What considerations should Federer's style have on his GOAT status?

[BGod]

I searched and couldn't find previous topics exactly on this question.

When people are looking at GOAT discussions, obviously the Slam count is brought up but then you talk about dominance (Federer having dominated 2 Slams like Novak and Nadal never had) and then finally competition level.

What gets seriously underscored in my opinion are the obvious differences between Federer's style and that of most others in the last 20 years.

Djokovic, 100sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Nadal, 100sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Roddick, 100sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Murray, 98sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Safin, 93sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Hewitt, 90sq racquet then 93, two handed backhand.

Only Wawrinka with his success came close with a 95 and of course his one hander. However Shapovalov also uses this racquet and the one hander while Tsitsipas uses a 98.

Now Federer switched to a 97 frame and the first thing I noticed was his shanks essentially disappeared because of the added space. So it's clear he was winning with a lot smaller margin of error than everyone else. Yes he played to his style but many players grow up with a racquet despite it's weaknesses, in Fed's case the frame size giving him less margin of error.

Considering Fed's domination from 04-07 which will likely be unmatched by either Nadal or Novak (except for Novak's consecutive streaks he had 2 dominant years of Federer's level and not 4 years in a row) and his racquet and style, does that not give him any tiebreaks over his younger successors?


OR, put another way, if Federer's style of play was the hardest to succeed with and he chose that route, should he not get extra credit for doing so? We always talk about match-ups between players and a win is a win but you can't help and admire someone for pushing themselves to be great at a higher level as oppose to just winning. I know some will just not understand this concept or take it for showboating but just something about say, Jordan's flu game or Bobby Orr skating on one knee, etc.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Zero.

 

[smoledman]

Zero.

So you say. But to many of us Federer's playing style is the reason we started watching him in the first place.

 

[BrokenGears]

Zero

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

So you say. But to many of us Federer's playing style is the reason we started watching him in the first place.

That is great but it does not have an impact on GOAT discussions. Whether you find a particular style appealing or not is subjective anyways. There are most likely many Nadal fans who started watching tennis because of Nadal. Myself I started watching tennis because of Agassi. If some servebot came along and won 25 slams he would be GOAT regardless of how boring his style might be.

 

[Goret]

Choosing less efficient equipment or more difficult style to master remains a player's choice. So this shouldn't give any edge in GOAT debates.
Otherwise, Kyrgios' unfocused lifestyle (also a "choice" that makes it harder to achieve success) would also have to be factored in, for example.

 

[HashDump]

Zero.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

None. Let the man's amazing acconplishments speak for themselves. Style is something else. Maybe a reason you might be a fan of someone.

Results is what matters in terms of assessing someone's career.

Otherwise Tsonga>Nadal to many here

 

[BGod]

If some servebot came along and won 25 slams he would be GOAT regardless of how boring his style might be.

Interesting.

In other sports this is far from the sentiment. A player is considered a grinder if they just "win". And that's team sports.

In racing for example, Ayrton Senna is still considered the GOAT by many despite "only" 3 F1 titles because for many years he had inferior cars to the top racers and his aggressive style taking more risks. There's something to be said of that.

Also let's not get confused between greatest careers and greatest talents.

 

[TheIntrovert]

None. Let the man's amazing acconplishments speak for themselves. Style is something else. Maybe a reason you might be a fan of someone.

Results is what matters in terms of assessing someone's career.

Otherwise Tsonga>Nadal to many here

Tsonga is the third greatest of all time imo. Second is Llodra. Then Rojer first.

 

[BGod]

Otherwise Tsonga>Nadal to many here

The margins are too big in that scenario. One could say Wawrinka>Nadal at the AO though.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Tsonga is the third greatest of all time imo. Second is Llodra. Then Rojer first.

I know this was a friendly attempt to be funny. So I will tread lightly. Your humor is not working my friend. Back to the drawing board.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

The margins are too big in that scenario. One could say Wawrinka>Nadal at the AO though.

Counting style at all is ridiculous in determining greatness. Another insane goalpost moving tactic.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I know some will just not understand this concept or take it for showboating but just something about say, Jordan's flu game or Bobby Orr skating on one knee, etc.

