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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3771
  • Start date

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Why? Fed didnt play Big4 in the last two slams he won...

Everything that he did with post-2011 Djokovic is his. For me, his AO2017 is worth more than his first 10 slams. His backhand withstand Nadal' forehand and that is the biggest thing in tennis one can do.
 
This article makes three arguments against Federer.

1. Head to head.

refuted here:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...e-federer-nadal-head-to-head-is-bogus.594943/



2. Strength of competition.

refuted here

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ution-of-all-open-era-major-finalists.453446/

in the sense that you can't compare players 5-6 years apart in age, because their peaks don't overlap. So results on record tell you nothing about how players would have fared in each others' mini eras.



3. Win percentage in finals

Refuted by common sense. Winning more finals is all that counts. Reaching and losing finals is better than not reaching finals. Thus, a worse win percentage with more titles is better than fewer titles and a higher win percentage.

Your efforts would have been justified, if those guys could actually understand logical factual arguments.

:cool:
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
Though one thing is clear: if he meets Nadal or Djokovic in a Grand Slam final, the man referred to as the Greatest Of All Time is actually the underdog. The best we’ve ever seen … yet at the same time, third on the podium in this incredible era for men’s tennis.
This article is AMAZINGLY shortsighted for a professional piece ... and being so long.

Here is a post I wrote a ways back that needs constant reiteration around here:

I don't think people give enough credit to the reality that Federer has - for several years now - been competing very well with the generation below him - aka - the Big Four - even though he is clearly not their peer.

No one thinks Grigor is Rafa's generation. But the age difference is the same as between Rafa and Grigor as between Rog and Rafa.

And so the truth is Fed is not Rafa's peer. He is not Novak's or Andy's. He's not in their generation.

He crushed his generation so bad they're now called "the weak era" by many Rafalites and many Novakiples who seek to demean him. But he made them look weak. Now his peers are all gone in terms of threats for any titles while Rog has for years been setting a new standard for keeping up with the greats below him.

Folks talk of his Big 4 H2H loss as if that's some crucial liability. But given his age at this point That should be expected and it's a ridiculous argument against him. He should be getting regularly and consistently DESTROYED by these guys by now. And he's not. He's still very competitive.

While Rafa's greatness at such an early age was clear in that he was beating Fed on clay often in Fed's prime - the rest of the field can't claim such awesomeness as the Bull can.

But Rafa not withstanding (And Fed has a solid H2H v Rafa off Clay.) , It's one of the special aspects of his GOATNESS that Fed has to deal with the strength and youth of the rest of the big 4 - and their peers - while also being so much older.

And today - that at 35-36!!!! - the GOAT subdues his chief nemesis with consistency over 2017 and now chases YE#1 just testifies to his greatness.

Once again he's in uncharted territory. Rafa and Nole may follow the way he's paved - or they may not - but once again: he does what no one's really done in recent history.

VAMOS THE FED!!!
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Explain what makes 2007 Federer so much better? He was useless on return except last set compared to 2008

again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nadal was actually playing a tad bitter in Wim 07 final than in Wim 08 final.
He was backing up his serve great in the Wim 07 final.

nadal had~19.5% of his serves unreturned in the 2007 final
He had ~26% of his serves unreturned in the 2008 final

difference was a combination of federer returning worse in Wim 08 final and Nadal serving better in the Wim 08 final.

Federer was better in Wim 07 final than in Wim 08 final (though not by a big margin)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Ah confidence
That's different from saying he declined and you know it
So Federer didn't decline, he just got scared of Nadal. Got it(y)

Federer got scared of Nadal after thrashing him 4&1 at the YEC in 2007 end ?
After going 3-2 vs him in 2007 including beating him on clay ?
After going 5-2 vs him from Wim 06 to 2007 end ?

didn't have anything to do with his bout of mono, loss of practice&confidence due to that ?

yeah, makes sense for clueless observer.
 
Federer got scared of Nadal after thrashing him 4&1 at the YEC in 2007 end ?
After going 3-2 vs him in 2007 including beating him on clay ?
After going 5-2 vs him from Wim 06 to 2007 end ?

didn't have anything to do with his bout of mono, loss of practice&confidence due to that ?

yeah, makes sense for clueless observer.

