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
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.
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.
what if the greatest players of each era acknowledge him to be better than them ???
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!
When Federer is in top form and Nadal is in top form...Nadal wins. Thats why Nadal is better.
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!
When Federer is in top form and Nadal is in top form...Nadal wins on clay. Thats why Nadal is better on clay.
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'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.
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 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 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.
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.
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!
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...![]()
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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?
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.