Polvorin
Professional
4 of those losses are at the French...losing to probably the best clay court player ever in those finals is still quite an accomplishment.
Why Federer is Not the Greatest of All Time
- Thread starter gowrath
- Start date
4 of those losses are at the French...losing to probably the best clay court player ever in those finals is still quite an accomplishment.
Yeah, he should've been like Sampras and been rubbish on clay. People had no problems calling Sampras the GOAT when he held the slam record.
Bruguera
Banned
I think a 2-6 problem against your main rival would be a blemish regardless of how many slams you have won and regardless of the player. A 7-13 overral vs your rival. You dont think a Sampras, Laver or Borg would get attacked if they had a 2-6 h2h slam final against they're main rival and 7-13 h2h overrall? Or had lost in 3 of the 4 slam finals in a row they played?
I think the GOAT (if in fact there is really one) should have NO EQUAL. Fed has shown he doesnt have one except when it comes to Nadal.
I do think Fed has proven to be the best of his era overrall though however. Due to Nadal inability at HC slams though over the years. I think thats all we can truly prove objectively beyond a reasonable doubt. The best overrall of an era. When he begin comparing eras is when things get complicated
Last edited:
I really don't understand.
Nadal has won 6 slams. Federer has won 15. They don't look equal to me.
Yes, Nadal is good at beating Federer. Every player has a bad matchup. In fact... I believe Borg retired partly because of McEnroe...
Bruguera
Banned
Bad matchup, regardless. There have been many bad matchups in history. Should we use that in defense.. You can argue Mac was a bad matchup for Borg, Pete was a bad matchup for Andre. But at the end of the day its about RESULTS. Nadal overtook Fed at the top spot and very well could still remain there if he didnt get injured. What happens if Nadal finally beats Fed at the USO, where Fed is arguably at his best? Then what? I dont know about using a bad matchup as a crux when youre a legit GOAT contender.
As ive said before, a true GOAT should overcome regardless of the matchup. Most of the Fed-Nadal slams have gone down to the wire at least on grass and Hardcourts. I think it has more or less to do with the mental aspect as opposed to the physical matchup issue.
Federer leads the non-clay head to head
Every one knows that Nadal is the better clay court player. But Federer leads the non-clay head to head 5 to 4. Their head to head is skewed because 11 times out of 20 they have played on clay which is Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best.
Every one knows that Nadal is the better clay court player. But Federer leads the non-clay head to head 5 to 4. Their head to head is skewed because 11 times out of 20 they have played on clay which is Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best.
Exactly, it's about results.
Federer: 15 slams
All other tennis players: less than 15 slams
(Last time I checked, tennis was about winning tournaments, not beating a specific player)
Bruguera
Banned
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
Federer was injured, so it doesn't count.
(Using offical ********* logic, Copyright RG and Wimbledon 2009)
I don't get where you're coming from still. Using the popular example of Sampras... Didn't he lose to Yzaga? Even though Sampras was the superior tennis player?
フェデラー
Hall of Fame
and if federer won the us open beating rafa more excuses will come that is for sure. also if you look at Rafa he has a losing record against djokovic (6-4) on hard courts. which i believe is truly indicative of how somewhat poor Nadal is on HC, which more so confirms the fact that if Fed and Nadal were on the same side of the draw in HC tourneys, the h2h would be much more even.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Let me see you say that when Novak beats Federer in the semis.
Bruguera
Banned
Pete was injured vs. Yzaga as well.. In terms of Andre-Pete.. Well Andre never could beat Pete at Wimbeldon or the USO. Kind of a difference considering Nadal beat Fed everywheres if he does in fact beat Roger at the USO
Why does only Andre matter? What about the other people Sampras lost to? You can't only include the main rival since it suits your case against Federer.
Bruguera
Banned
Because Andre was Pete's rival wasnt he? He didnt have another rivalry which stretched 12 years did he that I know about
...
But why are you only counting results against the main rival?! Tennis consists of beating more than one other player.
Bruguera
Banned
Because I was comparing both rivalries here. I wasnt comparing h2hs vs. the entire field of players. Am I not allowed to compare rivalries?
Polvorin
Professional
Agassi would have beaten him on green clay in London. Errr, grass I mean.
But why would you compare H2Hs against entire fields of players? Tennis is about winning tournaments.
You can have a winning H2H against everyone without ever winning anything. Federer could have done it if he tanked in the first rounds of tournaments to some random opponents.
Bruguera
Banned
I agree.. I think Andre's chances would have been a bit better if they match up on this wimbeldon surface.
