Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by illusions30, Oct 17, 2013.
hoodjem, In this case the place of Federer is okay.
All of the posters who voted Federer are anti-Federer. I'm only interested in counting the neutral posters, but unfortunately not too many neutral posters participating in the poll except most of them anti-Fed.
Or how about Fed finally choosing a strategy against Nadal at 2013 Cincy where Fed folded like he did at AO 2009. Nadal broke Fed permanently at W2008, and Fed chose to avoid Nadal except for 2011. Fed didn't care about losing RG 2011, he was afraid of a Novak GS. Fed also knew that if beat Novak at USOpen, Nadal would beat him, cementing his defeats in GS finals against Nadal.
It seems people are heavily impressed by the competition of Rosewall and Borg. The only two GOAT contenders with virtually no votes.
Laver or earlier pre open greats. No matter how weak you say today's field it, a split field some forty years ago has got to be weaker!
moonballs, I think you are wrong: The old pros were a small group of elite players. Every match was a severe challenge. Week after week. In open era a top player has many weaker opponents.
illusions30, Actually both players had a bunch of all time great opponents. For instance Rosewall played many greats from Kramer to Borg.
Agreed. Nadal beat #1 Federer in the 2005 FO SF
You seem to be the most knowledgeable poster on this forum, especialy of players in the Pre Open Era. How would you rank these 7 as far as the quality of their competition.
And Federer has played greats like Sampras/Agassi up to Djokovic/Murray and beyond...
I agree. Rafa also didn't have to play his nightmare matchups in all of his major semis and finals also.
illusions30, Thanks for your compliment. But there are also others who write very reasonably.
Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver about even (these are also my top three of my GOAT list),
Very true. There's so many athletes competing today it would be an equivalent to separate the current field into 5 different fields.
Federer played Sampras once (Unless you count the 2007 exos with Sampras 5 years retired, who Fed lost to as well), at the end of Pete's career. And played gimped up mid 30s Agassi at the end of his career as well..
When Fed was amassing slams from 2004-2007, Murray was 4-5 years from his true prime and Nole was 4 years from his prime. Fed had already broken the slam record by the time these two got their crap together. I think Fed was on 13 slams or something by the time Nole even won his FIRST slam
Fed's main contemporary rivals are Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Nalbandian (and Nadal to some extent)
Lets put this into perspective at least
Perhaps you missed his AO 09 five-hour semi, after which he had to play Roger.
Or perhaps his SF against Novak at RG this year.
If Kramer and Borg count as competition for Rosewall then so do the players I mentioned for Federer. Especially Djokovic and Murray who Federer has played 20-30 times each in slams and other big events. As for Agassi he was playing as well in some of those matches from that period as he did at his peak and far better than he played during slot of Sampras' peak years.
LOL classic Vamos Brigade type post.
FYI bull fans you only discredit Nadal with polls like this since Nadal has competed against the same competition as Federer.
Fed is in the lead.
So you are saying Rafa is weak competition?
Yes he was on grass and hard till 2008 ....and for a while he was not on tour or injured.
2009 for example Nadal had a bad year due to injuries and personal issues..... Fed won wimby and his only FO to barely keep him in goat contention.
2010...nadal returns and wins wimby ,FO and USO
It's a perfect example of fed without Nadal and Fed with Nadal.
How many times did Federer play Nadal in slams in 2010?
And by a big margin! Normal: he is the GOAT.
Nadal, he has never played peak Murray.
No strength in depth in the field.
No clay competition, biggest challenge was Federer (weak clay courter) and with that match up on clay it would take Nadal to have his leg cut off for him to lose to Roger
Yeah this. We can spin anything anyway we want to make any player look weak strong. It's stupid.
It evens out in the end and winning every major is very, very tough.
How many RG champions did Rafa beat?
himself in 2009 :lol:
and RF of course!
What FO champion would Nadal lose to?
Gaudio?? Vilas? Borg? Chang? Lendl? Wilander? Noah ?
Nadal would beat them all.
Omg !! That was great!
Nadal would lose pretty handily to Borg if they played with wooden rackets.
If Nadal, the surface GOAT is not considered the toughest competition, then I don't know what is.
Nadal is clay goat and arguably top 3 in the open era. Nobody had it that rough. Rafa took like 8 majors away from Fed. Nobody had such competition, nobody.
Haha, good one.
And you know this how? You have a time machine?
Nadal wold lose to himself and he didn't get to play 8 RG champion, otherwise he would have only 4 RG titles.
If Soderling can beat Rafa who is mug on clay. And Nole who made ONE RG final. And in 2011 when he was at his best, he didn't touch Fed at RG, but he owned RAfa and he almost defeated Rafa this year.
