Rod Laver claims Roger Federer is the best player of his generation
- Thread starter Omega_7000
- Start date
Murray turned pro four years after Nadal did. Nadal turned pro three years after Federer did. Nadal won his first grand slam like one month after Murray turned pro. Federer won his first grand slam two years after Nadal turned pro. Nadal and Federer are much more of the same era.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
There is no"we," or a 99.9999%. You are--once again--posting absolute nonsense not supported by history. Only in your mind will you find any majority regarding Federer, otherwise, you would need to chase every thread trying to price together any sort of last ditch effort to give him a "greatest" status of any kind--with GOAT at the top of the list.
If you were certain, defense would not be necessary.
You should not make it so easy to expose your beliefs.
Laver now stands in direct opposition to you and the little Federer Fringe who argued for years...up to this day that Federer is your imagined GOAT. YOU of all people cannot flip the script to pretend you accept anything other than an all-time crown for the unqualified Federer.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
And yet when McEnroe says Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer you defend his opinion as if it was the end of the argument.
Laver is about 10 times as credible as McEnroe when it comes to making claims about tennis.
Yes. But "generation" is strictly in age group?
Nadal' career overlaps significantly with federer's.
Nadal competed with federer and beat him on clay,
hard courts and grass since the age of 17.
I think people will question whether federer is even the greatest
in his " generation" if Nadal reaches 17+.
I guarantee it.
Last edited:
How long ago did Laver say that? You have a history of posting old posts as if they just happened?
I didn't see that in your OP thread. Why make a case based on Laver if there was no GOAT?
The Dark Knight
Legend
Laver is a nice old man from prehistoric times.....he is like a sweet grandfather.
Death Master
Banned
laver has also outlived his use.
he is still at least 50 years behind times.
some people are never able to get out of the dark ages.
he is still at least 50 years behind times.
some people are never able to get out of the dark ages.
Death Master
Banned
a far smarter laver position would be this:
lets wait until nadal completes his body of work. nadal is going to win slams for 3-4 more years.
and it is about the slams. and then comes head to head in this individual, one on one/gladiatorial sport.
lets wait until nadal completes his body of work. nadal is going to win slams for 3-4 more years.
and it is about the slams. and then comes head to head in this individual, one on one/gladiatorial sport.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Death baby you are right on.
I'm a Nadal fan....and even I cannot definitively say That Nadal is goat because both their careers are not over .
Even though Fed fans have written their hero off already......I really think he can very easily win Wimbledon . In fact with the roof I think Federer can beat Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon.
So lets say that 2014 it's Nadal and Fed in the Wimbledon final and Federer wins.....OMG would that open a whole new debate......
On the other hand lets say Nadal goes on to win the AO and then the FO again......he would have 15 slams by the age of 27/ 28.......
I mean things can really heat up here.....
I think it's insane to call either of these guys the goat.....yeah Fed has the most slams .....but Nadal is on schedule to have the same number of slams and he has beaten Federer.....
So what's going to happen in the future is anybody's guess .
We just don't know for sure yet and we have to wait !
In the past Federer was so far ahead that if was easier to call him goat .....but with 13 slams for Nadal he is within striking distance ......
Right now the difference in slam count is basically Roddick and Joker......
Fed beat Roddick four times and Nadal lost to Joker 3 times .....it's that close.
Give me list of posters that they support your claim about the winning a GS is a must for a goat? Just as I thought, you can't list any supporter because you know no one supports you. My point still stands, "we" have tried to tell you for umpteen times that it's ridiculous to say a GS(1 year achievement) triumph entire career.
This is what you said about Roger.
Laver doesn't support you. He and Budge won the GS and he said none can't be a goat because you can't compare era. Now that you know how Laver feel, do you now agree that THE GS IS NOT THE END ALL DEBATE FOR GOAT ?
kiki
Banned
Laver is totally right.One thing is better and the other greater.IMO, Federer as a player, is the best one since 2004.
