The GOAT can't be beaten by his main rival 70% of the time

[SLD76]

Didnt safin beat djoker at the 2006 wimbledon?

 

[ScottleeSV]

It works both ways. Nadal was 17 and Federer was 22 when they first played. Many of Federer's victories outside clay wouldn't have happened if they both had been the same age.

And Gonzalez was much more competitive than Federer when he was over 5 years older. Why is Federer entitled to excuses and a free pass? A GOAT shouldn't have to qualify his resume and look for excuses. Gonzalez didn't and Laver certainly didn't either.

Imagine if Nadal and Djokovic had been prime in 2004-2007.

It's all irrevelent compared to..

17 majors, 302 weeks, 6 wtf.

Come back when nadal has matched that.

 

[Steve0904]

LMAO, I notice you make it about nadal when I was addressing the fact that old fed is still beating prime djoker and murray

but whatever. cool story.

FOD often changes the story when it doesn't suit his likes.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

sigh, rookies.

the roger rafa head to head was fairly close from 05-08, despite the fact they played most often on clay.

after 09 is when it began to go lopsided. I wonder why. Maybe because fed is 5 years older and declining while rafa was coming into his physical prime?

Also, arent djoker and rafa like a year apart in age?? gives one alot more time to even the score against a rival than if you are significantly older.

See, this is what I mean by you need more seasoning before starting these threads.

slow down, rook.

You do realize Nadal was 19 years old in 2005, right? And according to you Fed lost the edge when he was 27 years old, yet he still managed to become #1 in 2012. Do you see how your reasoning is faulty?

But, the point is that when a GOAT needs fanboys like you to make excuses for him, that means he is no GOAT at all.

A losing record of 70% of matches against your main rival, and 9:2 record in slams is just not GOAT material, sorry.

Cool story bro.

 

[SLD76]

You do realize Nadal was 19 years old in 2005, right? And according to you Fed lost the edge when he was 27 years old, yet he still managed to become #1 in 2012. Do you see how your reasoning is faulty?

But, the point is that when a GOAT needs fanboys like you to make excuses for him, that means he is no GOAT at all.

A losing record of 70% of matches against your main rival, and 9:2 record in slams is just not GOAT material, sorry.

Cool story bro.

how is my reasoning faulty, it PROVES my point that even past prime, he is giving guys like djoker and murray all they can handlel LMAO. Yoiu asked me how fed would do were he and all his rivals the same age, 2012 is a good indication that none of them outside of nadal on clay would trouble him. Can you even keep up with your own arguments?? LMAO!

Or are you seriously gonna say 2012 Fed is the same as 2004-7 fed??? Also, what I said was, the rivalry with RAFA went south as fed started to decline, I said nothing about he and murray and djoker who he still manages to beat.


fine, nadal was 18.19 during the 2005 FO, but I was speaking about 2004 Miami when rafa was 17 when he beat fed.

im not excusing anything, its butthurt nadal fans like you that have to cherry pick stats because they know their boy doesnt have the resume to be GOAT.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Statistics and facts > Speculation

These thread pop up over and over again, and they are all successful at rustling peoples' jimmies.

Federer is the closest thing we have to a GOAT based on statistics. Trying to measure GOATness is really unfair to the older players because they didn't have all the same opportunities players have now.

Everyone can keep speculating all they want about Federer's age this and this era is weaker than that one, but these arguments are subjective and biased.

Head to head has never mattered before Fed-Nadal and nobody can name h2h off the top of their head of any other pairing before.

The only "major" (haha) blemish on Fed's resume is an unfavorable head, while every other candidate has far bigger flaws. Every sport, especially individual ones, has specific matchups that favor certain people. If you don't believe or have experienced this with your own tennis then I don't know what more I can say. I don't want to argue this for long periods of time, so I'll assume people can figure these flaws out easy enough.

If and/or when nadal reaches 17 slams, it becomes a debate on masters vs time at #1 (unless nadal catches up to that as well.) If nadal reaches 18, then BAM we have a new best GOAT candidate. Some of the older guys (I personally thing Laver and Borg are the two best older guys) deserve to be in tier 1 at least, but their resumes are not as strong as Federer (debatable.)

