The problem with Roger Federer G.O.A.T. claims: Nadal and Djokovic rivalries

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 3771
  • Start date Start date
Objective observer said:
Epic fail
You forgot he had more break chances in 2008
How is that possible if he was so much worse lol
Click to expand...
Every match is different, but of course you look this far into it lol. Actually arguing the number of break point chances means he's playing the best tennis he ever did.

c4d9385dd23d7906f7425f80eab1b921
 
Objective observer said:
Lol what
2007 first 2 sets only 3 break chances
2008 first 2 sets 6 break chances
Lol
Click to expand...
So 3 more break chances means he played a better match. OK lol. You're new to tennis, yeah? Ever even picked up a racquet before? This stuff is very irritating.

If you actually played real tennis you'd know this can happen on a match to match basis. This is why looking so far into things is creating all these problems.

c4d9385dd23d7906f7425f80eab1b921
 
Objective observer said:
Stop over rating 2007 federer

He only had 1 break chance in the middle 3 sets LOL
Click to expand...
I'll stop "overrating 2007 Federer" if you actually build a time machine and rewatch the full length matches from an adult point of view. It's like I'm arguing with a little kid right now.
 
Sabratha said:
So 3 more break chances means he played a better match. OK lol. You're new to tennis, yeah? Ever even picked up a racquet before? This stuff is very irritating.

If you actually played real tennis you'd know this can happen on a match to match basis. This is why looking so far into things is creating all these problems.

c4d9385dd23d7906f7425f80eab1b921
Click to expand...
Nadal serving was also better in 2008 than 2007

Again you are offering literally no argument
 
Objective observer said:
Nadal serving was also better in 2008 than 2007

Again you are offering literally no argument
Click to expand...
It's hard to counter an argument that doesn't even exist. "3 more break chances means Federer was at his peak, I'd know I saw the stats".

Don't make me vomit.
 
Sabratha said:
Djokovic may have the higher peak but he might not have their longevity either. That is really what builds Federer's case. How long the guy has been around. It also has to be taken into account when examining all of their careers after they are finished.

We'll see how well these two hang around at the top.

I think off clay Nadal displayed the least impressive level of the 3. He lost to guys Novak and Roger would never even struggle with.
Click to expand...
The argument that Nadal is the least impressive off clay is completely irrelevant. Clay is not only equal to grass or hardcourt, it is in fact the dominant surface outside the States for hobby players, and it is the toughest surface physically and mentally. His slam tally minus clay is 6, which is as much as clay-hating Edberg or Becker won altogether. Rafa is not as good on hard and grass as RF/Novak but he isn't inferior to them on it, he's beaten them in slam finales on those surfaces (except Novak on grass, we don't count 2007), yet Nadal is SUPERIOR to the two on clay, in a way in which neither of them are superior to Rafa on hard or grass.

People like to say "but if we take away the 11 FO trophies"... That is ridiculous. These are slams as valid as any. If not more so. i don't subscribe to English hype that Wimbledon is THE event. That is propaganda. It is hogwash. All slams are 128-field best-of-5 2000-point events that everyone wants to win. How is one more valid than the other?

Regarding longevity, it is subjective whether longevity should be the primary factor. It is simply one of the many factors. RF's fans tend to cherry-pick what suits them, and I find that a sign of desperation. If they were so confident in RF's GOATness, they wouldn't need to resort to such strange claims as "clay is inferior" or "longevity is key" or "but Federer plays the aesthetically best tennis". The thread OP very clearly explained why the trio is pretty much equal when everything is summed up. A case could be made for all three being GOAT - if there was such a thing as GOAT, which I doubt - hence none of them are GOAT. They are a remarkable trio, and it is TOGETHER that they made each other great or even greater.
 
Last edited:
UnderratedSlam said:
The argument that Nadal is the least impressive off clay is completely irrelevant. Clay is not only equal to grass or hardcourt, it is in fact the dominant surface outside the States for hobby players, and it is the toughest surface physically and mentally. His slam tally minus clay is 6, which is as much as clay-hating Edberg or Becker won altogether. Rafa is not as good on hard and grass as RF/Novak but he isn't inferior to them on it, he's beaten them in slam finales on those surfaces (except Novak on grass, we don't count 2007), yet Nadal is SUPERIOR to the two on clay, in a way in which neither of them are superior to Rafa on hard or grass.

People like to say "but if we take away the 11 FO ttrophies"... That is ridiculous. These are slams as valid as any. If not more so. i don't subscribe to English hype that Wimbledon is THE event. That is propaganda. It is hogwash.

