 

[BGod]

Yet don't you dare question his crapola 2003-2007 competition. (WIth Pre Puberty post grade school Nadal, mid 30s Sampras era holdover Agassi, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Slam Clown Nalbandian, Missing in action his entire career Safin etc. Which no doubt enabled Federer to inflate the living crap out of his resume resulting in 3 easy slams a year with barely being tested until a prime Nadal/Nole came along.

I've covered this to death several years ago. That time period from 04-07 was not a drub like some casual fans might think. The thought process is that because nobody outside Federer was winning multiple Slams, that automatically means it was weak competition. Sampras had Slam wins over guys like Cedric Pioline and Goran Ivanisevic, twice. While having punching bag Agassi and old man Becker and choking dog Todd Martin. This was an era where Thomas Muster and Gustavo Kuerten were able to ride the coat-tails of a French Open title to world #1.

Safin and Nalbandian were typical "mood-swing" players who had the capability of beating Federer and everyone else, when they felt like it. Both guys had injuries and yes Federer profited from it, kinda like Nadal profited from Robin Soderling getting mono, but I digress.

Roddick was Federer's punching bag for sure, like Hewitt, but both guys competed and made numerous Slam quarters or better. Consistency which many of Sampras' peers like Pioline lacked.

Davydenko went 6-0 against Prime Nadal on hard. He also made 10 Slam quarters or better in 20 events.

As for Agassi, yes he was old. Nadal still needed 3 sets at Masters Final in Canada in 05 and although in straights, still at 20 got pushed by the 36 year old Andre. Got any other jokes? Federer won 1 of his Slams against Andre. A big fat 1. Nadal got a French Open crown over Mariano Puerta. Are we done here?

 

[Anti-Fedal]

I love the Fed fanatic logic.

"But but but... Fed played in an era with the greatest clay court player ever, so that automatically makes him an open era clay court elite".

Yet don't you dare question his crapola 2003-2007 competition. (WIth Pre Puberty post grade school Nadal, mid 30s Sampras era holdover Agassi, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Slam Clown Nalbandian, Missing in action his entire career Safin etc. Which no doubt enabled Federer to inflate the living crap out of his resume resulting in 3 easy slams a year with barely being tested until a prime Nadal/Nole came along.


Soo... Fed gets the benefit of the doubt because he played in the same clay era with Nadal... But don't you dare question his QUESTIONABLE Serena-like competition from 03-07. ROFLMAO!!!

Double standards much? Hypocritical much????


If you're gonna to give him the benefit of the doubt and inflate his clay resume due to playing in the same era as Nadal, then you have to take deflate some of the rest of his resume due to very QUESTIONABLE Serena-like competition at the time for a good 5 year period there.

I agree with you, he lost and wasn't good enough to win and we shouldn't hand out hypothetical slams. But isn't that what you do with Goran on grass?

 

[D.Nalby12]

He deserved to be rated where all the players with 1-2 French titles belongs. I don't by this "He played in era of Clay GOAT" BS.

 

[gcollins]

I love the Fed fanatic logic.

"But but but... Fed played in an era with the greatest clay court player ever, so that automatically makes him an open era clay court elite".

Yet don't you dare question his crapola 2003-2007 competition. (WIth Pre Puberty post grade school Nadal, mid 30s Sampras era holdover Agassi, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Slam Clown Nalbandian, Missing in action his entire career Safin etc. Which no doubt enabled Federer to inflate the living crap out of his resume resulting in 3 easy slams a year with barely being tested until a prime Nadal/Nole came along.


Soo... Fed gets the benefit of the doubt because he played in the same clay era with Nadal... But don't you dare question his QUESTIONABLE Serena-like competition from 03-07. ROFLMAO!!!

Double standards much? Hypocritical much????


If you're gonna to give him the benefit of the doubt and inflate his clay resume due to playing in the same era as Nadal, then you have to take deflate some of the rest of his resume due to very QUESTIONABLE Serena-like competition at the time for a good 5 year period there.

No, you really don't. First of all, anyone calling out "Fed bias" must have a bias of their own they're trying to defend. Second, and more importantly, people never seem to understand that BOTH men could really be, JUST THAT GOOD.

Federer ripped everyone to shreds because he was that good. Nadal ripped everyone to shreds because he was that good. The rest of the competition looked weak because their options were... face Roger at the Australian, face Nadal at the French, and face Roger again at Wimbledon and the US. Oh, by the way, some unlucky guy would meet Rafa in the quarters and semi's too. Then later, Djokovic came along and the Aussie was locked down. Exactly how is anyone supposed to win a major when there is a good chance they have to face all time greats 1-3 times a tornament, EVERY tournament?

A 19 year old Federer beat a (declined) Sampras at his home on center court in Wimbledon. I'm not saying that's the end all for any debate, I'm simply stating that it's worth SOMETHING. At the time of his defeat, it was at least highly reasonable to suspect Sampras would have made the final, if not won the tournament.

My point is, if two of the greatest players to ever pick up a racket just happened to play together, it would be VERY hard to carve out majors. If THREE happened to, it would be near impossible. And it was.