Why Federer is Not the Greatest of All Time

[AJK1]

Gsf

It should be "Greatest So Far" GSF
Federer is the GSF

 

[timnz]

Again Federer leads non-clay head to head

And Fed renown as a better Grass and hardcourt player than Nadal but nadal has managed to beat Fed in the finals of Wimbeldon and the AO

Wimbledon - yes, Federer leads there 2-1 in Finals. You only have quoted one match on Grass (which Nadal barely one) and one on Hard (again Nadal winning in a close match). Match-ups are over many matches.

Compare Federer and Nadal's final reaching on fast hard - US Open and Masters Cup.

Federer - US Open 6 Finals, Masters Cup 5 Finals
Nadal - US Open 0 Finals, Masters Cup 0 Finals.

 

[beernutz]

Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

Sampras never said that.

Federer only has a losing record to Nadal on clay. On non-clay surfaces he is 5-4 against him.

Your post is a complete and total FAIL.

 

[tudwell]

actually in grand slams Federer has only beaten nadal on Grass. if you take grass out (which is about as logical as taking clay out)....Federer is actually
0-5!!!!!!!!!!

Only grand slams count...no one remembers anything else.

They've met once in a hardcourt grand slam. Hardly a significant sample size. And it's not Federer that's kept those meetings from happening. He's there, every time, in the finals. But Nadal's busy losing to the flavor of the week.

 

[three eights]

He is the best human who ever played tennis. I don't know about the future, but i'm pretty sure he's the best human o play tennis in history. (By default new players > old players as the game evolves.)

 

[Sentinel]

what if the greatest players of each era acknowledge him to be better than them ???

 

[Polvorin]

what if the greatest players of each era acknowledge him to be better than them ???

They already have. It's just these *******s who have a hard time accepting it. Also...you are supposed to put a player's name before "****s," not follow Serena's example. :lol:

 

[Rippy]

He is injured and going through some serious crap with his parents. Even so at 23 he has made it to 8 grand slam finals....what more could you possibly ask for??? Most people cant do that in their entire careers!

Of course it's very impressive. Nobody's denying that. However, it does not make him better than Federer.

 

[Rippy]

When Federer is in top form and Nadal is in top form...Nadal wins. Thats why Nadal is better.

Even if that were true (which is doubtful), it doesn't mean Nadal is better. What if a player can only sustain their top play for one day a year (stupid example to make my point), during which he can beat ANYONE? Does that make him better than everyone else? No, because you have to sustain your level of play.

 

[tudwell]

He is injured and going through some serious crap with his parents. Even so at 23 he has made it to 8 grand slam finals....what more could you possibly ask for??? Most people cant do that in their entire careers!

I see. So what's the excuse for the 2008 Australian Open or the 2008 U.S. Open or the 2007 Australian or the 2007 U.S. Open or the...?

Face it. Since the start of 2004, Federer has been in 10 out of the 12 hard court slam finals played. Nadal has been in one. It's pretty obvious who's better.

 

[Polvorin]

When Federer is in top form and Nadal is in top form...Nadal wins on clay. Thats why Nadal is better on clay.

fix'd
10 char

 

[tudwell]

It doesnt matter...Its really obvious to me...if someone keeps beating me then they are better than me.

You can explain it away for pages and pages....but I personally dont buy it. In my opinion Nadal is just a better than fed because he has beaten him on every surface. Its as simple as that.

You can get into saying fed is better against everyone eklse bla bla bla bla....but Im sorry I dont buy any of it. To me If someomne beats you then they are better than you. Simple.

I knew David Nalbandian was better than Rafael Nadal. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

And I guess Del Potro has had a better 2009 than Nadal, because he's 3-1 against him???

 

[Polvorin]

I'm just sad Nadal didn't make the final. We'd have a scoreline like the 2008 French final, but with a different winner. Even the silliest fanboy knows that would likely be the case, JEU. But, I guess we'll have to keep waiting for Nadal to make his first final.

