Remember: 4 sets in 6 tries, +15 years

You should know better that it's percentages that count. Of course he's got the most titles and the most weeks at #1 than his nearest rivals who are 5-6 years his junior in age.

I refer you to my post #42
See, we see thing from two entire different perspectives. I embrace and love that I have been able to watch Fed this long. I would be less happy with the same stats but him retiring in 2014. I enjoy and relish every moment, even when he loses at WC. Can you do the same if Rafa is no longer winning slams? I am a fan, but not simply because of winning. I like Rafa, and it is not based on numbers either.

To each their own, I just dont like the mud slinging. Do I do that to Rafa?
 
At this point, I have to assume you’re straight up trolling.
No, this is the great part. With Fed being below average tennis player, Rafa and Djoker have a glaring issue with all of these bad losses. How can you be the greatest ever and be 1-3 at the biggest tennis tourney in the world to a below average player. How could you lose to that same guy 16 times and have a losing record against a below average player on hard and grass. How could you not win one WTF while he has 6.

This old man who is basically a mug, has not loss to Rafa in over 7 years off clay. Six straight wins. Wow! That is a bad bad look.

How do you lose AO17 to this supposed below average player? My goodness, the glaring knock on his resume is bad. Real bad.

See how this looks when you rip down other ATG's?
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
No, this is the great part. With Fed being below average tennis player, Rafa and Djoker have a glaring issue with all of these bad losses. How can you be the greatest ever and be 1-3 at the biggest tennis tourney in the world to a below average player. How could you lose to that same guy 16 times and have a losing record against a below average player on hard and grass. How could you not win one WTF while he has 6.

How do you lose AO17 to this supposed below average player? My goodness, the glaring knock on his resume is bad. Real bad.

See how this looks when you rip down other ATG's?
Don't even bring Rafa and Novak into it, because they both have a positive h2h against Roger.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
I will never get how obsessed so many people are with losses to certain players, and mostly to good players on top of that.

Maybe I would understand it a bit more if someone loses tos mugs over and over again, but still it is about WINS in the end and not about LOSSES.

If Federer cannot be GOAT because of some H2H stats, then another one has to be GOAT, and someone like the OP has to bring forward arguments for him instead.

But since Federer has the best numbers (as of now) that wouldn’t be possible apart from subjective and invented standards.

H2H is irrelevant for many reasons. It’s about matchups anyway, and also it would be an invalid double count as the H2H wins over Federer already brought Nadal/Djokovic forward in the Slam race. If they are that much better in H2H and still behind in the Slam race, the difference against the rest of the field must be even bigger in Federer’s favour. And with the same right one could ask: "How can someone with so many more problems against the lesser field be GOAT?"

No, over and over it’s proven again why total number is the only fair measurement. And I promise, if Nadal and/or Djokovic will overtake Federer, I will recognize it.
Exactly. All the GOATS in just about every sport have losses to rivals. Not many finish a career unblemished and undefeated.

Even the great Floyd Mayweather , who finished unbeaten, actually lucked out on a few decisions in many people eyes.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
So 3-1 for Rafa on hc slams is domination, but 3-1 for Federer on grass is close to even ? You are ridiculous.
3-1 for Rafa was often an absolute smackdown (2012, 2014), whereas Fed was always shakey against Nadal, even in 2006. Even 2007 should have gone Rafa’s way if not for his body giving out, both Fed and Rafa know that.
 
Even 2007 should have gone Rafa’s way if not for his body giving out
If that is the case then I give Fed or Djoker USO19 (Djoker just smashed Rafa in a HC slam, and Fed has not lost to Rafa on HC in almost a decade, and just beat him a month ago), as if his body did not give out, one of those two men would have beat Rafa in the final. The whole availability issue is a problem when you use it only in spots that help your arguments.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Exactly. All the GOATS in just about every sport have losses to rivals. Not many finish a career unblemished and undefeated.

Even the great Floyd Mayweather , who finished unbeaten, actually lucked out on a few decisions in many people eyes.
This.
But everything ultimately boils down to the following questions in my mind:

- How do you become "GOAT"?
- Can there be more than one "GOAT"?
- Is it really "GOAT" if you're not really taking into account the "-AT"?
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
If that is the case then I give Fed or Djoker USO19 (Djoker just smashed Rafa in a HC slam, and Fed has not lost to Rafa on HC in almost a decade, and just beat him a month ago), as if his body did not give out, one of those two men would have beat Rafa in the final. The whole availability issue is a problem when you use it only in spots that help your arguments.
They never pushed someone to the fifth set in that final and had multiple break points like Rafa in 2007. Fed and Rafa both know that 2007 should’ve gone Rafa’s way but he just ran out of gas right before the finish line. I think this Rafa would’ve handily defeated this Federer in USO 2019 btw, their respective forms were far apart.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
Maybe if you go by this. But my point is that if it was flipped the other way, you (or others) would say what I just said.
My main point was the situations were not the same, like you presented them. Rafa took Fed to the brink in W 2007, whereas Djokerer crashed out way earlier in this year’s USO. So it is more reasonable to say Rafa would have won that final than your claim. Anyone who watched W 2007 would agree it was extremely clise and looked to be going Rafa’s way in that fifth set.
 