If Soderling can defeat Rafa and Nole and Isner can take Rafa to 5 sets, I'm sure RG champions could defeat Rafa.
I know the truth hurts. Maybe Fed had it easy for 2-3 years. But not as easy as Rafa on clay for the past 8 years.
This year Ferrer was the best clay courter, who can't win a match against Fed and is old???
Isn't Federer supposed to be the HC and grass GOAT? Just letting you know, Rafa beat him in majors on those surfaces. Federer was never able to even take Nadal to 5 sets at RG.
Coming back from 0-40 down, holding and breaking Novak, and then hitting 22 winners in the 4th says, Nole didn't almost win that match.
The truth is, he wasn't even close.
People need to quit saying this, because it simply isn't true.
You can't own someone who has always beaten you more than you beat him.
Hardcourt GOAT top 3 on grass IMO. Nadal is better on clay than any player on any surface ever.
All GOAT candidates have had the rub of playing against weak competition to inflate their numbers. They have all benefited from it.
I'm talking RG, not USO.
Well, Roger who is a RG champion, never did in 5 attempts.
All due respect to Roger, but he is not GOAT candidate on clay. Never was. It was always his weakest surface. The guy lost his first 11 matches on clay. Says everything about him on that surface. The fact he managed to win a RG title during a REAL Clay GOAT candidate's reign, speaks volumes for Federer's determination.
Doesn't matter. He didn't almost win that one either. It would have been a straight sets win if Nadal hadn't blinked.
That net thing is similar to making an error. It's one point. No one at that level loses the match because of one point after they go on to play two more sets.
But you are saying Fed is a weak era mug, so he is not the goat and therefore Rafa had it easy . You are saying Rafa is clay goat, so Fed had it tough.
Also Fed never had an advantage to play past prime Rafa. A bit unlucky. Or play him more at HC majors in his prime.
And beating one guy one time doesn't impress me. He never beat him at uso final. Beat him once at AO final and once at W, close lucky 5 sets. And wasn't even peak Fed.
This is like me gloating Fed defeated old Pete at W, so he that's why he is the grass goat. Doesn't mean that much.
So you would have to agree then, that if there were 2 clay slams instead of 2 HC slams, Nadal would have close to 20 majors by now and be completely out of reach when it comes to the slam count.
However, since there are 2 HC slams, this gives Federer the better chance to boost his slam count (in which he did).
So maybe some of you guys should think about that before you complain that Fed was unlucky to have run into Nadal at RG.
Picture this, if Nadal weren't around, Fed would probably have 6 RG titles by now and RG would be his second best slam and clay would be his second best surface.
Then afterwards, (Let's go with 2016) Nadal comes along and wins 7 RG titles from that point forward. Tell me there wouldn't be Fed***** whinging that if Fed was around he'd beat Nadal at RG and how lucky Nadal is to have avoided Fed LOL.
Which proves tennis is a game of matchups, so achievements aren't very good to determine strong / weak draws.
Rosol was a tougher opponent to Rafa than Fed who is multiple champion.
This means achievements can be used for greatness, but they can't be used for competition because current form and surfaces and matchups play a big part.
The fact that Roger defeated Coria 2 times on clay (for 0 defeat) shows he was an great clay player.
And let's be honest, OK Coria won 0 french open, but we know why...and it was not because of his tennis skills. He was destroying Gaudio lol
It has to be true since 2005 both Nadal and Federer are competing against the same field. TDK can't deny that Nadal's 8 RG are from a very weak competition.
Ok, I agree, if we had 4 clay surfaces and Rafa won 20 majors, I would consider him goat.
But it doesn't have to be clay. 3 Surfaces can be indoor, if Rafa wins 20 majors anywhere, goat for me.
If the clay was like Hamburg or Madrid or even Har tru then maybe Federer would have beaten Nadal for a couple of clay slams. Hypotheticals are irrelvant what if 3 slams were still on grass. Federer's level is flat out much better on grass and any Harcourt compared to clay. That is true whether he has 1 RG or 6.
Federer's very weak competition. LOL he'd be ashamed to have fans like you, maybe he reads TTW and this is why his motivation is down, thanks to clowns like you.
Is it me or you are comparing Sampras 2001 with Federer 2008-2009? How come Federer 2008-2009 was not peak Federer ? :shock:
But Nadal owns Fed in outdoor HC encounters as well.
Their grass encounters are even imo, I don't really count the 2006 WIM final so much, I look at their next 2 meetings and both could've gone either way.
Separate names with a comma.