Jordan’s flu game was great but mentioning these instances actually does not help Federer’s case. A big part of why Jordan is considered GOAT is because he had the ability to always raise his level when it matters most. Perfect 6-0 score in NBA finals with 5 final MVPs. The flu game. You just had the impression that this guy simply refused to loose and his pure will always let him find a way. You actually had to rip his heart out to beat him. Federer on the other hand choked a lot of times when things got tight. He pulled out of the WTF final due to injury only to rest for Davis Cup. If I think about that something similar to Jordan’s flu game in tennis would happen, Federer is not really the player that comes to my mind. Maybe Nadal or Connors.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Jordan’s flu game was great but mentioning these instances actually does not help Federer’s case. A big part of why Jordan is considered GOAT is because he had the ability to always raise his level when it matters most. Perfect 6-0 score in NBA finals with 5 final MVPs. The flu game. You just had the impression that this guy simply refused to loose and his pure will always let him find a way. You actually had to rip his heart out to beat him. Federer on the other hand choked a lot of times when things got tight. He pulled out of the WTF final due to injury only to rest for Davis Cup. If I think about that something similar to Jordan’s flu game in tennis would happen, Federer is not really the player that comes to my mind. Maybe Nadal or Connors.

Jordan is much more of a warrior than Federer. Federer is more like the Wilt of tennis.

 

[KINGROGER]

Totally agree. Some boring robot pusher could win 25 slams and I wouldn’t consider him GOAT over Fed.

 

[TheIntrovert]

I know this was a friendly attempt to be funny. So I will tread lightly. Your humor is not working my friend. Back to the drawing board.

Lmao are you trying to threaten me? ‘Tread lightly’ ... damn, what a tosser you are.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Totally agree. Some boring robot pusher could win 25 slams and I wouldn’t consider him GOAT over Fed.

That's because you're biased af plain and simple.

When you have an unfalsifiable position it is the sign of a crazy person/fanbase.

 

[KINGROGER]

That's because you're biased af plain and simple.

When you have an unfalsifiable position it is the sign of a crazy person/fanbase.

Nah Fed will always be the GOAT for me unless someone comes along with his flair/style and wins a crazy number of slams like 25+.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Nah Fed will always be the GOAT for me unless someone comes along with his flair/style and wins a crazy number of slams like 25+.

What do you mean nah?

I just explained you are biased and unreasonable with an unfalsifiable belief and you verified that.

 

[Jaitock1991]

I for one became a fan of Fed due his playing style and to me he will always be my absolute favourite because of this. But greatness is a different meassure, and beauty is not a part of that.

 

[KINGROGER]

What do you mean nah?

I just explained you are biased and unreasonable with an unfalsifiable belief and you verified that.

I’m entitled to my opinion. Federer has the biggest stretch of dominance in tennis history and also longevity, doing it with a tiny racket and with tons of flair/style.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Interesting.

In other sports this is far from the sentiment. A player is considered a grinder if they just "win". And that's team sports.

In racing for example, Ayrton Senna is still considered the GOAT by many despite "only" 3 F1 titles because for many years he had inferior cars to the top racers and his aggressive style taking more risks. There's something to be said of that.

Also let's not get confused between greatest careers and greatest talents.

Formula 1 is not a sport so let’s leave this out. And this is coming from a German where this crap is very popular. In football (real football), Ronaldinho had one of the most beautiful playing styles but he does not appear on any top ten GOAT list. Guys like McEnroe, Rios were also a joy to watch, but that does not elevate them on the GOAT list. As I said, playing style is far to subjective to be a tie breaker.

 

[BGod]

Jordan’s flu game was great but mentioning these instances actually does not help Federer’s case. A big part of why Jordan is considered GOAT is because he had the ability to always raise his level when it matters most. Perfect 6-0 score in NBA finals with 5 final MVPs. The flu game. You just had the impression that this guy simply refused to loose and his pure will always let him find a way. You actually had to rip his heart out to beat him. Federer on the other hand choked a lot of times when things got tight. He pulled out of the WTF final due to injury only to rest for Davis Cup. If I think about that something similar to Jordan’s flu game in tennis would happen, Federer is not really the player that comes to my mind. Maybe Nadal or Connors.

The other side is Jordan had stacked teams. He didn't even win a single playoff game before Pippen. His teams were 7 all-stars deep (not all in peak form mind you but still) in all 6 of his runs.

Hakeem Olajuwan only won 2 titles but both times he absolutely dragged teams and won it by essentially himself (lead his team in 4 of 5 statistical categories both finals if I recall correctly). Remember now greatest career and greatest talent aren't one and the same. Obviously I won't rate Jordan ahead of Hakeem because the margin is too big but pound for pound I'm taking Hakeem over Jordan for value on my team as a lesser guard like Dwayne Wade is enough rather than having a lesser Center like Horace Grant.