Regarding longevity, it is subjective whether longevity should be the primary factor. It is simply one of the many factors. RF's fans tend to cherry-pick what suits them, and I find that a sign of desperation. If they were so confident in RF's GOATness, they wouldn't need to resort to such strange claims as "clay is inferior" or "longevity is key" or "but Federer plays the aesthetically best tennis". The thread OP very clearly explained why the trio is pretty much equal when everything is summed up. A case could be made for all three being GOAT - if there was such a thing as GOAT, which I doubt - hence none of them are GOAT. They are a remarkable trio, and it is TOGETHER that they made each other great.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I was just stating a case that could work for Roger Federer that isn't dependent on how many majors he's won or records he currently holds.

Nothing is going to take that away from him. He's got this longevity forever. But so did Rosewall...
 
Objective observer said:
Mono Fed LOL
Federer barely won the 5th set in 2007 saving multiple break points LOL he was worse than 2008
Click to expand...
It's amazing there are still people using the phrase "Mono Fed". That's like something out of a stand-up comedy routine, not a real tennis analysis.

The very notion that a player can have MONO and yet reach slam finales and be no 2 is so funny it beats any kind of absurdity a small child might come up with in a moment of random-gibberish inspiration.

"Mono Fed" is like an alarm bell, meaning "uh-oh, a highly biased tennis fan is about to say something highly biased".
 
Last edited:
Objective observer said:
Fail

If he was playing so much worse how did he get more break chances against a better serving Nadal? Please explain
Click to expand...
Because, like I said, things change on a match by match basis even dependent of level. But you have absolutely no insight at all. You are just grabbing stats and examining things without actually going into detail.

I'd love to see what @NatF has to say about this lol.
 
Objective observer said:
Nothing to impress
Just hilarious how he was so clutch against Djokovic then choked miserably against his daddy in the final
Click to expand...
Chocked? You are having a field day today arent you? Show some respect. Ever since you joined this forum, all your posts that I see have been you talking trash about Federers career just so you can trigger other users and feel good about your agenda. Why dont you talk trash about other players aside from Fed? You call yourself objective observer but you only look at one bias and dont consider others.
Why don't you mention "Choke" anytime it applies to Djokovic or Nadal? After all those years Djokovic finally beats Nadal at Roland Garros only to end up losing miserably and crying in front of 1000s of fans.
Losing to the king of clay in 4 tough sets is hardly choking.
 
Sabratha said:
Because, like I said, things change on a match by match basis even dependent of level. But you have absolutely no insight at all. You are just grabbing stats and examining things without actually going into detail.

I'd love to see what @NatF has to say about this lol.
Click to expand...

So did Nadal play better in 2008 or 2007 according to you?
 
robthai said:
Chocked? You are having a field day today arent you? Show some respect. Ever since you joined this forum, all your posts that I see have been you talking trash about Federers career just so you can trigger other users and feel good about your agenda. Why dont you talk trash about other players aside from Fed? You call yourself objective observer but you only look at one bias and dont consider others.
Why don't you mention "Choke" anytime it applies to Djokovic or Nadal? After all those years Djokovic finally beats Nadal at Roland Garros only to end up losing miserably and crying in front of 1000s of fans."
Losing to the king of clay in 4 tough sets is hardly choking.
Click to expand...

Federer's own fans are the ones who call him a choker the most most other people just say he got outplayed
 
Until RG 2007 Federer beat 1 time in slams a top-5 ranked player who reached more than 5 slam finals in his career.
 
Objective observer said:
Federer's own fans are the ones who call him a choker the most most other people just say he got outplayed
Click to expand...
You dont seem very objective when you refer to Federers match vs Nadal in the finals as chocking. He chocked the first set, but aside from that he played at a very high quality throughout.
The select matches where you can say he choked are 2010-2011 us open finals.
 
robthai said:
Chocked? You are having a field day today arent you? Show some respect. Ever since you joined this forum, all your posts that I see have been you talking trash about Federers career just so you can trigger other users and feel good about your agenda. Why dont you talk trash about other players aside from Fed? You call yourself objective observer but you only look at one bias and dont consider others.
Click to expand...
I hope you admonish RF fans who post troll threads about Novak and Rafa. Because if you don't, then you are biased. In this short amount of time, I have read tons of troll posts mocking Nadal and Novak, really childish stuff.

It'd be helpful if we condemn equally all trolling, not just be selective about it. Either that, or we accept equal trolling rights for everyone.
 
robthai said:
You dont seem very objective when you refer to Federers match vs Nadal in the finals as chocking. He chocked the first set, but aside from that he played at a very high quality throughout.
The select matches where you can say he choked are 2010-2011 us open finals.
Click to expand...

Federer fans are the ones who say he choked in that match
 
UnderratedSlam said:
I hope you admonish RF fans who post troll threads about Novak and Rafa. Because if you don't, then you are biased. In this short amount of time, I have read tons of troll posts mocking Nadal and Novak, really childish stuff.