 

[Bruguera]

I'm just sad Nadal didn't make the final. We'd have a scoreline like the 2008 French final, but with a different winner. Even the silliest fanboy knows that would likely be the case, JEU. But, I guess we'll have to keep waiting for Nadal to make his first final.

I think its terrible shame for Nadal because the injuries which sidelined him came at the worst possible time.. Right when he was reaching the peak of his career and was beginning to show complete domination over the field.

 

[FlamEnemY]

It doesnt matter...Its really obvious to me...if someone keeps beating me then they are better than me.

You can explain it away for pages and pages....but I personally dont buy it. In my opinion Nadal is just a better than fed because he has beaten him on every surface. Its as simple as that.

You can get into saying fed is better against everyone eklse bla bla bla bla....but Im sorry I dont buy any of it. To me If someomne beats you then they are better than you. Simple.

^^ Yep, Nadal is better than him on clay. I'm sure Federer agrees on this.

 

[FlamEnemY]

I think its terrible shame for Nadal because the injuries which sidelined him came at the worst possible time.. Right when he was reaching the peak of his career and was beginning to show complete domination over the field.

I'm tired of this argument. It's his own fault for playing this style, there's no excuses like 'oh but he could have achieved so much more if not the injuries'. It's his own way, he knew his body can't keep up with his schedule and style. The same style that allowed him to dominate and achieve so much.

 

[Polvorin]

I would have to say that Del Potro is better on hard courts at the moment. No question.

I dont know why you bring up Nalbandian. Has Nalbandian ever beaten nadal on grass or clay? bhecause Nadal has beaten Fed on everything.

Wake me up when Nadal beats Fed in the US. Although at this rate, Fed's going to be 35 by the time he makes the final, so you guys may be right...he might up the H2H after all.

 

[joeri888]

Who is this Jeu de Peaume guy? Must be a old member as well.

 

[i8myshirt]

It doesnt matter...Its really obvious to me...if someone keeps beating me then they are better than me.

You can explain it away for pages and pages....but I personally dont buy it. In my opinion Nadal is just a better than fed because he has beaten him on every surface. Its as simple as that.

You can get into saying fed is better against everyone eklse bla bla bla bla....but Im sorry I dont buy any of it. To me If someomne beats you then they are better than you. Simple.

But Federer has beaten Nadal on every surface as well.

 

[todd03blown]

But Federer has beaten Nadal on every surface as well.

you are just wasting your time with this bozo...save your breath...

 

[todd03blown]

I think its terrible shame for Nadal because the injuries which sidelined him came at the worst possible time.. Right when he was reaching the peak of his career and was beginning to show complete domination over the field.

complete domination??????????????????????????????????????????????? LMFAO, boy we really do have some complete and utter idiots!

 

[Bruguera]

complete domination??????????????????????????????????????????????? LMFAO, boy we really do have some complete and utter idiots!

Yes COMPLETE dominance. He beat Fed in 3 of the 4 slams in a row, overtook him at #1 and was dominating other tournaments. And his injuries came at the worst time RIGHT DURING this time

 

[AAAA]

You coulda fooled the record books for the last six years when it comes to slams.
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad
Fed-Nad

Federer will shortly play his 6th USO final against his 6th different opponent and none of them were Nadal.

 

[todd03blown]

Yes COMPLETE dominance. He beat Fed in 3 of the 4 slams in a row, overtook him at #1 and was dominating other tournaments. And his injuries came at the worst time RIGHT DURING this time

hahahahahahahahahaha, this is funny....to bad Nadal cannot stay healthy against someone who is 4-5 yrs older than him. I don't call complete dominance a period of 12 months or less...next arguement.

 

[davaimyskina]

There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!!

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

 

[Bruguera]

There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!!

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

There are more Fed supporters because they have got to experience Roger first hand and Laver was in his prime 40 plus years ago and they never got to experience his domination over the field first hand.