Andre would have a field day at Wimbledon these days
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
Precisely!
フェデラー
Hall of Fame
why would say this? you mean how he force fed Djokovic a breadstick in cinci? dont make me laugh.
I don't know if any of you watched Basketball Hall of Fame's Enshrinement, but when MJ got asked what he thought about being called the greatest of all time... he said he grinned every time he heard it because he feels it's not true... reason... because he never played against great legends like chamberlain, bob cusy, etc... he has a really good point... with this... i think Federer maybe one of the greatest tennis players... but not THE greatest and only!
Bruguera
Banned
This is true about every sport. You can be the most accomplished but at the same time it does not prove you are the greatest. To be the greatest you have to play the greatest and there is no time machine
And this is coming from MJ, arguable the best to ever play the game.
Your statement is a paradox. If you are the greatest and you have to beat the greatest in order to be great , what does that mean? Fed has to beat himself?
Bruguera
Banned
It means you can be the greatest of your era but you can prove beyond a reasonable you are the greatest of all time without playing the other greatest players of different eras? Not saying Fed has to play himself. But like MJ, he never got to battle it out with prime Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Oscar, etc. Fed never got to battle it out with prime Borg, Pete, Laver etc
I think he means you would have to beat all the past greats, eg Fed would have to play with Sampras, Borg etc, which is obviously impossible.
I don't necessarily agree though. You can determine GOAT by who has been the most successful.
Bruguera
Banned
Well in that case Russell and Kareem and Wilt are better than MJ since individually Wilt was more successful than MJ and in terms of winning Russell was superior by leading his team to more rings.
Numbers are numbers and records are records but the only to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is to play against all the greats at their respective peaks. And thats impossible.
Records were meant to be broken.. But whos to say whos greater than who without when comparing different eras?
I understood what you meant, I was being sarcastic to prove just how crazy your statement is. How can he play these guys when they played some 30 years before him? The record books are the only thing we have to determine who the greatest is. He made those records by beating the current field, the only field he could beat, what more do you want?
Bruguera
Banned
I think Michael said it best, when asked by a New York times reporter, about the heir to his thrown as the best ever ..
Michael said, "Dont be in a rush to find another Jordan.. There will NEVER be another jordan."
And he is dead on.. There will never be another Laver, there will never be another sampras, there will never be another Federer another Borg or Nadal. The game is different the eras are different and players are different and special in their own ways
Such lets just sit back on watch guys with their own greatness succeed in different ways
Michael said, "Dont be in a rush to find another Jordan.. There will NEVER be another jordan."
And he is dead on.. There will never be another Laver, there will never be another sampras, there will never be another Federer another Borg or Nadal. The game is different the eras are different and players are different and special in their own ways
Such lets just sit back on watch guys with their own greatness succeed in different ways
Last edited:
Bruguera
Banned
As in most achieved... Yes.. But again.. Are numbers and statistics the be all end all? No... The game and its history and eras go deeper than numbers. Different situations, a totally different game. Fed is no doubt one of the best to ever play the game and has been the most achieved of his era. I think thats good enough and all u can ask for
pame
Hall of Fame
So what's the obsession with one set of statistics then.. the H2H? Petard, meet Bruguera! hahaha
Bruguera
Banned
it secures your place in history to mentioned along all time greats that came before you to be mentioned with them but it doesnt prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you are hands down the best to ever play.
pame
Hall of Fame
But that's not been your argument throughout this thread. You have been almost exclusively preoccupied with postulating that ONE single stat, Fe'd's H2H with Nadal, is to be used to discount the overwhelming body of records he holds.... and which no other GOAT contenders hold in anywhere near that extensive combination
Bruguera
Banned
As winning a countless slams as Fed has can help secure your place in history as one of the best, failing to overcome your rival on the big stage more times than not people remember as well and wont easily forget. Same as leading your team in the playoffs or failing to take your team to a championship or not leading your team to championships in the finals. It all ends up How you produce on the big stage is very important in creating a legacy for yourself. Dont kid yourself
Lets wait till Nadal and Federer careers are over before making that judgment. Maybe he will turn around H2H in his favor before he retires. BTW winning countless slams is winning on a big stage.
Bruguera
Banned
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Ok, Brugera. According to you Fed's h2h agaisnt Nadal stops him from being goat. Ok fine. the fact that he matches up poorly with the 2nd best player of his era. Prevents him from being Goat. Ok fine
When Nadal or any other player manages to do say 45%of the following, I will gladly proclaim them goat. Or at least GOAT of Federer's era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer
ETA: I would have copied and pasted all of that in a post, but it would have taken me at least 3 posts to do so.