What about the Orr vs. Gretzky discussion? Gretzky has the bar none greatest career but Orr was the better player, hell Lemieux was the better player as well. Both careers cut short.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I’m entitled to my opinion. Federer has the biggest stretch of dominance in tennis history and also longevity, doing it with a tiny racket and with tons of flair/style.

This is a sport about winning not relative stuff like this with qualifications. Anyone can play with whatever they want in whatever style they want.

That is withing your right to be a fan of them for these reasons (obviously) but it is foolish to state that makes them any better than their accomplishments dictate.

 

[smoledman]

ITT - Nadal & Djokovic fans saying playing style is irrelevant. News at 11. Guess what - ticket sales matter to this sport and somebody like Nick is huge.

 

[smoledman]

The other side is Jordan had stacked teams. He didn't even win a single playoff game before Pippen. His teams were 7 all-stars deep (not all in peak form mind you but still) in all 6 of his runs.

Hakeem Olajuwan only won 2 titles but both times he absolutely dragged teams and won it by essentially himself (lead his team in 4 of 5 statistical categories both finals if I recall correctly). Remember now greatest career and greatest talent aren't one and the same. Obviously I won't rate Jordan ahead of Hakeem because the margin is too big but pound for pound I'm taking Hakeem over Jordan for value on my team as a lesser guard like Dwayne Wade is enough rather than having a lesser Center like Horace Grant.

What about the Orr vs. Gretzky discussion? Gretzky has the bar none greatest career but Orr was the better player, hell Lemieux was the better player as well. Both careers cut short.

OTOH Jordan 6 title squads were stacked. He never took the Washington Wizards to the playoffs did he? Useless comparing team sports to individual. I'd be more apt to compare Tiger Woods winning 2008 US Open on a broken leg/knee.

 

[BGod]

Formula 1 is not a sport so let’s leave this out. And this is coming from a German where this crap is very popular. In football (real football), Ronaldinho had one of the most beautiful playing styles but he does not appear on any top ten GOAT list. Guys like McEnroe, Rios were also a joy to watch, but that does not elevate them on the GOAT list. As I said, playing style is far to subjective to be a tie breaker.

Right, well I mean some do but not accredited sources. However does Diego Maradona ring a bell? I hear a lot put him inside Top 10.

 

[BGod]

ITT - Nadal & Djokovic fans saying playing style is irrelevant. News at 11. Guess what - ticket sales matter to this sport and somebody like Nick is huge.

Ticket sales indeed. I love Djokovic but I as a spectator have seen WAAAAAY too many disappointing attendances at his matches live. He's gained steam but you'd think after his 2011 season stadium would be packed. Federer has amassed sardine packed arenas since 2005.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The other side is Jordan had stacked teams. He didn't even win a single playoff game before Pippen. His teams were 7 all-stars deep (not all in peak form mind you but still) in all 6 of his runs.

Hakeem Olajuwan only won 2 titles but both times he absolutely dragged teams and won it by essentially himself (lead his team in 4 of 5 statistical categories both finals if I recall correctly). Remember now greatest career and greatest talent aren't one and the same. Obviously I won't rate Jordan ahead of Hakeem because the margin is too big but pound for pound I'm taking Hakeem over Jordan for value on my team as a lesser guard like Dwayne Wade is enough rather than having a lesser Center like Horace Grant.

What about the Orr vs. Gretzky discussion? Gretzky has the bar none greatest career but Orr was the better player, hell Lemieux was the better player as well. Both careers cut short.

I know that and I agree on Hakeem. I am actually a big fan of his and how he carries mediocre teams to the biggest title. He also lead Jordan in direct comparison (13-10 if memory serves). It is a little like Maradona vs Pele. Pele has all the numbers while Diego won relatively few titles. However while Pele played with the best teams of the world, Maradona did it with mediocre teams. This is off topic however, my point is that many consider Jordan the GOAT (I do not) and this is also because of things like the flu game and his 6-0 finals score. Stacked team or not, Jordan always was the leader and best player and over performed in the final series, it is not that he disappeared in any final and Pippen had to save the bulls. Federer on the other hand is not really famous for his mental strength or for raising his level when it matters most.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Right, well I mean some do but not accredited sources. However does Diego Maradona ring a bell? I hear a lot put him inside Top 10.