Unlikely mono made an impact because he actually pushed Nadal harder in 2008 MC compared to 2007 MC
Also was 5-1 up in Hamburg 1st set and took the 2nd
 

AceSalvo

Legend
20-17-14

That's the reality that some folks cannot accept. Sure Nadal and Djoko are only 32 but if they are soooo good let's see them win slams to reach 20. Then we can have a decent debate about who is GOAT.

Until then that title belongs to King Roger regardless of "opinions" from tennis authors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Everybody knows that Fed was at his peak in 2008. But unfortunately for him, his talent level was exposed by other players peaking.

For example:

Peak Fed was 0-2 vs Simon in 2008. Unfortunately for Fed, that was Simon’s peak too. And look at what happened to Fed. The fact that Fed was 7-0 vs Simon outside of 2008 is meaningless. Bottom line: peak Simon destroys Peak Fed

Peak Fed was 1-1 vs Blake in 2008. Outside of that year, Fed was 9-0 vs Blake. Bottom line: Peak Fed=James Blake

Roddick was 1-0 vs Peak Fed. No great players ever lost a single match to Roddick because Roddick was a terrible player. And yet, Peak Fed did. This means that Peak Fed was decent at best.

World #98 Mardy Fish steamrolled Peak Federer 6-3, 6-2 in 2008 at their only meeting that year. Outside of 2008, Fed was 8-0 vs Fish. However, Despite it not being obvious, Fish was favored heading into that 2008 IW match. The experts knew that an in-form 98th ranked Fish would take out Peak Fed, despite the fact that Fed was the 3-time defending champion at IW and despite the fact that he had a career record of 5-0 against Fish( most huge blowouts at that). The experts figured out in 2008 that Fed was a “weak era mug”. So Fish was actually the favorite going into that match. Vegas made a killing!

Baby Murray was 3-1 vs Peak Fed. The only reason Murray lost that one match at the USO final is that he was overconfident going into that match. Murray was wise beyond his years. He figured out that Fed was a weak era mug. And he proved that by going 3-1 vs Peak Fed in 2008. But Murray actually ate 30 large pancakes right before that USO match to try and give the pansy a chance at winning a set.

Stepanek beat Peak Fed in 2008. Stepanek was 2-14 vs Fed. That means Stepanek beat Fed one other time. This is good. Wait for it... Stepanek’s only other win over Fed was in 2002, yet another one of Fed’s peak years. Stepanek actually beat Fed during 2 of his very best seasons ever. This Shows that Stepanek was every bit as good as Fed ever was.

The only reason that Fed lost as many matches in 2008 as he did in 2004, 2005, and 2006 combined is that 2008 was the year that professional tennis started. I believe that 2008 was the beginning of the 2nd Open Era. This exposed Peak Fed.

So there you have it. 1998-2002, 2008, 2013, and 2016 were clearly Fed’s peak years. And yet, Fed was badly exposed those years. I predict that Federer won’t make the Hall of Fame.
You did it better than I ever could. :p
 
I think most honest, seasoned tennis watchers outside of the online frenzy acknowledge that Federer’s poor H2H record against his main rivals -particularly dreadful in slams- rules him out of the title of undisputed greatest of his era.

He is still an undisputed top 10 all-time great though, and will be for a long time to come.

There's absolutely no need to include the words in bold. It's a perfectly honest, reasonable & valid assertion without it - but changed to the opposite by your arbitrary assumption.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Unlikely mono made an impact because he actually pushed Nadal harder in 2008 MC compared to 2007 MC
Also was 5-1 up in Hamburg 1st set and took the 2nd

that's because Nadal was clearly better in the MC 2007 final than in the MC 2008 final. Federer choked the 2nd set away in MC 2008 final. (from up 4-0)
As far as Hamburg 08 final goes, the 1st set was a horrendous choke from fed. (from up 5-1,40-15 !!)

Lesser confidence had a role to play in those chokes.

Fed played better in Monte Carlo+Hamburg than in the early HC season because the physical effects of mono were gone, but doesn't mean his confidence hadn't gone down compared to 2007.
 
Last edited:
B

BrokenGears

Guest
So what stupid ass claims have been made in this thread which I've conveniently ignored?

Someone run it by me
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
I was torn between Agassi and Fed at 2005 UO. I knew it was his last chance and that Federer had more chances to come.
With liking more than one player I have to make these decisions sometimes too. 2008 Wimby, I was rooting for Rafa. They were both young but I felt Rafa needed the tourney more for his career.