No, Im not exaggerating.
Keep a special count of all those achievments listed as "federer is the only male player to......."
Seriously, when people bleat on and on about this h2h business, Im truly astounded, when you look at the sheer amount of records and streaks that Federer has either broken, tied or (mostly) has established for himself, you realize how ludicrous *********s' h2h argument truly is. Yes, Fed has an unfavorable record against one player. But its funny how his record agaisnt the rest of the field(arguably all players ranked 200 or better) is impeccable, while Nadal's is not even close.
When Nadal or any other player manages to do say 45%of the following, I will gladly proclaim them goat. Or at least GOAT of Federer's era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer
ETA: I would have copied and pasted all of that in a post, but it would have taken me at least 3 posts to do so.
No, Im not exaggerating.
Keep a special count of all those achievments listed as "federer is the only male player to......."
Seriously, when people bleat on and on about this h2h business, Im truly astounded, when you look at the sheer amount of records and streaks that Federer has either broken, tied or (mostly) has established for himself, you realize how ludicrous *********s' h2h argument truly is. Yes, Fed has an unfavorable record against one player. But its funny how his record agaisnt the rest of the field(arguably all players ranked 200 or better) is impeccable, while Nadal's is not even close.
Last edited:
Bruguera
Banned
Fed's been ridiculously dominating in tennis.. Im not denying this am I? But you also have that one guy who he just hasnt been able to get the best of who has been the 2nd best of this era which is Nadal. Nadal isnt just a h2h matchup problem for Fed.. Hes been a matchup problem for most guys. Not every player but most especially since Nadal peak last year some time
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Until Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the entire field. how can he be goat? GOAT is the best right? The best should dominate right? by your own logic no matter that Fed has been able to completely dominate 99.99% of men's tennis but for one, countem 1 player, since he fails to utterly dominate Nadal he cant be goat. Ok fine. Nadal has a good h2h agaisnt Federer. When he can equal/surpass what Federer has done to the overall field, then he can be goat.
ETA: historically speaking, Big tall strong guys that can hit hard and flat have given and continue to give Nadal fits. Or guys with all court game who have talent and two handed backhands(Djoker, Murray)
Most recently? Del Potro, Soderling. Historically Youhzny, Blake, Gonzo, Tsonga, Berdych etc.
and again, will you agree that when Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the field, then he can be goat?
heck, if he can do 75%, given the h2h, I will give him goat
ETA: historically speaking, Big tall strong guys that can hit hard and flat have given and continue to give Nadal fits. Or guys with all court game who have talent and two handed backhands(Djoker, Murray)
Most recently? Del Potro, Soderling. Historically Youhzny, Blake, Gonzo, Tsonga, Berdych etc.
and again, will you agree that when Nadal can equal/surpass what Fed has done to the field, then he can be goat?
heck, if he can do 75%, given the h2h, I will give him goat
Last edited:
Bruguera
Banned
GOAT is the greatest Usually coinciding with numbers and stats and results etc. In terms of the "best". Well thats up in the air. Many guys can lay claim to that.
Best on grass-Pete, roger or borg
Best on hardcourts- Pete or Roger and maybe the rebound ace Best in Agassi
Best on clay-Nadal Borg lendl guga etc. and my personal fav Bruguera
timothybryce
New User
Out of interest if Fed went out in the first round of Roland Garros every year and never played Nadal on clay
and in doing so had a better H2H versus Nadal, would you then consider Federer the GOAT?
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
no actually they cant. As great NFL coaches of old say, you are what your record says your are. only a handful of guys' resume even come close to Roger's and noone's surpasses him. Laver and Borg are the only 2 that can hang, period.
(thats 1)
(thats2)
Id say FEd is top 10. the only person that stopped him from being best on clay in his own era is Nadal after all, who may go down as clay GOAT
So, remind me again how Roger, with his body of achievments and by your own admission one of the all time greats on THREE surfaces and by my reckoning among top ten all time on a 4th, and he isnt goat?
nfor304
Banned
Any GOAT argument is very unfair to players of the past imo.
You can really only judge by accomplishments, and even that is grossly unfair to players who played in different circumstances to the players of today.
Judging by hypothetical match ups is the most ridiculous way to judge however.
Its not like people watched Bill Tilden back in the 20's and though 'Yeah he's pretty good, but is he good enough to beat players who will be playing in 80 years time wielding rackets we cant even imagine?'
