Why I believe Fed is the GOAT-New View

S

SublimeTennis

Professional
First, I know there are endless threads on this topics. Fed fans will say Fed no matter what, likewise Rafa fans will say Rafa no matter what, insults go back and forth.

What I'm putting out is just my OPINION. I could be wrong, I just haven't seen this discussion on this board.

First, I do believe Rafa is the best in the "Modern Game" of slow courts and high tech racquets, but does that mean he's the GOAT?

Most reasonable people would say Sampras is one of the all time greats, but how did he do on Clay? If all courts were slow, we'd never hear of him, he'd be considered a low level player because of the slow courts.

Tale of two men:

Fed from a child trained serve and volley, play fast, end points quick. His game was made for fast courts. However when he "Broke Through", for a few years everyone said "He's so talented, he just can't win the big one". What was going on is that the courts were slowing down, dramatically. He had to alter his fast court S&V game to a baseline game, no easy feat. It's like training all your life in basketball with 10' hoops, then they raise them to 11'. Yet he was so talented that he could still dominate, and dominate he did, from 2004-2007 he had the most overwhelming domination in the history of tennis, winning 11 out of 15 GS finals, 4 were clay.

Rafa on the other hand started training as a kid as a baseliner. When he started as a pro he received a huge gift, the courts had slowed down! What a gift! Baseliner heaven, slow courts.

Experts have said that Wimbledon today is as slow as the French Open was in the 90's.

So what you have is a huge advantage to Rafa over Fed. Seems no one understands court speed, they understand the FO is hard for guys like Fed and great for Rafa, but they don't apply it to the rest of the courts.

Now be honest, how would Federer do throughout history on all surfaces versus Rafa on all surfaces? Does anyone really think Rafa could compete at any GS except possibly the FO? We are after all talking about Greatest of ALL TIME, not just this last decade.

We know Federer would probably do better in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's super fast courts AND has done well in the 2000's. What about Rafa?

I love both guys, both are INSANELY GREAT, but I simply think as far as "All Time", don't see how anyone can take it from Federer.

One other point. I don't go by how many GS's a guy has won. Look at Laver, how many would he have if we played all of those missed slams? I just think it's not the best barometer. I mean what if a kid comes along, plays one year, never drops a set, beats everyone 6-0, 6-1, wins 4 GS's, then he hurts himself and can never play again, does this mean he isn't a all time great because he doesn't pass the 17 GS mark?

One more observation. If Nadal didn't have the propensity for injuries, his TALENT would have given him more GS's by now. Likewise if Nadal wasn't around, Fed would be over 20 and everyone would think the debate is over.

Just some thoughts
 
cue the replies that 'fed only began to dominate when the courts slowed'

cue those who point out that fed beat pete on old grass then cue the 'pete was old' counterpoint.

truth be told, fed himself has said he had to adjust his game and abandon serve volley because of slowing courts and raquet technology.

and fWIW, sampras has said he thinks fed would have done well in the 90's.

in the end, it doesnt matter.
 
SLD76 said:
cue the replies that 'fed only began to dominate when the courts slowed'

cue those who point out that fed beat pete on old grass then cue the 'pete was old' counterpoint.

truth be told, fed himself has said he had to adjust his game and abandon serve volley because of slowing courts and raquet technology.

and fWIW, sampras has said he thinks fed would have done well in the 90's.

in the end, it doesnt matter.
Click to expand...

Great, I explained it wrong. I didn't mean Fed dominated BECAUSE the courts slowed, but in spite of it. In other words he was good enough to adapt his game.

Looking at this I don't see any disagreement, I hope I expressed my point right.
 
SublimeTennis said:
Great, I explained it wrong. I didn't mean Fed dominated BECAUSE the courts slowed, but in spite of it. In other words he was good enough to adapt his game.

Looking at this I don't see any disagreement, I hope I expressed my point right.
Click to expand...

No, I understood what you meant. But the fact is, Fed didnt begin to dominate till 2004. He didnt win a slam til 2003. So nadal defenders always like to point out that fed benefited as well from the slow court era.

now whether his game took long to develop because of adapting to conditions or mentality we will never know.
 
Excellent post, can't agree more about this.

just my addition-

He beat two all time greats by their own playing style that is Sampras with S&V at Wimbledon 2001 And Agassi with baseline game Houston 2003.

I don't think this is possible for any all time great, including Laver, Nadal in a short period of time provided that he was not matured then but still did that.