I was already an Agassi fan so I rooted for old-time Agassi over everyone. His days were numbered his odds were slim.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
This article is AMAZINGLY shortsighted for a professional piece ... and being so long.

Here is a post I wrote a ways back that needs constant reiteration around here:

I don't think people give enough credit to the reality that Federer has - for several years now - been competing very well with the generation below him - aka - the Big Four - even though he is clearly not their peer.

No one thinks Grigor is Rafa's generation. But the age difference is the same as between Rafa and Grigor as between Rog and Rafa.

And so the truth is Fed is not Rafa's peer. He is not Novak's or Andy's. He's not in their generation.

He crushed his generation so bad they're now called "the weak era" by many Rafalites and many Novakiples who seek to demean him. But he made them look weak. Now his peers are all gone in terms of threats for any titles while Rog has for years been setting a new standard for keeping up with the greats below him.

Folks talk of his Big 4 H2H loss as if that's some crucial liability. But given his age at this point That should be expected and it's a ridiculous argument against him. He should be getting regularly and consistently DESTROYED by these guys by now. And he's not. He's still very competitive.

While Rafa's greatness at such an early age was clear in that he was beating Fed on clay often in Fed's prime - the rest of the field can't claim such awesomeness as the Bull can.

But Rafa not withstanding (And Fed has a solid H2H v Rafa off Clay.) , It's one of the special aspects of his GOATNESS that Fed has to deal with the strength and youth of the rest of the big 4 - and their peers - while also being so much older.

And today - that at 35-36!!!! - the GOAT subdues his chief nemesis with consistency over 2017 and now chases YE#1 just testifies to his greatness.

Once again he's in uncharted territory. Rafa and Nole may follow the way he's paved - or they may not - but once again: he does what no one's really done in recent history.

VAMOS THE FED!!!
The people that need to read this will refuse to because reality hurts.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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

2008 Fed was crap for first 2 sets. 07 Fed would’ve wrapped up that 2nd set no problem. Overall he was a little worse than 07 (less clutch in 5th set) and Nadal was a little better. Both finals could’ve gone either way.

Outside of Wimbledon?

AO - much much worse in 2008. Slower surface. Crap FH. Clearly suffering from mono.

IW/Miami - terrible both years

MC - about the same
Hamburg - better in 07 thanks to that epic choke in 08
RG - miles better in 07

Canada/Cincy - way way better in 07, only lost to an aggressive hitting young Djokovic. Lost to mugs in 08

USO - a bit better in 07 overall. 08 peak level in SF/F very high too

Madrid indoors/Paris - again better in 07. Only lost to zoning Nalbandian. Lost to mugs in 08.

YEC - lost a match but proceeded to destroy Nadal and Ferrer. Lost to Murray in 08 and was injured

As you can see, 2008 was a massive drop in overall level, confidence and actual results from 2007. Which itself wasn’t on par with 2004-2006.
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
Just noticed the FMA avatar. You've gone up in my estimation - ever so slightly ;)

Oh so I've found another dog of the military

It'll probably go down after you find out which version of the show I liked more:whistle:

Nice knowing FMA fans are everywhere tho
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I like a lot of these players too, but none of them were legend material.

However, unlike you and a lot of others, I thought the 2004 era was awful. I hated 2011 too. Was bored with 2015/2016. I hate a lack of competition. To me the best seasons are ones when 2 or preferably three players duke it out on a level playing field. 2012 was great hence. 2005 was interesting. 2000 was great. 1996-1998 was fun.

Agenda is all it's about. Fan camps warring over facts, rarely able to be objective. The moment you notice that you're cherry-picking facts, you know you've joined a camp. From then on, your opinions are tainted, subjective, ridiculous even.

I try to be objective. I may not be entirely unbiased, but at least I try.
2005 had lots of great matches.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Oh so I've found another dog of the military

It'll probably go down after you find out which version of the show I liked more:whistle:

Nice knowing FMA fans are everywhere tho

I've only ever seen Brotherhood, but I hear the original Anime was good too - so can't fault you for it too much.

Only watched it recently tbh, this year in fact.
 

Indigo

Professional
I think Fed saved himself with 2017-18 slams. Rafa needs 4 and Nole 7 to overtake. But those 3 slams for Fed are the results of his perseverance. He didn't win slam for 6 years and was beaten constantly but he played and played waiting for his chance. Great guy. Finally he was rewarded. Inspiring story. Fed is really one of the GOATs.
 