You cant judge players based on matchups with theoritcal players from the future.
If you could than Federer cant possible be the GOAT.
The cybernetically enhanced players who compete in Universal Davis cup against aliens in the 50th century would eat Federer for breakfast.
You can really only judge by accomplishments, and even that is grossly unfair to players who played in different circumstances to the players of today.
Judging by hypothetical match ups is the most ridiculous way to judge however.
Its not like people watched Bill Tilden back in the 20's and though 'Yeah he's pretty good, but is he good enough to beat players who will be playing in 80 years time wielding rackets we cant even imagine?'
You cant judge players based on matchups with theoritcal players from the future.
If you could than Federer cant possible be the GOAT.
The cybernetically enhanced players who compete in Universal Davis cup against aliens in the 50th century would eat Federer for breakfast.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
true its unfaiir. we can never know for certain.
the bottom line. If people want to argue best of their era. nadal vs Fed. I contend its not even close. When Fed retires and leaves the field to Rafa it still wont be close. period.
ETA: nfor304, your avatar just makes me happy
the bottom line. If people want to argue best of their era. nadal vs Fed. I contend its not even close. When Fed retires and leaves the field to Rafa it still wont be close. period.
ETA: nfor304, your avatar just makes me happy
Last edited:
This seems like a reasonable post to me. The bolded part sums it up nicely.
borg number one
Legend
Here are some interesting facts (for Borg fans anyway) from wikipedia: "In 2008, ESPN.com asked tennis analysts, writers, and former players to build the perfect open era player. Borg was the only player mentioned in four categories—defense, footwork, intangibles, and mental toughness—with his mental game and footwork singled-out as the best in open era history." Also, "Borg's physical conditioning was legendary as he could outlast most of his opponents under the most grueling conditions. Contrary to popular belief, however, this wasn't due to his exceptionally low resting heart rate, often reported to be near 35 beats per minute. In his introduction to Borg's autobiography My Life and Game, Eugene Scott relates that this myth arose from a medical exam the 18-year-old Borg once took for military service, where his pulse was recorded as 38. Scott goes on to reveal Borg's true pulse rate as "about 50 when he wakes up and around 60 in the afternoon." Borg is credited with helping to develop the style of play that has come to dominate the game today. " I personally think that Borg has served as great modern inspiration for both Federer and Nadal, and many others. Nadal, Federer, Sampras, and even a older Agasssi play/played the game the way "it is supposed to be played", much like Borg did. Such players revere/revered Borg much more so than Connors or Borg for those main reasons. He combined unmatched athleticism, with a mind like a "super computer" as well as unmatched sportsmanship. Simply put, when he would lose rarely, he would never say for example, try to create distractions/crown noise, etc. to somehow "change the flow of the match" (Connors, McEnroe, Nastase, and Serena all do/did this by the way). Modern players such as Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, and Federer were undoubtedly influenced by Borg's "never say die" playing style, which was coupled with a unflappable demeanor. It was extremely difficult to EVER rattle/distract Borg. If one tried it would only cause Borg to grow stronger during a match. He was truly a "silent assassin". He played an "athletic" style of tennis that had never been seen before, by using fitness and speed in the men's game in a revolutionary way. So, even the great Roger Federer is actually a LOT like Bjorn Borg. They have many similarities and I am sure Borg was one of his idols growing up in Switzerland. The same is true for Nadal, who is very well behaved on the court and who always plays the game the way it was meant to be played, with great reverence. There was no Borg for Borg to follow, he was the first, but I assert that he has been the most influential player perhaps in the history of the game, which is a somewhat different, but related argument to the very interesting arguments as to who is truly the "greatest of all time". He absolutely revolutionized the sport.
borg number one
Legend
Sorry sentence above should read "Such players revere/revered Borg much more so than Connors or McEnroe for those main reasons." It's so funny to me by the way. When Borg was playing everyone of my junior friends would argue with me about how much better Connors and McEnroe were than Borg, but no one now argues that either was better than Borg, not even McEnroe. That's another reason why it's not a given that neither Sampras nor Federer is "greater" than Borg was. The only players Borg ever lost to in a Grand Slam Final were Connors and McEnroe, who would each "fight you to the death". The competition between these 3 greats, meant that they faced stiffer competition "at the top" than Federer did. Federer went for years having to only really face competition from say Roddick in a final, BEFORE Nadal came on the scene. Borg always had to deal with the likes of Connors who would be perfectly willing to "die on the court" if that's what it took to win a match.
Similar threads