This post is reasonable. My point is that Federer can't be GOAT, but I don't have a problem saying he is the most accomplished nplayer ever.

The different between GOAT and most accomplished player ever is subtle but critical. Statistics like number of slams give you the most accomplished ever name. But to consider any player the Greatest ever when he is losing 70% of the time to his main rival, and has an 81% loss record in slams is a joke only to be swallowed by the most enthuisiastic of fanboys.

 

[sarmpas]

Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the thread. If you are going to challenge my thesis don't do it via ad hominem arguments.

A thesis is normally academic in nature. It's validated by objective analyis, backed by data if at all possible. You haven't provided any of that and just jumped right in with your opinion rather and an objective conclusion.

I see you spending many many hours over the next few days arguing with people who happen to disagree with you using the 'forehand of doom' handle or creating another new handle should the foresaid be banned or to throw people of the scent.

There's one rabid fan of a certain player who who has posted using several IDs over the years. The give away is as human beings what we say and write and how we do it has a certain unique 'DNA' to it.

The 'forehand of Doom', there's a clue right there.

The forum is yours.;-)

Folks, Until the FO when I'll pop in again for a laugh.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

FOD often changes the story when it doesn't suit his likes.

No, but he did mention Nadal (Federer beating them in IW).

 

[Vcore89]

Who says that Margaret is not the greatest anymore? you?

well, nowadays, Wavrinka is the number one swiss player, no doubt.

Court and Federer is The Best Ever!

 

[RF20Lennon]

So he beat them once. My point is imagine 2004-2007 with these guys the same as Federer. Was Safin better than Djokovic? Roddick?

I have argued this point many times. Federer at 31 still beat Djokovic and Murray and in fact he bagelled Djokovic. One can only wonder how bad it would be if Federer was in his prime. Hewitt has the same two slams as Murray and Roddick would've had 6-8 slams if it were not for Prime Fed.

Now Nadal can be GOAT in the coming years but right now Federer is GOAT.

 

[tennisaddict]

Keep it coming

Wonderful to see the heartburn..

 

[Vcore89]

Laver and Gonzalez have a better case for GOAT than Federer. They were truly dominant against everybody, not just players 2 tiers below them.

Nadal might be a candidate too if he reaches the 17 slam count.

But for Federer that opportunity is gone. He could remain as the most accomplished player ever for some time, but never the GOAT.

Nadal is injured, that is a bitter pill to swallow. However, one must also observe the trend, once one bad tennis day happen it usually never ends.

 

[FEDEXP]

"Forehand of Doom": what is Gonzales doing in this thread?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

how is my reasoning faulty, it PROVES my point that even past prime, he is giving guys like djoker and murray all they can handlel LMAO. Yoiu asked me how fed would do were he and all his rivals the same age, 2012 is a good indication that none of them outside of nadal on clay would trouble him. Can you even keep up with your own arguments?? LMAO!

Or are you seriously gonna say 2012 Fed is the same as 2004-7 fed??? Also, what I said was, the rivalry with RAFA went south as fed started to decline, I said nothing about he and murray and djoker who he still manages to beat.


fine, nadal was 18.19 during the 2005 FO, but I was speaking about 2004 Miami when rafa was 17 when he beat fed.

im not excusing anything, its butthurt nadal fans like you that have to cherry pick stats because they know their boy doesnt have the resume to be GOAT.

2012 was a very poor year with 4 different slam winners. Nadal missed half of it. All credit to Federer for briefly reaching #1 one last time. But that doesn't prove he would have fared well if Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray had been his same age.

If you want to concentrate on Nadal vs Federer, let's do that. Nadal proved very early he could beat Federer on hardcourts. Nadal won against Federer 2 out of their 3 first hardcourt matches before Nadal had even celebrated his 20th birthday, at Federer's peak.