Winning percentage against no.1 in Slams:

Nadal 61.5
Wawrinka 50
Djokovic 37.5
Cilic 25
Del Potro 22.2
Ferrer 20
Nishikori 20
Murray 14.3
Berdych 12.5
Federer 11.1


Most consecutive wins in Slams against Big 4:

Djokovic 11 (active)
Nadal 6
Murray 2
Wawrinka 2
Del Potro 2
Berdych 2
Safin 2
Nalbandian 2
Tsonga 2
Federer 2

Win rate at first 3 slam finals on preferred surface

Fed: 100
Wawrinka 100
Nadal 100
Murray 0 (novaks main comp lol)
Novak 33

Chockovic? Bear in mind novak choking basically all key moments to mugs e.g. first career slam, cygs, tying fed wtf, tying nadal masters count all choked to mugs? Does this mental fragility plaace novak a tier 4 ATG?
 
Winning percentage against no.1 in Slams:

Nadal 61.5
Wawrinka 50
Djokovic 37.5
Cilic 25
Del Potro 22.2
Ferrer 20
Nishikori 20
Murray 14.3
Berdych 12.5
Federer 11.1


Most consecutive wins in Slams against Big 4:

Djokovic 11 (active)
Nadal 6
Murray 2
Wawrinka 2
Del Potro 2
Berdych 2
Safin 2
Nalbandian 2
Tsonga 2
Federer 2

Slam final lossess suffered at hands of mugs, slam virgins and non ATGs

Federer 1/30 (3 percent - arguably 0/30)
Nadal 1/24 (4 percent again outstanding)
Djokovic 4/23 (SEVENTEEN PERCENT)

Mugovic/chokovic?

This alone puts chokovic at tier 3/4 ATG max
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Win rate at first 3 slam finals on preferred surface

Fed: 100
Wawrinka 100
Nadal 100
Murray 0 (novaks main comp lol)
Novak 33

Chockovic? Bear in mind novak choking basically all key moments to mugs e.g. first career slam, cygs, tying fed wtf, tying nadal masters count all choked to mugs? Does this mental fragility plaace novak a tier 4 ATG?

Murray's preferred surface is grass and he won 2 out of his first 3 Slam finals on that.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
if Federer wins MC and Rome he would be in the GOAT discussion

So wonderful to know this! We can all sleep easier now knowing Roger is at least "in the GOAT discussion."

joselineeyeroll.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Just excuses after excuses. Nadal and Djokkovic have been around in the vast majority of Federer’s 20 slams and during his no 1 ranking. If they were really better they would be holding these records.
Federer is hailed as the GOAT really bothers these anti-Fed fans.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
I think Fed saved himself with 2017-18 slams. Rafa needs 4 and Nole 7 to overtake. But those 3 slams for Fed are the results of his perseverance. He didn't win slam for 6 years and was beaten constantly but he played and played waiting for his chance. Great guy. Finally he was rewarded. Inspiring story. Fed is really one of the GOATs.
RF is MSOAT.

Most stubborn. Easily.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Slam final lossess suffered at hands of mugs, slam virgins and non ATGs

Federer 1/30 (3 percent - arguably 0/30)
Nadal 1/24 (4 percent again outstanding)
Djokovic 4/23 (SEVENTEEN PERCENT)

Mugovic/chokovic?

This alone puts chokovic at tier 3/4 ATG max
True mental strength is losing to complete mugs in early rounds and not reach the final at all, no?

 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
Slam final lossess suffered at hands of mugs, slam virgins and non ATGs

Federer 1/30 (3 percent - arguably 0/30)
Nadal 1/24 (4 percent again outstanding)
Djokovic 4/23 (SEVENTEEN PERCENT)

Mugovic/chokovic?

This alone puts chokovic at tier 3/4 ATG max
You're taking tennis WAY too personally.

None of RF's rivals ever did anything to you. It's all in your imagination. They are not demons from a Satanic cult nor are they out to slay either you or Federer. They just hit a little yellow ball as a profession. Because they are great at it.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
This whole argument can be turned on its head:

Not only did post-peak Fed have to face Djokdal at their peak after his own, they had the benefit of not having to have their peak years ruined by Fed playing at his own peak.