 

[davaimyskina]

hahahahahahahahahaha, this is funny....to bad Nadal cannot stay healthy against someone who is 4-5 yrs older than him. I don't call complete dominance a period of 12 months or less...next arguement.

Pathetic...

Nadal is dominating Federer since 3 years now...
We don't speak about a 12-months period... but 36 or 48 months period...
Domination on clay, domination on hard (and now he defeats roger even on Grass )

Nadal has 6 Gran Slam titles at 23, Federer had only 1 at this time...
Federer need to be 28 to win 15 masters series... Nadal only 23...
Do you want another statistics ?

There are so much statistics for Nadal against Federer...

 

[ArrowSmith]

There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!!

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

Another trolling post. Federer is not the greatest because he doesn't have 22 grand slams titles? Moron.

 

[ArrowSmith]

There are more Fed supporters because they have got to experience Roger first hand and Laver was in his prime 40 plus years ago and they never got to experience his domination over the field first hand.

Really? I don't think Laver ever managed 10 consecutive GS finals like Rog. Tell me about this supposed domination by Laver. I'm all ears.

 

[Polvorin]

There are a lot of reasons that federer is not the greatest...
Rod Laver is always greater than Roger.

With Wimbledon, Roger has only won the Pete sampras Gran Slam titles record, but was Pete Sampras the greatest ??? No...

But the main reason is that... to be the greatest of the history, you have to be the greatest of your time !!!

Federer has been very strong when Rafa wasn't there, but since rafa is there, Federer is not the best of this time anymore... How could he be the greatest of the history ??? :shock:

Rafa is leading 13-7, Federer is leading against rafa only on grass (not on hard court !!!). Rafa is the greatest of this time !

Without Rafa, Federer would have won 22 or 23 gran slam titles..
Without Rafa, Federer would have done a GRAN SLAM...

That's the big difference beetwen Federer and Rod Laver !

Of course, today there are much more Federer's supporters than Laver's Supporter, so a lot of people tell that roger is the greatest, but this people don't know the Tennis History... some of this people don't event know that Rod Laver has won 2 GRAN SLAM...

That's a nice sock account you have there. Afraid to show your name or did you get banned?

I didn't realize you only had to beat one player to be the greatest player of an era.

 

[Bruguera]

Really? I don't think Laver ever managed 10 consecutive GS finals like Rog. Tell me about this supposed domination by Laver. I'm all ears.

Of course.. Laver also didnt get to compete in the slams during his prime for like 5-6 years which would have only increased his title count and his GS finals appearances. And Roger doesnt have the number of overrall titles as Laver does either.

What do u think Roger's achievements would be if he didnt get to compete in the slams for half a decade?

 

[Rippy]

Pathetic...

Nadal is dominating Federer since 3 years now...
We don't speak about a 12-months period... but 36 or 48 months period...
Domination on clay, domination on hard (and now he defeats roger even on Grass )

Nadal has 6 Gran Slam titles at 23, Federer had only 1 at this time...
Federer need to be 28 to win 15 masters series... Nadal only 23...
Do you want another statistics ?

There are so much statistics for Nadal against Federer...

Ultimate troll post.

 

[ArrowSmith]

Of course.. Laver also didnt get to compete in the slams during his prime for like 5-6 years which would have only increased his title count and his GS finals appearances. And Roger doesnt have the number of overrall titles as Laver does either.

Tell me about all these prestigious titles that Laver won... Oh yeah Connors won 109 titles, very prestigious I've heard! :twisted::twisted:

 

[davaimyskina]

There are more Fed supporters because they have got to experience Roger first hand and Laver was in his prime 40 plus years ago and they never got to experience his domination over the field first hand.

Of course, you're right

But it explains why a lot of people think roger is the greatest (and it's wrong).

There is the same situation in every sport... Football supporters think the actuals team are better than the past teams (because most of them havn't seen the past teams playing...). It's like that for Federer and Laver...

But Rod Laver won 4 Gran Slams titles in 1962, stop to play gran slam, and won 4 other titles when he was authorized to play back...
When Roger will be able to win 8 consecutiv gran slam, he will be the greatest !

