Roger Federer: Why His Grand Slam Record Will Stand Forever

Well, I guess people at the time believed that Nadal's reportedly serious degenerative injuries would irreparably compromise his game a la Hewitt, Safin, Murray, etc. (a reasonable expectation given such benefit of the doubt) and that very physical playstyles would eventually take their toll on critical anatomical junctures.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Same as NBA "records"?
Fed has 3 real records that really matters when you look at big picture:
- slams
- weeks
- WTF's

Will he keep them is all that matters... He is goat contender, please don't mention consecutive sf's and f's...
Well, that's still three more than the rest of the tour put together, which is pretty impressive, tbh.
 

Nole_King

Semi-Pro
5 straight titles at 2 different majors - ??? I would question this. Not that special
You dont find defending two slams 4 consecutive times special? FYI, Nadal has not defended any slam other than French.

In addition 5 titles at 3 different slams is some achievement.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This just proves that the best Federer can do apart of having 20 slams and the most weeks at #1 is failing to win titles and being happy just to make the QF/SF/F. If Fedr had proper records, he wouldn't bother about which round he made. It's really just scraping the barrel.

Most Slams

Most Slam Finals

10 straight GS Finals

Most Weeks at #1

Most consecutive weeks at #1

Most Wimbledon titles Irrelevant as Rafa has 12 at a single slam to Fedr's 8

Most WTF titles.

5 straight titles at 2 different majors - ??? I would question this. Not that special



24 straight finals won - Making finals don't count. He didn't win those titles. That's double counting.


- Not a proper record.



6+ titles at 7 different tournaments -


4+ consecutive finals on all 3 surfaces -
Making finals don't count. He didn't win those titles. That's double counting.


40 consecutive match wins at 2 different slams - is this 20 at each slam? Rafa has 39 at one slam!!!!


All 4 Slam Finals in 3 different seasons


Longest Hard court win streak
- still doesn't beat Nadal's win streak


Longest Grass court win streak - still doesn't beat Nadal's win streak
Bye bye credibility.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
The good thing is that since we've been told for years that holding the slam record doesn't make a player the GOAT there will be no obligation to accept anyone who breaks the record as GOAT.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Personally, I've always preferred Rafa (and also Novak) to Roger, but this thread is painful. Yes, the article from 2011 may not have been prophetic (not sure yet) but to simply either discount Roger's present records or assert that very similar records held by Rafa are superior is at best disingenuous.
 

Eren

Professional
Add winning 5 consecutive majors at two different events.

That's pretty f-cking impressive. Djokovic hasn't done this at any Slam and Nadal only did it at the French. What are the chances of Djokovic and Nadal breaking this record? Probably zero and at the minimum they will need 5 years to just match it.

Also, winning the combo of 4 consecutive Wimbledon and USO titles.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
For what it's worth, I generally don't care so much about distribution of slams or consecutive years of domination - if the end goal is met. So, if the end goal is to win the most slams (obviously, this is just one metric) any path is equally valid.

I do make an exception for a CYGS or a NCYGS. When only one player achieves something that has not otherwise been done in over 50 years, that's worth honoring. (Kudos to Novak there.)
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Well, that's still three more than the rest of the tour put together, which is pretty impressive, tbh.
Everyone knows Fed have this records at the moment... But when/if he loses them, he will have only less important ones (not goatish)...
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Yes Nadal's record at the WTF is pretty impressive. Injury has been his biggest opponent at the WTF. Look how many times he's missed it and played injured.


Nadal owns the Open era record of most consecutive years qualifying for the year-end ATP Finals at 15 years in a row.

Nadal as well holds the all-time record at winning an amazing, mind boggling 15 times moral winner prize awarded by his fans at a worthless exho event
 

burma_shave

New User
Another consideration is Federer trailing both Nadal and Djokovic in their respective head-to-heads. For me Nadal's number of slams is lessened as an achievement by how many of them were won on one particular surface. Djokovic will probably pull clear of both in terms of slams, and has the most complete all-round game of the three. (I like Djokovic the least of the three btw.)
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Another consideration is Federer trailing both Nadal and Djokovic in their respective head-to-heads. For me Nadal's number of slams is lessened as an achievement by how many of them were won on one particular surface. Djokovic will probably pull clear of both in terms of slams, and has the most complete all-round game of the three. (I like Djokovic the least of the three btw.)
Yes, Federer and Djokovic are not affected by only winning 1 slam each on clay and adding 2 hardcourt slams doesn't affect them either. Priceless!
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Yes, Federer and Djokovic are not affected by only winning 1 slam each on clay and adding 2 hardcourt slams doesn't affect them either. Priceless!
do you mind to explain the logic?
cause all I see is: blah blah blah, I love Nadal, blah blah blah, Nadal is the greatest man that ever lived on Earth blah blah blah
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
It doesn't seem to have sunk in to Fedfans that Federer has NO records that are unlikely to be broken. How on earth can he be the greatest of all time? How?

From the article"
"With an insurmountable quantity of records to his name, he appears to be the greatest player of all-time to many spectators and tennis followers."