He spent his entire career on the courts which was not suitable for him, still achieved 17 slams, shows he is rare talent, on the hand Rafa spent entire career on courts suitable for him but still not close to Roger's achievements.

Thanks Again for sharing thoughts.
 
There is no GOAT, I like how you said you like both of them though, I like both Fed and Nadal too. At least you're not one of the fanboy trolls like LoonyForehand and that Batman guy, along with so many others.
 
Nice post op. Those last couple of years, I find that Federer doesn't get the respect he deserves. Sad thing is, people have very short memory and would rather live in the moment/jump on the current bandwaggon than sit down and look at history.
If I may add to your post, another argument for him being the GOAT would be the total # of weeks at #1 which is in my opinion shows how much he dominated the field on a consistent basis for many years. Neither Nadal or even Djokovic for that matter are anywhere close to beating this record.
 
Annie said:
Excellent post, can't agree more about this.

just my addition-

He beat two all time greats by their own playing style that is Sampras with S&V at Wimbledon 2001 And Agassi with baseline game Houston 2003.

I don't think this is possible for any all time great, including Laver, Nadal in a short period of time provided that he was not matured then but still did that.

He spent his entire career on the courts which was not suitable for him, still achieved 17 slams, shows he is rare talent, on the hand Rafa spent entire career on courts suitable for him but still not close to Roger's achievements.

Thanks Again for sharing thoughts.
Click to expand...

Federer defeated past prime Sampras and 35 year old Agassi.
Likewise Nishikori defeated Federer on clay, a surface Roger grew up on.
 
Annie said:
Excellent post, can't agree more about this.

just my addition-

He beat two all time greats by their own playing style that is Sampras with S&V at Wimbledon 2001 And Agassi with baseline game Houston 2003.

I don't think this is possible for any all time great, including Laver, Nadal in a short period of time provided that he was not matured then but still did that.

He spent his entire career on the courts which was not suitable for him, still achieved 17 slams, shows he is rare talent, on the hand Rafa spent entire career on courts suitable for him but still not close to Roger's achievements.

Thanks Again for sharing thoughts.
Click to expand...

agassi did beat a very young 18 yr old fed on a very fast HC. just saying.
then again, at 18, fed had already gotten an atp title so, the talent was there...
 
SLD76 said:
No, I understood what you meant. But the fact is, Fed didnt begin to dominate till 2004. He didnt win a slam til 2003. So nadal defenders always like to point out that fed benefited as well from the slow court era.

now whether his game took long to develop because of adapting to conditions or mentality we will never know.
Click to expand...

Yea I "Try" to be logical when it comes to this debate. I am a big Fed fan I admit. But I have come to the conclusion that Rafa is better in "This era".

Read an interesting article that I agreed with 100%. Guys like Fed don't rely mainly on overwhelming power, but rather perfect reflexes, thinking fast, kind of like stylist boxers. These are the guys that once they lose just a little touch of their reflexes, their game falls apart. Rafa can always as long as he's healthy stand back and drop nuclear bombs just like a heavy puncher like Foreman could do at 45. But in that 2004-07 period Fed was untouchable, greatest run in Tennis history, and that person, and I've said it before, he was "Shot" by then. Think of how hard he pushed himself, it just blows out the nervous system. Still talented enough to win some slams. Look at '09 Wimbledon, probably the sloppiest win I ever saw him play, could have gone either way.

In 1994 they asked Mike Tyson, "So do you think you have passed your prime"? He laughed and said "Are you kidding, I was shot in '89". These high end athletes play in nanoseconds, they lose just that little extra edge and it starts to fall apart.
 
Backspin1183 said:
Federer defeated past prime Sampras and 35 year old Agassi.
Likewise Nishikori defeated Federer on clay, a surface Roger grew up on.
Click to expand...

"Past prime Sampras"? You do think winning a GS is a great achievement I presume, well Sampras went on to win another one, hardly past his prime although I admit not the monster Sampras of the mid 90's.

Agassi had the same benefit as Nadal. Why do you think his career went so long? Think about it, you are a baseliner, you are getting old, then all the courts slow down! What a gift!
 
Backspin1183 said:
Federer defeated past prime Sampras and 35 year old Agassi.
Likewise Nishikori defeated Federer on clay, a surface Roger grew up on.
Click to expand...