Nad is king of clay almost regardless of age so far, but in other surfaces he has a losing H2H to Fed. He barley beat a declining Fed at WB in 2008 and AO in 2009. What if he had to face '04-'07 peak Fed in those matches? Maybe you could argue that Nadal peaked early and did face him at WB in '06 & '07 and we saw what happened.

Of course Nad's peak start was probably closer to 08 and beyond. 4 years after Fed's started.

We saw what obvious post-peak Fed did to Novak at RG '11 and WB '12. We saw post peak Fed barley lose w match points at the USO in '10 and '11 to Novak. Even in '14-15 he was winning Bo3 against Novak and took him to 5 sets at WB in the final. We can only imagine what Fed would have done to Novak's slam tally if his peak had coincided with Djokovic.

Djokdal were lucky they did not have to come up with the generation of Fed w Roddick, etc. There is a compelling case they would be routed by the GOAT just as Fed's own generation was. Claydal excepted of course.
 
Last edited:

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
This whole argument can be turned on its head in several ways:

Not only did post-peak Fed have to face Djokdal at their peak after his own, they had the benefit of not having to have their peak ruined by Fed playing at his own peak.

Nad is king of clay almost regardless of age so far, but in other surfaces he has a losing H2H to Fed. He barley slightly declining Fed at WB in 2008 and AO in 2009. What if he had to face '04-'07 peak Fed in those matches? Maybe you could argue that Nadal peaked early and did face him at WB in '07 and we saw what happened.

Of course Nad's peak start was probably closer to 08 and beyond. 4-5 years after Fed's started.

We saw what obvious post-peak Fed did to Novak at RG '11 and WB '12. We saw post peak Fed barley lose w match points at the USO in '10 and '11 to Novak. Even in '14-15 he was winning Bo3 against Novak and took him to 5 sets at WB in the final. We can only imagine what Fed would have done to Novak's slam tally if his peak had coincided with Djokovic.

Djokdal were lucky they did not have to come in the generation of Fed w Roddick, etc. There is a compelling case they would be routed by the GOAT just as Fed's own generation was. Claydal excepted of course.
Yes, and you've turned some heads.
 
Last edited:

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
Your efforts would have been justified, if those guys could actually understand logical factual arguments.

:cool:
I've been to Cherry-Picking 101 and even Serve Your Player's Agenda School of Twisted Facts 505, but so far have failed to grasp this revolutionary new tennis logic.
 
Last edited:

Pheasant

Legend
So wonderful to know this! We can all sleep easier now knowing Roger is at least "in the GOAT discussion."

joselineeyeroll.gif
Hold on, BeatlesFan. You missed an important detail. Fed needs to win those two clay court Masters BEFORE he can even enter the discussion. And since he won’t, due to the doctors telling Fed to skip clay, then everything changes.

For some, Fed will likely need to win 7 out of the next 12 slam events to ENTER the conversion. And that is only if everybody considers Nadal and Djoker at their peaks during that time frame. Because if they are slumping, injured, or somehow retired, then Fed goes back to being a weak era mug in their minds. And we know how old Nadal and Djoker are getting. So realistically, Fed needs to build up a minimum 10 slam lead over the next highest guy to enter the discussion.
 

ohiostate124

Professional
It’s not a problem at all when you realize that he is five years older than them and they are a completely different tennis generation. If anything, it cements his goat status.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Hold on, BeatlesFan. You missed an important detail. Fed needs to win those two clay court Masters BEFORE he can even enter the discussion. And since he won’t, due to the doctors telling Fed to skip clay, then everything changes.

For some, Fed will likely need to win 7 out of the next 12 slam events to ENTER the conversion. And that is only if everybody considers Nadal and Djoker at their peaks during that time frame. Because if they are slumping, injured, or somehow retired, then Fed goes back to being a weak era mug in their minds. And we know how old Nadal and Djoker are getting. So realistically, Fed needs to build up a minimum 10 slam lead over the next highest guy to enter the discussion.
Federer won Hamburg several times, so he doesn't have to win MC despite popular Djoko troll beliefs. Basically, their argument relies on one win in a Masters just once against a 37 yr old 7-time champion of the event after years and years of failure there. Even getting bageled by the same man that he is supposedly greater than at the same event LOL! Really he would only have to win MC or Rome. Not both. Like it matters anyway :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top