Which quantity of insurmountable records is he referring to? I would love to know. It's all a figment of someone's imagination.

If any Fedfans can let me know I will stand corrected that IMO, Federer only has 2 records worth talking about:

1. Weeks at number 1
2. Number of slams
Of course he doesn't when all you have to do is find arbitrary reasons for why any seemingly "unbreakable" record he does happen to have is "not really a record". Amusing people like you are adding some very nice(and needed) spice to this forum. Thank you for that :)
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Everyone knows Fed have this records at the moment... But when/if he loses them, he will have only less important ones (not goatish)...
Sure, but at the end of the day, it's all meaningless anyway. These "records" are nice for trolling online, but everyone who is seriously into tennis or has a bit of common sense knows that this GOAT discussion is stupid. For example, despite the large gap in slams, an argument could totally be made for ranking Lendl ahead of Sampras, or at least on the same level as him (and their respective # of slams may very well have been reversed had they each played when the other did). Likewise, any fanbase of the Big 3 can draw an impressive list of arguments why their fav is the GOAT and why the other two can't be... but there's no way of knowing whether they would have been better than Gonzales playing with wooden rackets in the 60's, for example... or, farther back yet, Tilden in the 20's and Budge in the 30's.

At the moment, Fed's got them, sure, but even when/if he loses them, it won't change a thing. Personally, I'd rather watch a great match that he loses than a bad match that he wins (just like I'd rather watch a great movie with actors that I don't particularly like, than a bad movie with an actor that I like). It's just sports in the end, ie entertainment, and the achievements of one player don't diminish those of others--like, at all. ;)
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
do you mind to explain the logic?
cause all I see is: blah blah blah, I love Nadal, blah blah blah, Nadal is the greatest man that ever lived on Earth blah blah blah
Sorry, can't stop. BBC are showing a replay of the greatest tennis match ever when Rafa beat Fedr at Wimbledon in 2008.



 
Last edited:

beard

Hall of Fame
Sure, but at the end of the day, it's all meaningless anyway. These "records" are nice for trolling online, but everyone who is seriously into tennis or has a bit of common sense knows that this GOAT discussion is stupid. For example, despite the large gap in slams, an argument could totally be made for ranking Lendl ahead of Sampras, or at least on the same level as him (and their respective # of slams may very well have been reversed had they each played when the other did). Likewise, any fanbase of the Big 3 can draw an impressive list of arguments why their fav is the GOAT and why the other two can't be... but there's no way of knowing whether they would have been better than Gonzales playing with wooden rackets in the 60's, for example... or, farther back yet, Tilden in the 20's and Budge in the 30's.

At the moment, Fed's got them, sure, but even when/if he loses them, it won't change a thing. Personally, I'd rather watch a great match that he loses than a bad match that he wins (just like I'd rather watch a great movie with actors that I don't particularly like, than a bad movie with an actor that I like). It's just sports in the end, ie entertainment, and the achievements of one player don't diminish those of others--like, at all. ;)
You are right... But, when/if we talk goat we talk about records... Off course you can be not interested in goat debate and just enjoy tennis, that's great too... But, please, let other to enjoy goat debates... ;)
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
You are right... But, when/if we talk goat we talk about records... Off course you can be not interested in goat debate and just enjoy tennis, that's great too... But, please, let other to enjoy goat debates... ;)
Sure, debate away. Just don't expect to convince people from 'the other side', maybe... ;)

(BTW, I *do* think there's a case to be made that Lendl > Sampras. And Navratilova, Evert, and Graf are all > to S. Williams, imho--and by a large margin, too. So, you see, I can take part in GOAT debates, too--I think most people get blinded by the slams and forget all the rest, nowadays, though. Sampras' 'fault', I know, as he's the one who pushed for 'only slams matter'. Tennis is so much more than that, though...)
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Sure, debate away. Just don't expect to convince people from 'the other side', maybe... ;)

(BTW, I *do* think there's a case to be made that Lendl > Sampras. And Navratilova, Evert, and Graf are all > to S. Williams, imho--and by a large margin, too. So, you see, I can take part in GOAT debates, too--I think most people get blinded by the slams and forget all the rest, nowadays, though. Sampras' 'fault', I know, as he's the one who pushed for 'only slams matter'. Tennis is so much more than that, though...)
Well, Fed fans (most of them) were all about slams... 17>12>6 and similar... Now they changed the story... Sorry it's too late... :giggle:
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Sure, debate away. Just don't expect to convince people from 'the other side', maybe... ;)