Not every year and at every tourney of course, but if we consider a generation is about 15 yrs, I think he is.Of course, his generation starting in 2004 will conclude at the end of this decade.So, it is very possible that, in 5 years Nadal surpasses him and Nadal will have been the best player of his generation.
Not every year and at every tourney of course, but if we consider a generation is about 15 yrs, I think he is.Of course, his generation starting in 2004 will conclude at the end of this decade.So, it is very possible that, in 5 years Nadal surpasses him and Nadal will have been the best player of his generation.
The Dark Knight
Legend
That's one way of looking at . Its not wrong and it's an opinion.
I personally agree with Jim courier ,,,, it is impossible to call federer the greatest player of his generation when there is a player who continually beats him. Nadal has done everything fed has at the same age and dominated federer.
Both points of view are valid....it's which one you subscribe to.
Roger was crowned player of the decade at the end of 2009.
http://tvnz.co.nz/tennis-news/federer-named-tennis-player-decade-3313932
For 2010-2019 we don't know for sure who will win the player of the decade award. Nadal is 2 slams ahead of Nole in this decade, but there's 6 more years left in this decade and that is a lot of tennis left. Nole has a shot to win for this decade.
http://tvnz.co.nz/tennis-news/federer-named-tennis-player-decade-3313932
For 2010-2019 we don't know for sure who will win the player of the decade award. Nadal is 2 slams ahead of Nole in this decade, but there's 6 more years left in this decade and that is a lot of tennis left. Nole has a shot to win for this decade.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Laver knows Nadal and Fed have more to play.
But no matter what Nadal does now can't erase all those years when Fed racked up weeks at #1 with a huge margin over Nadal.
Same field and same tournaments, direct comparison.
How could Nadal be in consideration when he was so far behind against his main rival?
Then there's best years, Fed has had 3-4 years better than Nadal's best.
Fed has three slams that he's won at least 4 times.
Nadal has had trouble hanging on to #1, not good when talking about best players of all time and it doesn't show domination over long periods.
Nadal hasn't shown a high level the whole year where Fed has been ready to do battle the whole year.
There's more, a lot more but this should be enough for now.
But no matter what Nadal does now can't erase all those years when Fed racked up weeks at #1 with a huge margin over Nadal.
Same field and same tournaments, direct comparison.
How could Nadal be in consideration when he was so far behind against his main rival?
Then there's best years, Fed has had 3-4 years better than Nadal's best.
Fed has three slams that he's won at least 4 times.
Nadal has had trouble hanging on to #1, not good when talking about best players of all time and it doesn't show domination over long periods.
Nadal hasn't shown a high level the whole year where Fed has been ready to do battle the whole year.
There's more, a lot more but this should be enough for now.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
you're completely disregarding competition during each players' 'best years'. so the circular debate continues...
kiki
Banned
A generation normally stands for 15 years, one and a half decade.That is more relevant than a decade.But I agree Federer is the best player for the 2000-2009 decade.
Problem is not many players played pro tennis for 15 years.Borg, fi, played for less than a decade ( 1973-1981) , but we can assume many players such as Connors,Mc Enroe,Agassi,Sampras played around 12 to 15 years of very competitive tennis.
The Dark Knight
Legend
In the same interview, Laver says that it would be Nadal, if someone could win a Grand Slam. I think he is pretty consistent with what he said last year. Last year - before Nadal's comeback - he said, that Federer was the greatest, but that the younger Nadal would be close behind.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal reaches 17 it will be a done deal.
How can anyone say that Federer is the best of his generation when Nadal, at an early age interrupted his run by taking eight majors from him?
Nadal is only 27 and has more years to add to his totals, while Federer is 32 and presumably on his way out.
Then, you would have two players with 17 and one who beat the other at a 2/3 clip.
Federer cannot be given the crown when the data has not fully been collected (neither can Nadal). The end totals must be calculated before any rational decision can be made.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely, how are you going to compare a full body of work (Federer's 32 years of accumulation) against someone who's 27 and still working on their career goals?