Maradona is not necessarily there for his playing style but for his peak level, short dominance and because he won big titles with mediocre teams.

 

[KINGROGER]

This is a sport about winning not relative stuff like this with qualifications. Anyone can play with whatever they want in whatever style they want.

That is withing your right to be a fan of them for these reasons (obviously) but it is foolish to state that makes them any better than their accomplishments dictate.

Yeah what I said wasn’t objective just my own view on it.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yeah what I said wasn’t objective just my own view on it.

And I'm saying it's absurd for greatness to be subjective like that when you're talking about things that don't have to do with winning.

 

[Goret]

In racing for example, Ayrton Senna is still considered the GOAT by many despite "only" 3 F1 titles because for many years he had inferior cars to the top racers and his aggressive style taking more risks. There's something to be said of that.

Some argue it's Jim Clark, who has two titles.
But both share the following: they died on the racing track, while at the peak of their career and ability. This certainly plays a huge role when assessing their greatness...

 

[Steve0904]

On the statistical side? None. But that doesn't exactly mean that he isn't the "GOAT" (in air quotes because I don't believe in the concept) even if Nadal and/or Djokovic breaks the slam record by a millimetre. At the end of the day it'll be like splitting hairs if Fed finishes at 20 and one or even both of the others gets to 21. If one or both of those 2 blows away his slam record by 2-3 slams for example then yes they are definitely greater. Not necessarily better tennis players though, just greater from a numbers perspective which is the same argument used in all Djokovic/Nadal is GOAT threads these days. And who am I to judge really? I don't care who anyone thinks is the greatest. It really doesn't matter to me.

And it also doesn't mean any true Federer fans (i.e not a gloryhunter/bandwagoner) would jump ship and start liking Nadal or Djokovic (if they didn't already) just because they broke the record. All the non glory hunting Federer fans like him for the shots he produces and the style he plays not for 20 slams or "GOAT" status. Personally for me, the fact that he's the only one of the 3 that truly employs S&V as a tactic and uses the net as a weapon, especially in his late career is important to me. It's not important to everyone, I get that, I just don't care about "everyone." If Djokovic or Nadal can also pull this off later, all props to them. Federer's style is important to me, but who wins a numbers race isn't all that important. If someone in later years is able to say Djokovic is greater than Federer because he won more slams then so be it, but every Federer fan reserves the right to call Federer their favourite player regardless of what happens in the slam race.

Truthfully, they also reserve the right to call Federer the GOAT if they see fit. So there is always going to be a large degree of subjectivity involved. You're not going to change a large percentage of opinions with all 3 at the stages they're at now in their careers, and I think that's something a lot of Djokovic and Nadal fans don't realize, specifically the quadrant of Djokovic and Nadal fans that only exist to see their favourite become "GOAT" instantly by breaking Federer's slam record (and because they hate his guts or they're getting back at a few obnoxious Federer fans). You can argue numbers until you're blue in the face with some people and they just won't care at all. They'll still call Federer the GOAT just to p.iss you off. And who's to say they're wrong? If they don't care about the numbers how are you going to change their mind. Do you even deserve to change their mind? Probably not, right? And this is where shoving the whole "GOAT" concept down everybody's throat goes horribly wrong no matter who it is.

 

[Goret]

"Liked" and "great" are two different dimensions.
For the "GOAT" part, I'd agree that there's more than the slam count, and 1-2 units may not be a significant margin. However, this would logically work both ways... I'll let everyone deduce what this implies.

 

[Enga]

Style has a lot to do with it. Lew Hoad was thought of as a player with a lot of natural skill. He did not win nearly as much as Rodney Laver. But many of his contemporaries complimented him and his style. Some people think of him as one of the greats.



So it boggles my mind when you have a guy, the winningest of all time, AND he does it with insane style, people dont wanna call him GOAT. Proof that the title of GOAT is a biased discussion in the first place, one not even worth having.

 

[axlrose]

Djokovic, 100sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Nadal, 100sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Roddick, 100sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Murray, 98sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Safin, 93sq racquet, two handed backhand.
Hewitt, 90sq racquet then 93, two handed backhand.

.

Djokovic uses a 95 sqi racquet (98 includes beam). Sorry to tell you that, mate.

 

[axlrose]

First, I think you should spend more time to learn about prostocks. The above given information shows that you know very little about them.