In 2003 Agassi was 33 not 35, and Sampras was 30. I don't think you've followed that matches. Quality of matches obviously much better than Grindfesto of Djokovic-Nadal Final.
 
SublimeTennis said:
Yea I "Try" to be logical when it comes to this debate. I am a big Fed fan I admit. But I have come to the conclusion that Rafa is better in "This era".

Read an interesting article that I agreed with 100%. Guys like Fed don't rely mainly on overwhelming power, but rather perfect reflexes, thinking fast, kind of like stylist boxers. These are the guys that once they lose just a little touch of their reflexes, their game falls apart. Rafa can always as long as he's healthy stand back and drop nuclear bombs just like a heavy puncher like Foreman could do at 45. But in that 2004-07 period Fed was untouchable, greatest run in Tennis history, and that person, and I've said it before, he was "Shot" by then. Think of how hard he pushed himself, it just blows out the nervous system. Still talented enough to win some slams. Look at '09 Wimbledon, probably the sloppiest win I ever saw him play, could have gone either way.

In 1994 they asked Mike Tyson, "So do you think you have passed your prime"? He laughed and said "Are you kidding, I was shot in '89". These high end athletes play in nanoseconds, they lose just that little extra edge and it starts to fall apart.
Click to expand...


well, nobody ever said rafa was more skillful than fed, just more physical. and that physical gap is all the wider now.

Im always awed by rafa's defensive, never by his inventive shot making. you think he doesnt practice running fhs, or bh cc when he is pulled out wide all day? Of course he does, but thats what you do when you are a grinder, you practice shots from a defensive position.

whereas with fed, ive seen him just pull shots out of nowhere. i still delight in that last second drop fh he pulled against murray in the WB final.
 
SLD76 said:
agassi did beat a very young 18 yr old fed on a very fast HC. just saying.
then again, at 18, fed had already gotten an atp title so, the talent was there...
Click to expand...

You should watch that match my friend. Fed didn't look like Fed, he looked like this skinny little kid, still developing, I would hope Agassi would get him:)

This same Agassi said about a mature Fed "I never felt bad losing to him, there is just no where to go with him and you never feel safe. If I lose when I know I can win I feel bad, but not with Federer".
 
Annie said:
Excellent post, can't agree more about this.

just my addition-

He beat two all time greats by their own playing style that is Sampras with S&V at Wimbledon 2001 And Agassi with baseline game Houston 2003.

I don't think this is possible for any all time great, including Laver, Nadal in a short period of time provided that he was not matured then but still did that.

He spent his entire career on the courts which was not suitable for him, still achieved 17 slams, shows he is rare talent, on the hand Rafa spent entire career on courts suitable for him but still not close to Roger's achievements.

Thanks Again for sharing thoughts.
Click to expand...

hahaha

The Rocket could beat the best S&V playing S&V and the best baseliner playing baseline tennis.Look at the 69 Wimbledon and 68 Roland Garros.
 
kiki said:
hahaha

The Rocket could beat the best S&V playing S&V and the best baseliner playing baseline tennis.Look at the 69 Wimbledon and 68 Roland Garros.
Click to expand...

Kiki has a great point. I used to think Laver was just some old time player who beat other weak players, that until I actually watched videos of him, LAVER WAS A MONSTER! I would definitely put him in the top few of all time. Possible the best serve and volleyer of all time.

In his match with Conner's, he would come in then like a Rocket jam out to the passing shot and take it. Incredible player!
 
kiki said:
hahaha

The Rocket could beat the best S&V playing S&V and the best baseliner playing baseline tennis.Look at the 69 Wimbledon and 68 Roland Garros.
Click to expand...

Federer can serve and volley a little bit but he's no match for a specialist SnV player. Stakhovsky served and volleyed to defeat Federer last year at Wimbledon. Federer's more of a baseline player like the rest of his generation.
 
SublimeTennis said:
Kiki has a great point. I used to think Laver was just some old time player who beat other weak players, that until I actually watched videos of him, LAVER WAS A MONSTER! I would definitely put him in the top few of all time. Possible the best serve and volleyer of all time.

In his match with Conner's, he would come in then like a Rocket jam out to the passing shot and take it. Incredible player!
Click to expand...

Laver was 37 when he played that exhibition against Connors.

He was not the best S&V player of all time.

He is simply, the greatest all round player of all time.
 