I don't care who says it, it's a ridiculous premise. They are giving Federer the advantage of his age in the midst of Rafa still compiling his stats.
That's just dumb.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Exactly.
10jumpingthegunsonthegreatestoftheirgeneration.
Just enjoy the tennis without trying to assign superiority.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
So a 19 year old can reasonably be compared to a 23 year old?
And, because Nadal won early we don't need to give him time to get experience on the tour, playing different opponents?
Oh, but Federer at 19, won his match against Sampras and didn't begin to dominate until three years later, armed with his experience.
Federer had no one to challenge him as his generation was MIA, off the tour, and all he had to deal with was the newbies.
Of course he was racking up slams. It was a matter of timing.
Give Nadal and Djoker that same scenario and the same thing would occur.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Amen.
How on earth can you compare Federer's competition of Roddick, Baghdatis, and others, against Nadal having had to deal with Federer, Novak, and Murray?
Mind-boggling.
F
FedererWinsWimbledon2014
Guest
Baggy was like 1 match, also he was playing amazing.
Nadal has never player Murray 2.0
Roddick is a brilliant grass courter, better than Djokovic.
Federer had to deal with Nadal which is much harder than the other way round due to the match up.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Baghs is a great player, but not a great competitor. He has done nothing of note since that lone AO final. That run has shown itself to be a one-off, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is more coming from Marcos.
Then, we can't speak to Murray 2.0, since the result is inconclusive.
Roddick is nowhere near the player that Nole is, he just was older and more experienced, while Nole was learning how to play on the tour, against all types of players with different playing styles.
I don't subscribe to the match up theory, because even in match ups, the
h2h is usually close. Example: Nadal vs. Davydenko, and Pete vs. Krajicek.
Sometimes Player 1 is simply better than Player 2. Federer vs. say Gasquet.
F
FedererWinsWimbledon2014
Guest
Fair enough if you don't subscribe to match ups but they are a fact.
Your not doing Rafa a great justice there, Nadal is an incredible player, he is no Davydenko or Krajicek. Also the clay court meetings have shaped the H2H aswell (where Nadal is undoubtedly a better player but the match up is more pronounced)
Sorry but the H2H doesn't make a player better.
Who was better in 2006 Rafa or Roger?
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
We just come from different schools of thought.
The h2h also includes hard courts, and Federer and Nadal are basically even on this surface.
Nadal cannot be punished for excelling on his favorite surface, because he made good by going 13-2.
Federer, is the one who didn't do as well on his favorite surface, by only breaking even.
Which is why the "only on clay" argument is useless. Federer had just as many opportunities on hard to get the h2h in balance.
He didn't, on his best surface, so that's his fault.
The clay does not skew the h2h, simply because Federer did not hold up his end on hard courts.
Edit: H2H does mean the better player to me. When I see that Nadal leads so many others in the field because he beat them, more than they beat him. Yeah, I think he is a better player than the beaten opponent.
Last edited:
F
FedererWinsWimbledon2014
Guest
Hard courts prove the h2h is meaningless as Federer is undoubtedly a better Hard court player.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Then he should have been able to beat Nadal on them when he was "merely a claycourter."
Nadal beat Federer at 17, while Federer was on a roll and number 1 in the world.
Nadal just knows how to play Federer. Period.
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Yes. Particularly on a slow court, Nadal knows how to beat Federer probably better than anyone else. But that doesn't make him the better tennis player by default. Let's not go into the circular path for a 1000th time.
But as always there's still a big mistake in assuming Federer plays better on hardcourts than on everywhere else. He plays his best, or rather he's most comfortable on a low bouncing, faster court*. This is especially true if he is facing Nadal. There's a reason why Federer has 7 titles on the 1 GS that is on grass, and total 9 from 2 GS on hardcourt. There's a reason why Federer has lost only 1 set out of 4 meetings with Nadal on an indoor court. That said, there's also the significant fact that Nadal and Federer have met each drastically more times in the 1st half of the season than in the 2nd half of the season.