Breakpointerer

Hall of Fame
My main point was the situations were not the same, like you presented them. Rafa took Fed to the brink in W 2007, whereas Djokerer crashed out way earlier in this year’s USO. So it is more reasonable to say Rafa would have won that final than your claim. Anyone who watched W 2007 would agree it was extremely clise and looked to be going Rafa’s way in that fifth set.
But it didn't, because of Fed stepping up and being clutch. Wim07 was a fair and square win just as 2008 was.
 
My main point was the situations were not the same, like you presented them. Rafa took Fed to the brink in W 2007, whereas Djokerer crashed out way earlier in this year’s USO. So it is more reasonable to say Rafa would have won that final than your claim. Anyone who watched W 2007 would agree it was extremely clise and looked to be going Rafa’s way in that fifth set.
So did AO17, but does it matter? I could say the same about WC19 until the whole 4 and 0 and 1 and 5 fiasco.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
But it didn't, because of Fed stepping up and being clutch. Wim07 was a fair and square win just as 2008 was.
Wimby 2007 and 2008 had the same feel by the middle of the fifth. In 2007, baby Rafa just wasn’t in good enough condution yet to take it all the way. Fed played much better in 2008 than in 2007.
 

Breakpointerer

Hall of Fame
Wimby 2007 and 2008 had the same feel by the middle of the fifth. In 2007, baby Rafa just wasn’t in good enough condution yet to take it all the way. Fed played much better in 2008 than in 2007.
Don't think Fed played better in 2008 than 2007 but we'll agree to disagree.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
But is this not part of tennis? I believe it is.
Yes, but momentumwise and formeise he had that match, but his inexperience cost him. Basically Fed lucked out with some aces which could’ve gone either way. Both Fed and Rafa knew Fed winning was a miracle, watch their reactions after the match.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Exactly. All the GOATS in just about every sport have losses to rivals. Not many finish a career unblemished and undefeated.

Even the great Floyd Mayweather , who finished unbeaten, actually lucked out on a few decisions in many people eyes.
Also Mayweather is not comparable to a GOAT in any sport. He is a middleweight/welterweight boxer, which means he is better than anyone in a very small range of weight (like 5 kg). Firstly that makes the whole competition extremely small compared to sports with one single field and secondly he is lucky that weight classes exist at all, because anyone knows he would easily get knocked out by any good heavyweight.

It’s like saying Schwartzman is GOAT because he is the best tennis player with a height between 1.67 and 1.72 by a bigger margin than Federer in his "height class".

What I want to say: There are many sports where some disadvantages of the body are just as "unfair" as in boxing, but anyone just says that having the perfect body is part of the sport. I mean, it would also be "fair" to have ski jumping for fat people, but nevertheless it doesn’t exist. :-D
 
Last edited:
Yes, but momentumwise and formeise he had that match, but his inexperience cost him. Basically Fed lucked out with some aces which could’ve gone either way. Both Fed and Rafa knew Fed winning was a miracle, watch their reactions after the match.
Lucked out aces? Miracle? Well, I would trade just one of those "lucky" aces for another one somewhere else....
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
How is hitting aces lucky?
If they weren’t aces, Fed would’ve lost those points given how the rest of the match was going. Rafa’s return was kind of weak in the fifth, had he focused on more return in preparation he would’ve probably gotten some of those aces back anyways. Both Fed and Nadal agree the final was won on 1-2 key aces, so it seems like it could’ve really gone either way.
 

Breakpointerer

Hall of Fame
If they weren’t aces, Fed would’ve lost those points given how the rest of the match was going. Rafa’s return was kind of weak in the fifth, had he focused on more return in preparation he would’ve probably gotten some of those aces back anyways. Both Fed and Nadal agree the final was won on 1-2 key aces, so it seems like it could’ve really gone either way.
But you could say that about any tight match. "If Feds first serve at 40-15 didn't clip the net cord.."
But yes,it was close. I'm trying to say that Fed stepped up and took it, and it wasn't Rafa handing it to him.
 
Top