Backspin1183 said:
Federer can serve and volley a little bit but he's no match for a specialist SnV player. Stakhovsky served and volleyed to defeat Federer last year at Wimbledon. Federer's more of a baseline player like the rest of his generation.
Click to expand...

If Stakhovsky did that to federer...now close your eyes and think what just a good S&V player ( not a great one) of the 70´s or 80´s would be able to do on the former grass.
 
c´mon boys and girls¡¡¡ being a bad match up is completely reversible and there are plenty of cases in tennis history¡¡¡

Kramer was a bad matchup for Gonzales unti he reversed that
Rosewall was a bad match up for Laver until he reversed that
Connors was a bad match up for Borg until he reversed that

So, maybe a bad match up just hides the shortcomings of a player?
 
kiki said:
If Stakhovsky did that to federer...now close your eyes and think what just a good S&V player ( not a great one) of the 70´s or 80´s would be able to do on the former grass.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's quite fair to compare a injured and confused old Federer's S&V skills in last years Wimbledon to say his S&V match against a MONSTER S&Ver Sampras when Fed was what, 19.
 
Annie said:
Are you 85 years old?
Click to expand...

Not, I am much younger but old enough to have witnessed Rodney George Laver live.So, I know exsctly what I am talking about.Not like many others who talk about past greats they knew of in wikipedia.
 
kiki said:
Old Sampras?
Click to expand...

Kiki, is there anything you don't know about Tennis? Refreshing to get input from someone who can quote off the top of the head matches from the 60's.

I think that 2001 match was incredible. Sampras was indeed a older Sampras, but he was good enough to win another slam. It was perhaps a little old Sampras against a little young Federer. That match by the way was within a few points.

I often think "What would a prime Fed have done to Sampras"
 
kiki said:
Not, I am much younger but old enough to have witnessed Rodney George Laver live.So, I know exsctly what I am talking about.Not like many others who talk about past greats they knew of in wikipedia.
Click to expand...

You saw Laver live? Whoa. Have you seen any modern players live? If so taking all emotion out of it, how do they compare?
 
SublimeTennis said:
Kiki, is there anything you don't know about Tennis? Refreshing to get input from someone who can quote off the top of the head matches from the 60's.

I think that 2001 match was incredible. Sampras was indeed a older Sampras, but he was good enough to win another slam. It was perhaps a little old Sampras against a little young Federer. That match by the way was within a few points.

I often think "What would a prime Fed have done to Sampras"
Click to expand...

Yes I never discussed Fed is a very talented player.But his adulation is completely off limits.

Of course I missed a lot of tennis.I´d certainly give away 10 years of recent tennis to watch just one year of peak Budge,Gonzales,Tilden and Hoad.
 
kiki said:
Yes I never discussed Fed is a very talented player.But his adulation is completely off limits.

Of course I missed a lot of tennis.I´d certainly give away 10 years of recent tennis to watch just one year of peak Budge,Gonzales,Tilden and Hoad.
Click to expand...

When you say his adulation is off limits, do you mean he's not as talented as everyone thinks?

You know why everyone loves Federer, he's like the Muhammad Ali of Tennis, or Michael Jordon of Basketball, it's more than his talent, he just has that regal quality, that "I don't know" quality. If there is a tournament and he's not in it I lose a lot of interest, but not just me. Fed walks on the court and I don't know, Magic.

Who would you pick in a hypothetical presuming each started training with the same equipment, courts, etc. Laver or Fed and why?
 
kiki said:
c´mon boys and girls¡¡¡ being a bad match up is completely reversible and there are plenty of cases in tennis history¡¡¡

Kramer was a bad matchup for Gonzales unti he reversed that
Rosewall was a bad match up for Laver until he reversed that
Connors was a bad match up for Borg until he reversed that

So, maybe a bad match up just hides the shortcomings of a player?
Click to expand...

Or the final conclusion is:

Gonzales,Laver and Borg were true men.

Fed simply is not.

Which leads us the the final question:

Can such a player claim a place among true men?
 
SublimeTennis said:
When you say his adulation is off limits, do you mean he's not as talented as everyone thinks?

You know why everyone loves Federer, he's like the Muhammad Ali of Tennis, or Michael Jordon of Basketball, it's more than his talent, he just has that regal quality, that "I don't know" quality. If there is a tournament and he's not in it I lose a lot of interest, but not just me. Fed walks on the court and I don't know, Magic.