*Example: Federer was pretty much an underdog going into his match with Nadal at Miami in 2011. Ask yourself why.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Because what Laver is saying is not about this year.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Slam finals h2h are meaningless??
I agree for 2 out of 3 matches as they are only half a match......
But slam finals?? Meaningless??
The greatest match of all time is now meaningless??
I beg to differ......I think it's probably more important than any other stat.
I subscribe to the school of "May the best man win"
Nadal won and therefore in my book he was better. The end.
( note that just my personal opinion.....I certainly understand why people say Fed is better....don't agree but understand).
Talker
Hall of Fame
Seems everyone has their stats that they think is the most important.
I won't say anyone else is wrong though, it's opinion so there will be discussion about it.
Some hold the H2H so highly for example, I don't like this one as a main stat because it has too many exceptions.
The OG is held very highly and some don't respect the WTF.
So just post what you like or value, someone will agree and some won't, oh well.
So you're saying nadal is a better hard court player. He doesn't need 9 hardcourt slams and 6 WTFs just because of the bad match up with Nadal. Your logic is saying Davy is a better hard court player than Nadal. Forget about his 3 hard court slams, the 6-1 H2H triumph all.
Level of competition is subjective, you can't say you are right and other people are wrong. At least their opinions are fair/objective but you are biased on purpose.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
No one supoorts TMF's absurd, long-debunked nonsense, and now Laver has successfully isolated Federer to a generation, since no player with such a major "red x" on his sheet could be called a GOAT.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
That is what happens when the desperate Federer Fringe steers clear of glaring shortcomings on Federer's path. At all costs, Nadal (and anyone else) must be tossed in an obvious spin machine--the only way Federer to be their false GOAT.
M
monfed
Guest
LOL@Ralph's competition. Yea moonballing without effort to a 1HBH in Fed to win all his cheap slams was so tough for him :lol: , Nadal fans should be grateful for such a gimme ,instead they have the nerve to criticize Fed's competition who he had no such edge whatsoever, instead he won the hard way with his ability and the hardwork he put to reach that level and distance himself from the competition. It's not like he could just moonball the **** out of his opponent's BH to win all his matches so yea whatever.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I am counting ATP sanctioned tennis courts. That's where they play. It doesn't matter whether it's clay, grass, slow hard court, medium fast, fast, indoor, etc. That's what makes the debate circular, when people start differentiating all of the surfaces.
And not surprisingly, every time Nadal wins on a court it suddenly becomes slow and therefore Federer is excused for the "matchup" or "the clay" surface.
I don't buy it. It gets too confusing. Which of Nadal's hard court wins over Federer counts using your logic?
How does it get switched around to where Federer plays best? That's not how you determine their hard court wins and losses. Hard court is all lumped together and when you go on a stats website, it is not broken down into hard, medium hard, and all that mess.
Doesn't matter when, where, or on what they meet. The bottom line is that Nadal leads him and some people just don't want to admit it.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm entitled to mine. And I don't base my opinion on simply the H2H. I think Nadal is more adaptable, more athletic, and more of a competitor than Federer. He also has a leading H2H over his main rivals.
So to me, yeah, that makes him better.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
So true, Man. So true. The Fed farts are in desperate mode. ...............:twisted:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I agree. I don't think anyone is wrong either, but all opinions can be aired, and I appreciate you being the class act that you've always been.
I don't think any one point is the end-all, be-all either, because there are factors that go into every measurement.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You're trying to twist my words (as usual). I said Federer being good on hard court should have been able to balance out the H2H nullifying the clay is skewed argument.
Nadal did his part on his favorite surface and Federer only broke even on his hard court. That's what I said. Go back and read it, rather than trying to spin it.
Your first sentence I never said. It's another distortion from you.
I can't count how many times I've seen you post that Nadal-Davydenko stat.
Have you forgotten these stats?
Fed vs. Rafter 0-3
Fed vs. Brands 1-1
Fed vs. Stakhosky 1-1
Fed vs. Delbonis 0-1
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Similar threads