(BTW, I *do* think there's a case to be made that Lendl > Sampras. And Navratilova, Evert, and Graf are all > to S. Williams, imho--and by a large margin, too. So, you see, I can take part in GOAT debates, too--I think most people get blinded by the slams and forget all the rest, nowadays, though. Sampras' 'fault', I know, as he's the one who pushed for 'only slams matter'. Tennis is so much more than that, though...)
Are you on your way to Damascus?
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Well, Fed fans (most of them) were all about slams... 17>12>6 and similar... Now they changed the story... Sorry it's too late... :giggle:
I guess nobody expected that following 12 years would bring such a weak era so that some Djokodal believers are praising the maestro of second serve and part time philosopher part time tennis pro player as tougher competitors than Hewitt, Safin and Roddick.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Well, Fed fans (most of them) were all about slams... 17>12>6 and similar... Now they changed the story... Sorry it's too late... :giggle:
Slams were *never* the only thing Fed had going for him. Like, never. There was also his dominance (weeks at #1, incl. consecutive), # of WTF's, # of tournaments, style of play, influence on the tennis world and outside the game (ie 'intangibles'), etc. (His style of play always was the clinher for me, and I don't give a damn about his records. They're... nice, I guess, but his having 10, 6, or even 3 slams wouldn't change my enjoyment of his game.)

Now, if you want me to weigh in on the GOAT matter, I would say this:

1) They're close (talking about the Big 3). Close enough that this warrants a discussion at least.

2) Federer is still ahead (undisputed at this time) and will remain so unless either Nadal or Djokovic pulls ahead by a significant margin (my take). Because it's totally disingenuous to *not* recognize that they have eveything going for them and that, at this stage, the fact that they're *not* ahead yet tells me eveything I need to know:
a) The age difference: this advantage is getting bigger and bigger with every passing year. Sure, Federer had the age advantage at first (and he used it to pull ahead in spectacular fashion). However, as I said above, the Big 3 are close--if they weren't, Nadal and Djokovic would never have been able to make it a conversation anyway (ie Becker and Edberg never caught up with Lendl, for example--but see (c) below). However, with Federer now close to 40, they should have been routining him for years and he never should have been able to win anything significant when they're around over the last few years (think Lendl and Connors, with Lendl winning their last 17 matches). The fact that Federer has been steamrolling Nadal anywhere but on clay with high winds these last 5/6 years is an 'anomaly', just like the fact that he's been keeping it close with Djokovic in most 5-setters (and winning his share of 3-setters). When they get long in the tooth, older champs get destroyed by younger ones, that's just how it is. Not in this case, though. Had the age advantage been reversed, Fed would probably still be ahead in the slam race--but with a more comfortable margin, having pulled ahead a few years ago and routining them just about everywhere right now.
b) The Tour has drastically slowed down in the 00's and 10's, so that each and every surface now basically caters to Nadal's and Djokovic's game. In the 70's, 80's and 90's, different surfaces offered a very different outlook on tennis (Sampras was especially suited for fast surfaces, for example; his career would be a mere shell of what it is had he played on today's conditions--Agassi would have been the better player by far in their rivalry in these conditions). A case could be made that these conditions also helped Federer's game against big servers--but it helped Nadal and Djokovic immensely more (by making them relevant at Wimbledon, for example, and also at the US Open, for Nadal).
c) We now have two totally washed-out generations in a row, so that Nadal and Djokovic have no younger ATG barring them (which has never happened before). Sure, this lack of young talent is also helping Federer stay relevant, but once again, it is helping Nadal and Djokovic so much more. They now are 34 and 33, respectively. Can you imagine if Federer didn't have any younger ATG to bother him until 2015 at least?

So yeah, they're close, but once again, the fact that Federer is still relevant against two baseliner ATG's 5 and 6 years his juniors in the slowest conditions the Tour has ever known and with no younger ATG to stop them or slow them down the way *they* slowed him down, tells me everything I need to do. Nadal and Djokovic are close--but no cigar. and them getting 1 or 2 slams ahead wouldn't change that in my mind, not with everything stacked in their favour. ;)

And that's perfectly fine if you think any different. There are those here who think that clay isn't a real surface, others who think that indoor shouldn't even be counted, and those who feel that every tournament their fav has never been able to win must perforce be an exho, even if it's one of the biggest tournaments in the world, which was even bigger than a slam in the past. We've got enough cranks on the forum that differing opinions are perfectly fine, especially when they're based on pretty sound reasoning, hopefully. ;)
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Slams were *never* the only thing Fed had going for him. Like, never. There was also his dominance (weeks at #1, incl. consecutive), # of WTF's, # of tournaments, style of play, influence on the tennis world and outside the game (ie 'intangibles'), etc.
When losing the argument just move the goalpost

 
Last edited:

Nole_King

Semi-Pro
Well, Fed fans (most of them) were all about slams... 17>12>6 and similar... Now they changed the story... Sorry it's too late... :giggle:
True it is. Just shows the true nature of general fans who latch on to the numbers that suit their stories best. Fed fans always brought the slam count while Nadal fans would show the H2H saying slam is not the be all end all. Now with Nadal just 1 slam short Fed fans are trying to downplay the slam count a bit.

Same thing is going to happen when Novak will be at striking distance of Nadal's tally. Nadal fans would then turn away from slam count and point to other things like Fed fans are doing today.

Goes to show that fans of different players are not different species as it is made out to be on TTW but are exactly the same.
 
Top