Who would you pick in a hypothetical presuming each started training with the same equipment, courts, etc. Laver or Fed and why?
Click to expand...

Geez, there is nothing at all that rassembles Fed to those two monsters.I lived Ali era and it has 0 to see with Federer era
 
kiki said:
Or the final conclusion is:

Gonzales,Laver and Borg were true men.

Fed simply is not.

Which leads us the the final question:

Can such a player claim a place among true men?
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean? Now I'm losing respect. What does being a "True Man" have to do with anything?

Henry Armstrong, Lou Ambers, these guys were tougher than steel, but super nice Sugar Ray Leonard, clean and nice like Fed would have destroyed them.

"Real Men"?
 
SublimeTennis said:
You saw Laver live? Whoa. Have you seen any modern players live? If so taking all emotion out of it, how do they compare?
Click to expand...

Laver is the most complete I have seen and I have seen quite a bit.He is the supreme risk taker.
Rosewall is the most perfect technical subjetc I have seen.

Laver would hit a non invented shot and he would look like, that´s nice not bad.In the next play, he would aknowledge an opponent shot which was 5% of his own shot quality

Rosewall would hit a perfect smooth BH return and would look miserable and depressed while the other guy was still on the floor.

Unmatchable
 
SublimeTennis said:
First, I know there are endless threads on this topics. Fed fans will say Fed no matter what, likewise Rafa fans will say Rafa no matter what, insults go back and forth.



What I'm putting out is just my OPINION. I could be wrong, I just haven't seen this discussion on this board.



First, I do believe Rafa is the best in the "Modern Game" of slow courts and high tech racquets, but does that mean he's the GOAT?



Most reasonable people would say Sampras is one of the all time greats, but how did he do on Clay? If all courts were slow, we'd never hear of him, he'd be considered a low level player because of the slow courts.



Tale of two men:



Fed from a child trained serve and volley, play fast, end points quick. His game was made for fast courts. However when he "Broke Through", for a few years everyone said "He's so talented, he just can't win the big one". What was going on is that the courts were slowing down, dramatically. He had to alter his fast court S&V game to a baseline game, no easy feat. It's like training all your life in basketball with 10' hoops, then they raise them to 11'. Yet he was so talented that he could still dominate, and dominate he did, from 2004-2007 he had the most overwhelming domination in the history of tennis, winning 11 out of 15 GS finals, 4 were clay.



Rafa on the other hand started training as a kid as a baseliner. When he started as a pro he received a huge gift, the courts had slowed down! What a gift! Baseliner heaven, slow courts.



Experts have said that Wimbledon today is as slow as the French Open was in the 90's.



So what you have is a huge advantage to Rafa over Fed. Seems no one understands court speed, they understand the FO is hard for guys like Fed and great for Rafa, but they don't apply it to the rest of the courts.



Now be honest, how would Federer do throughout history on all surfaces versus Rafa on all surfaces? Does anyone really think Rafa could compete at any GS except possibly the FO? We are after all talking about Greatest of ALL TIME, not just this last decade.



We know Federer would probably do better in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's super fast courts AND has done well in the 2000's. What about Rafa?



I love both guys, both are INSANELY GREAT, but I simply think as far as "All Time", don't see how anyone can take it from Federer.



One other point. I don't go by how many GS's a guy has won. Look at Laver, how many would he have if we played all of those missed slams? I just think it's not the best barometer. I mean what if a kid comes along, plays one year, never drops a set, beats everyone 6-0, 6-1, wins 4 GS's, then he hurts himself and can never play again, does this mean he isn't a all time great because he doesn't pass the 17 GS mark?



One more observation. If Nadal didn't have the propensity for injuries, his TALENT would have given him more GS's by now. Likewise if Nadal wasn't around, Fed would be over 20 and everyone would think the debate is over.



Just some thoughts
Click to expand...


What a fail..do you if you don't start tennis before 10 you hardly have a chance to be a pro?
Given that both became pros around same time, whatever changes occurred affected both equally..

The two us opens Rafa own, he won pretty easily and convincingly.. If only the courts were faster, Nadal would have become the hard court monster much earlier...the clay success spoiled him for hard courts early on. He would have been a nightmare for fed on all surfaces right from the start . H2h would have been 50-5
 
Fed_Djoker_Fan said:
What a fail..do you if you don't start tennis before 10 you hardly have a chance to be a pro?
Given that both became pros around same time, whatever changes occurred affected both equally..