It'd be helpful if we condemn equally all trolling, not just be selective about it. Either that, or we accept equal trolling rights for everyone.
Click to expand...
To be fair the last few days I was trolling to trigger only the bad Novak/Rafa fans. The good ones found what I was posting was actually funny so there's that.

I try not to be disrespectful to any of the 3 these days. Using their argument against them works wonder though I'll say that much.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Stopped reading right there.

Fed is overwhelmingly the greatest player of his generation. These are men of Fed's generation:

Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Philippoussis, Davydenko, Ljubicic (his current coach!) and Nalbandian.

Nadal is five years younger than Roger and Novak is SIX years younger. Neither are his generational rivals, since all those guys are long since retired.
Click to expand...
By your logic, Roger then won his first 7 slams against tier 3 players, at best. The article is proof that Roger is not better than Novak or Nadal, overall. Roger had the age advantage of both Rafa and Novak the first few years they were on tour. Roger got lucky last year with Novak having an injury prone year and not playing at all. In this year's AO, he was again lucky, playing tier 3 or 4 players in order to win. The same was true of last year's Wimbledon. Roger is an ATG, with a great game style, but not really superior achievement wise, to Rafa or Novak.
 
Sabratha said:
Because, like I said, things change on a match by match basis even dependent of level. But you have absolutely no insight at all. You are just grabbing stats and examining things without actually going into detail.

I'd love to see what @NatF has to say about this lol.
Click to expand...

Don't know if I can be arsed to deal with someone with such a blatant agenda.

IMO the Wimbledon 2007 and 20008 finals are similar in quality/

thrust said:
By your logic, Roger then won his first 7 slams against tier 3 players, at best. The article is proof that Roger is not better than Novak or Nadal, overall. Roger had the age advantage of both Rafa and Novak the first few years they were on tour. Roger got lucky last year with Novak having an injury prone year and not playing at all. In this year's AO, he was again lucky, playing tier 3 or 4 players in order to win. The same was true of last year's Wimbledon. Roger is an ATG, with a great game style, but not really superior achievement wise, to Rafa or Novak.
Click to expand...

"This opinion piece is proof" lol
 
UnderratedSlam said:
I hope you admonish RF fans who post troll threads about Novak and Rafa. Because if you don't, then you are biased. In this short amount of time, I have read tons of troll posts mocking Nadal and Novak, really childish stuff.

It'd be helpful if we condemn equally all trolling, not just be selective about it. Either that, or we accept equal trolling rights for everyone.
Click to expand...
I see it more as counter trolling. the weak era argument was started by Nadal fans, and players being at their peak during mid 30s argument was started by Djokovic fans.
 
NatF said:
You admitted you had an agenda with your first thread. Every post of yours reeks of it.

Federer was a bit worse in 2008, Nadal was a bit better. I don't care enough to argue.
Click to expand...

Am just trying to be factual

Annoying how 2008 Federer is seen to be wayyyyy worse than 2007 for literally no reason except he lost to Nadal
 
Objective observer said:
Am just trying to be factual

Annoying how 2008 Federer is seen to be wayyyyy worse than 2007 for literally no reason except he lost to Nadal
Click to expand...
2008 Federer is seen as worse because of what happened outside of his losses to Nadal and Djokovic. Anyways going to counter my argument?

Djokovic of 2015 was just too good. Nadal wasn't any worse.
 
Sabratha said:
2008 Federer is seen as worse because of what happened outside of his losses to Nadal and Djokovic.
Click to expand...

But his level within those matches was no worse than 2007

Tell me honestly is 2008 Monte carlo Federer worse than 2007? Be honest

He was more inconsistent on hard but his peak was about the same
 
Objective observer said:
But his level within those matches was no worse than 2007

Tell me honestly is 2008 Monte carlo Federer worse than 2007? Be honest

He was more inconsistent on hard but his peak was about the same
Click to expand...
He walked away without an MS-1000 trophy and had losses to guys like Blake and Roddick. Yeah man that's some peak level stuff right there. :-D
 
Sabratha said:
He walked away without an MS-1000 trophy and had losses to guys like Blake and Roddick. Yeah man that's some peak level stuff right there. :-D
Click to expand...
Did you not read what I wrote? I just said he was more inconsistent but his peak was about the same

I guess Nadal almost lost to Youzhny in 2007 wimbledon so he was a very weak opponent for Federer in the final:-D:-D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Carsomyr
Djoko-coach channels Djoko-fans, claims 2017 is Peak Fedr
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
RF-18
30-30: Federer the best
Replies
4
Views
993
Surion
S
Krish872007
Lost the First Set? Not to Worry, Say Sampras / Djokovic / Federer
Replies
17
Views
1K
Deleted member 768841
D
tennisaddict
ATP Beyond The Numbers for 2015: Back From The Brink
Replies
0
Views
471
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
M
Rivalries - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray
Replies
0
Views
729
McEnroeisanartist
M
Back
Top