But it will never happen looool

 

[Bruguera]

Tell me about all these prestigious titles that Laver won... Oh yeah Connors won 109 titles, very prestigious I've heard! :twisted::twisted:

Again i ask.. If Roger didnt get to compete for 5 or so years in the slams especially during his prime years, what kind of success would he see? 15 slams? I doubt that

 

[ArrowSmith]

Again i ask.. If Roger didnt get to compete for 5 or so years in the slams especially during his prime years, what kind of success would he see? 15 slams? I doubt that

So I show how those title counts are inflated with mickey mouse and you switch the subject back to slams. Face it, GS - Fed is the slam king! :twisted::twisted::twisted:

 

[Rippy]

Of course, you're right

But it explains why a lot of people think roger is the greatest (and it's wrong).

There is the same situation in every sport... Football supporters think the actuals team are better than the past teams (because most of them havn't seen the past teams playing...). It's like that for Federer and Laver...

But Rod Laver won 4 Gran Slams titles in 1962, stop to play gran slam, and won 4 other titles when he was authorized to play back...
When Roger will be able to win 8 consecutiv gran slam, he will be the greatest !

But it will never happen looool

Or you could just say the opposite... When Laver wins 15 slams, he will be the greatest!

But it will never happen looool

 

[ArrowSmith]

What you said is so stupid

We don't speak about one match... It's not because Gilles Simon has defeated one time Roger Federer that Gilles is better than Roger...

We are speaking about 20 matchs...

We don't say that Nadal is the best of the era because he beats Roger...
It's just that Roger isn't the greatest of his time (because Rafa is better)

And you want that we believe that a player who is not the greatest of his era... you really want that we believe that this player is the best of history ??? Hahahahahaha

Pathetic...

Some of you want that roger is the greatest of the history, but you forget that he is not the greatest of the period 2000-2010...

Stop your trolling. You want us to forget about all of his awesome records because of 7-13 against Nadal. This is insanity and I'm done with you.

 

[Rippy]

What you said is so stupid

We don't speak about one match... It's not because Gilles Simon has defeated one time Roger Federer that Gilles is better than Roger...

We are speaking about 20 matchs...

We don't say that Nadal is the best of the era because he beats Roger...
It's just that Roger isn't the greatest of his time (because Rafa is better)

And you want that we believe that a player who is not the greatest of his era... you really want that we believe that this player is the best of history ??? Hahahahahaha

Pathetic...

Some of you want that roger is the greatest of the history, but you forget that he is not the greatest of the period 2000-2010...

Tennis success is measured against the field, not one player.

Federer has won 15 slams, Nadal has won 6.

Remind me why Nadal is better?

 

[ArrowSmith]

Nadal is better at time wasting and butt picking then Federer!

 

[davaimyskina]

Tennis success is measured against the field, not one player.

Federer has won 15 slams, Nadal has won 6.

Remind me why Nadal is better?

Compare the number of tournaments won (masters, Gran Slam or what you want) when Roger was as old as Rafa...

And you will find the answer...

Could you tell us how many Gran Slam Roger had won when he was 23 ???

However, who tell that the greatest tennis player is the one who win the biggest number of Gran slam ? Nobody...

Roger could win 25 gran slam titles if he wants...
The truth is that when he played Nadal, he lost 13 times of 20...

I don't know how you can tell that Federer is better than Rafa when he is losing 2 matchs of 3 (and on clay, grass or Hard...)

 

[LPShanet]

Actually everyone from Sampras, Laver, Agassi have all said that until Federer takes out Nadal it's arguable if he is the greatest .

All the other GOATS had winning records over their main rivals. Federer is the only one with a losing record....actually a really really bad losing record.

Incorrect. Pretty much every GOAT candidate had a losing record to at least one player of an overlapping era. It's very common. I don't disagree that it would help Fed's case to improve his record versus Nadal, though.