Now, the problem with Nadal is that even though he could beat Federer occasionally on hardcourt, even years before reaching his peak on HC, he was too vulnerable against other players, and Federer didn't have to deal with him on the hardcourt slam finals. Ever since 2009, Nadal has beaten Federer at every hardcourt slam they have met. And Nadal has reached 5 hardcourt slam finals during that time (the equivalent of 2 1/2 years, or half the hardcourt slams played). If you can put 2 and 2 together, you can easily realize that if Nadal and Federer had been exact contemporaries, it is logical to project several hardcourt slam losses for Federer at Nadal's hands.

I never said Nadal has the resume to be GOAT at the moment, I just said that Federer's record against Nadal invalidates him as the GOAT. This is a sentiment that even Laver has ascribed to lately, by the way, being much more conservative in his evaluation of Federer's standing amongst the all time great players. And like Laver many other former pros. But that is somewhat irrelevant. A player that loses 23 out lf 33 times (9 out of 11 in slams) to his main rival can't be considered GOAT.

If you could remove your cranium from Federer's backside long enough to take a deep breath of fresh air you might realize this fact. Federer is the most accomplished player ever at the moment, just not the greatest.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

IMO and I stress again, IMO the only thing that matters are records, stats and overall accomplishments and consistency. Federer has all of that. In 50 years no one will remember H2H but people will still remember titles won.

I understand your position. I call that being the most accomplished player ever, but not necessarily the greatest. A GOAT by definition can't be dominated.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Being nr 1 for a record nr of weeks is not really being dominated.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver and Gonzalez have a better case for GOAT than Federer. They were truly dominant against everybody, not just players 2 tiers below them.

Nadal might be a candidate too if he reaches the 17 slam count.

But for Federer that opportunity is gone. He could remain as the most accomplished player ever for some time, but never the GOAT.

Gonzales doesn't have a case for GOAT as, like Sampras, he never won anything big on clay. It's better to have a 'rival problem' than it is to have a 'surface problem'.

 

[Talker]

The Nadal fans got rocked hard and need an outlet.
But it's all recorded in tennis history now.

Fed has a blemish but even with that he is so far ahead of everyone and it's only the H2H, a small stat that doesn't predict much.

Fed loses to Nadal and Nadal loses to lesser players, so if Fed has these losses it is much better to have them to Nadal.

I hope you learned your lessons now about H2H.

Bamos!!!

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Gonzales doesn't have a case for GOAT as, like Sampras, he never won anything big on clay. It's better to have a 'rival problem' than it is to have a 'surface problem'.

I disagree. Federer was lucky to win Roland Garros. Yet he had already been declared GOAT by his fanboys way before he finally won it. Federer had a leriod of unequaled dominance and remained competitive against other legends such as Rosewall into his earlky 40s.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

The Nadal fans got rocked hard and need an outlet.
But it's all recorded in tennis history now.

Fed has a blemish but even with that he is so far ahead of everyone and it's only the H2H, a small stat that doesn't predict much.

Fed loses to Nadal and Nadal loses to lesser players, so if Fed has these losses it is much better to have them to Nadal.

I hope you learned your lessons now about H2H.

Bamos!!!

Sporadic losses to lesser players are far less significant than losing 70% of matches you play against your main rival. It's very easy to understand.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I disagree. Federer was lucky to win Roland Garros.

Federer is the second best claycourter of his era, not so bad.

 

[Talker]

Sporadic losses to lesser players are far less significant than losing 70% of matches you play against your main rival. It's very easy to understand.

It means your game isn't complete enough to handle all players.

Losing to lower ranked players is never a plus, that is until now. LOL

 

[fuzzfactory]

Laver and Gonzalez have a better case for GOAT than Federer. They were truly dominant against everybody, not just players 2 tiers below them.

Nadal might be a candidate too if he reaches the 17 slam count.

But for Federer that opportunity is gone. He could remain as the most accomplished player ever for some time, but never the GOAT.

Who is Laver and Gonzalez? I wasn't around 70 years ago when they played, so if you could please enlighten me that'd be great. I checked Youtube for highlights but I couldn't find much and none of it was in HD wtf?