Second, be noted that Fedr started as a S&ver and we all know smaller racquet head means more maneuverable at net. Fedr chose that stick (Pro Staff 85 if I recall exactly) because it fitted his game at that time.

Third, about the play style part: "if Federer's style of play was the hardest to succeed with and he chose that route", please remember that each player chooses their playing style based on his skills set. Fedr plays attacking tennis because he has 1st Tier Serve and Forehand. Nobody chooses to do the hard way. Giving him extra credit is not necessary.

For example, if Fedr tries to hit all his BH with topspin though he knows a lot of them will end up an EU, but they look more eye-catching, then he deserves more credit. However, we all know that he slices alot. Obviously he doesn't choose the hard way.

Oh I forgot, if somebody else hits a defensive shot it means he's a pusher, a grinder. If Fedr hits a defensive shot it means variety, artistic, high IQ....

))

 

[ghostofMecir]

Choosing less efficient equipment or more difficult style to master remains a player's choice. So this shouldn't give any edge in GOAT debates.
Otherwise, Kyrgios' unfocused lifestyle (also a "choice" that makes it harder to achieve success) would also have to be factored in, for example.

When Fed started, Pete was on his way to becoming the greatest. Players volleyed more so a one-handed had advantages.

Playing with a one hander now is a huge disadvantage, especially on return. Two handers were always better on return and probably always will be, but the advantages volleying with a one-hander on fast surfaces, slicing, etc. ameliorated some of that. When the game changed and the surfaces slowed, a one-hander became a massive liability.

Playing with the 90 most of his career in a slower court era against the 100 rackets and poly strings...it’s just been a massive disadvantage that really only someone with once in a lifetime talent could wind up doing what Feder has done.

 

[tennisfan2015]

0

 

[NuBas]

Yes it matters. Beauty is part of the sport. Its not just brawling, its the motion movement of the game and only Roger makes it look beautiful and effortless.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Some argue it's Jim Clark, who has two titles.
But both share the following: they died on the racing track, while at the peak of their career and ability. This certainly plays a huge role when assessing their greatness...

Clark and Senna are obvious peak goats I think, best qualifiers considering # of races and car quality and had equally awesome super quick racing performances as well. Clark still holds the F1 Grand Slam record (something other than titles, ha) at 8, IIRC. Ombeleevable really, given his number of GP entered.

 

[Enga]

For example, if Fedr tries to hit all his BH with topspin though he knows a lot of them will end up an EU, but they look more eye-catching, then he deserves more credit. However, we all know that he slices alot. Obviously he doesn't choose the hard way.


))

Federer's slices aren't all safe though, sometimes they're tough shots to pull off, especially the short slice which everyone complimented long ago. They used to call it one of the unique things about him, because no one else could really pull a short cross court slice as consistently as he could. It was a shot the entire tour had to adjust to get used to, if they wanted to win. No one else really does it.

But I agree in the sense that he didn't use the 90 sq in racket because he wanted it to be harder or anything. Its just what it is. That 90 sq in was an advantage at one point. Only reason it became a disadvantage is because he used it for so long.

To me, its not that all he does is harder. To me, its that all he does is pretty unique and an indicator of intelligence behind his game. He credits a lot of his technique to his coach from when he was growing up. When I watch his game, I don't look at the prettiness of it. I see the brutal efficiency.

 

[EloQuent]

Whyever would anyone think style is important? It's not like professional sports is a form of entertainment that relies on people actually wanting to watch.

 

[Djokodal]

next thing you know, CERTAIN people will say federer is the goat because he has thicker hair or a better sounding name.

 

[EloQuent]

next thing you know, certain people will say federer is the goat because he has thicker hair.

Just like right amount of hair. Not a balding c a p y b a r a, nor a wooly pole

 

[GenerationTennisElbow]

Djokovic uses a 95 sqi racquet (98 includes beam). Sorry to tell you that, mate.

Murray also uses a 95. Going by Head’s old measurements Safin used an 89.5.

Artfulness and racquet choice aren’t directly correlated. Dustin Brown and the Bryans use pure drives if I’m not mistaken. Kyrgios uses a 98 that’s sort of in between a tweener and player’s racquet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tshooter]

Totally factors in for me and obviously the aesthetic quality of his game is a huge factor in why his popularity transcends tennis. Even people that don't particularly like tennis appreciate it.
.

 

[CYGS]

Zero.