Remember: 4 sets in 6 tries, +15 years

[Lleytonstation]

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?

 

[Yugram]

There is not a single statistic that is above average. 'Average' is being kind.

Ruthless.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yet it is a damning stat nontheless. He can’t be called dominant on those surfaces if he is dominated by his rivals.

Fed owned most of his main rivals on HCs... only the 0-1 vs Nadal (2009 AO) being a match he should have won

 

[Breakpointerer]

There is not a single statistic that is above average. 'Average' is being kind.

So why do regular tennis pros not have similar or greater stats than Federer?
Only because he played more?
You cannot be serious.

 

[KINGROGER]

There is not a single statistic that is above average. 'Average' is being kind.

At this point, I have to assume you’re straight up trolling.

 

[clayqueen]

All I see is excellence.
You can't call someone average when they have achieved as much as Fed has, regardless of how much you may hate them.

 

[Krish872007]

So why do regular tennis pros not have similar or greater stats than Federer?

Many people have greater stats than Federer actually.

I am 3/4 in title attempts, which is an astounding conversion rate of 75%. The fact that that is at my local club is clearly an irrelevant detail, I am still greater than anyone on that title conversion list.

 

[clayqueen]

So why do regular tennis pros not have similar or greater stats than Federer?
Only because he played more?
You cannot be serious.

Who are regular tennis players?

 

[clayqueen]

At this point, I have to assume you’re straight up trolling.

Just tell me which ones are above average.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Who are regular tennis players?

You said Fed is average. If so, why are his achievements greater than nearly everybody's?
Would not be the case if he is average, no?

 

[clayqueen]

This thread has no legs because the truth is out that Federer has achieved less than average in all genres.

 

[Lleytonstation]

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]

You said Fed is average. If so, why are his achievements greater than nearly everybody's?
Would not be the case if he is average, no?

That's not the measure of average. Average is when you score 50% success rate and Federer has not done that.

 

[Tenez101]

Fed owned most of his main rivals on HCs... only the 0-1 vs Nadal (2009 AO) being a match he should have won

What about USO 2010,2011,2015? And AO 2011, 2012, 2016?

 

[clayqueen]

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.

 

[Krish872007]

Hmm, think I'll watch another sport then. Or maybe just watch videos of myself.
Don't know why I bother with tennis when all the players on tour are below average.

 

[clayqueen]

What about USO 2010,2011,2015? And AO 2011, 2012, 2016?

Fed owned most of his main rivals on HCs... only the 0-1 vs Nadal (2009 AO) being a match he should have won

Shakes head.

 

[kevaninho]

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]

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.

 

[clayqueen]

I'm signing off here. I think I've made my point beyond reasonable doubt. Case closed.

 

[Breakpointerer]

That's not the measure of average. Average is when you score 50% success rate and Federer has not done that.

I don't think anybody has won 50 percent of events entered in their careers. Also pls explain how the GOAT, Rafa, has lost 16 times to this average player.

 

[Lleytonstation]

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]

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"?

 

[Lleytonstation]

I don't think anybody has won 50 percent of events entered in their careers. Also pls explain how the GOAT, Rafa, has lost 16 times to this average player.

Sad, very sad, and Djoker has lost 22 times. My goodness, how can they be "tigers" with the glaring knocks to their resumes?

 

[Tenez101]

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]

Fed owned most of his main rivals on HCs... only the 0-1 vs Nadal (2009 AO) being a match he should have won

What about USO 2010,2011,2015? And AO 2011, 2012, 2016?

Shakes head.

Also forgot about AO 2014.

 

[duaneeo]

The other way around. Every time you call Fed the GOAT, it makes Djokodal gods.

Every time Djokovic fans try to ride on Nadal's coattails, it makes them look pathetic.

Nadal is the player who is within one of Federer's slam count. Nole is still far down the mountain looking up.

 

[Lleytonstation]

their respective forms were far apart.

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.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Every time Djokovic fans try to ride on Nadal's coattails, it makes them look pathetic.

Nadal is the player who is within one of Federer's slam count. Nole is still far down the mountain looking up.

They think Rafa is going to throw Djoker a rope. In reality Rafa is...

 

[KINGROGER]

Just tell me which ones are above average.

Total slam titles
Total Wimbledon, US open, AO, YEC, Cincinnati, IW titles
Total overall titles
Total slam finals
Total weeks at number 1

Etc

 

[Tenez101]

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]

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.

 

[Lleytonstation]

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]

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.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Rafa just wasn’t in good enough condution yet to take it all the way

But is this not part of tennis? I believe it is.

 

[Breakpointerer]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Breakpointerer]

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.

How is hitting aces lucky?

 

[Lleytonstation]

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....

 

[Krish872007]

Don't think Fed played better in 2008 than 2007 but we'll agree to disagree.

2007 was a great match btw, quite underrated. I was there & remember it well. Exceptional quality, particularly the first 3 sets

 

[Lleytonstation]

How is hitting aces lucky?

Statistically speaking, it would be unlucky if you miss, as you are aiming for it to go in.


This may not be a true statement. But it sounds good.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Lucked out aces? Miracle? Well, I would trade just one of those "lucky" aces for another one somewhere else....

If only...

 

[Breakpointerer]

2007 was a great match btw, quite underrated. I was there & remember it well. Exceptional quality, particularly the first 3 sets

Yup great match. 07-09 were all great finals.

 

[Tenez101]

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.

 

[hipolymer]

Where Fed leads 11-5 in Slam titles.

2004-2008 don't count as real hardcourt slam titles.
He was beating up on injury-prone headcases and babies

 

[Tenez101]

Lucked out aces? Miracle? Well, I would trade just one of those "lucky" aces for another one somewhere else....

For Wimby 2019? I think if you take away 1 ace from the fifth set if 2007 he loses that match. So he’s losing one final either way.

 

[duaneeo]

But is this not part of tennis? I believe it is.

How is hitting aces lucky?

Do you two really want to argue with someone who refers to then 5-time slam finalist/3-time slam champion/9-time Masters champion Nadal as "baby Rafa"?

 

[Breakpointerer]

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.

 

[Krish872007]

For Wimby 2019? I think if you take away 1 ace from the fifth set if 2007 he loses that match. So he’s losing one final either way.

Being serious for a minute, I would probably disagree there. You could take away the ace at 4-2, 40-0 in the 5th set and he still likely wins it.