The two us opens Rafa own, he won pretty easily and convincingly.. If only the courts were faster, Nadal would have become the hard court monster much earlier...the clay success spoiled him for hard courts early on. He would have been a nightmare for fed on all surfaces right from the start . H2h would have been 50-5
Click to expand...

You might want to read my post again.
 
To me he's the best, the haters don't get to me anymore. What I've seen is enough proof to win me over in my conviction of his legacy and GOAThood.
 
kiki said:
Or the final conclusion is:

Gonzales,Laver and Borg were true men.

Fed simply is not.

Which leads us the the final question:

Can such a player claim a place among true men?
Click to expand...

jajaja this is a stupid thing , the guy with the most important record in tennis history is not a true man jaja.

what borh???

when McEnroe started to own him , he retired like a child
 
Great post. Very logical... something you don't see here much.

SublimeTennis said:
First, I know there are endless threads on this topics. Fed fans will say Fed no matter what, likewise Rafa fans will say Rafa no matter what, insults go back and forth.

What I'm putting out is just my OPINION. I could be wrong, I just haven't seen this discussion on this board.

First, I do believe Rafa is the best in the "Modern Game" of slow courts and high tech racquets, but does that mean he's the GOAT?

Most reasonable people would say Sampras is one of the all time greats, but how did he do on Clay? If all courts were slow, we'd never hear of him, he'd be considered a low level player because of the slow courts.

Tale of two men:

Fed from a child trained serve and volley, play fast, end points quick. His game was made for fast courts. However when he "Broke Through", for a few years everyone said "He's so talented, he just can't win the big one". What was going on is that the courts were slowing down, dramatically. He had to alter his fast court S&V game to a baseline game, no easy feat. It's like training all your life in basketball with 10' hoops, then they raise them to 11'. Yet he was so talented that he could still dominate, and dominate he did, from 2004-2007 he had the most overwhelming domination in the history of tennis, winning 11 out of 15 GS finals, 4 were clay.

Rafa on the other hand started training as a kid as a baseliner. When he started as a pro he received a huge gift, the courts had slowed down! What a gift! Baseliner heaven, slow courts.

Experts have said that Wimbledon today is as slow as the French Open was in the 90's.

So what you have is a huge advantage to Rafa over Fed. Seems no one understands court speed, they understand the FO is hard for guys like Fed and great for Rafa, but they don't apply it to the rest of the courts.

Now be honest, how would Federer do throughout history on all surfaces versus Rafa on all surfaces? Does anyone really think Rafa could compete at any GS except possibly the FO? We are after all talking about Greatest of ALL TIME, not just this last decade.

We know Federer would probably do better in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's super fast courts AND has done well in the 2000's. What about Rafa?

I love both guys, both are INSANELY GREAT, but I simply think as far as "All Time", don't see how anyone can take it from Federer.

One other point. I don't go by how many GS's a guy has won. Look at Laver, how many would he have if we played all of those missed slams? I just think it's not the best barometer. I mean what if a kid comes along, plays one year, never drops a set, beats everyone 6-0, 6-1, wins 4 GS's, then he hurts himself and can never play again, does this mean he isn't a all time great because he doesn't pass the 17 GS mark?

One more observation. If Nadal didn't have the propensity for injuries, his TALENT would have given him more GS's by now. Likewise if Nadal wasn't around, Fed would be over 20 and everyone would think the debate is over.

Just some thoughts
Click to expand...
 
anantak2k said:
Great post. Very logical... something you don't see here much.
Click to expand...

How the **** is that logical when he says "We know Federer would probably do better in the 60's, 70's, 80's 90's"

Nobody on Earth knows that.

Maybe you need to look up the word logical...
 
The_Order said:
How the **** is that logical when he says "We know Federer would probably do better in the 60's, 70's, 80's 90's"

Nobody on Earth knows that.

Maybe you need to look up the word logical...
Click to expand...

No one can make a perfect post, so sorry about that:)

However it's a pretty good assumption as Federer is a fast court player.
 
Fed_Djoker_Fan said:
What a fail..do you if you don't start tennis before 10 you hardly have a chance to be a pro?
Given that both became pros around same time, whatever changes occurred affected both equally..

The two us opens Rafa own, he won pretty easily and convincingly.. If only the courts were faster, Nadal would have become the hard court monster much earlier...the clay success spoiled him for hard courts early on. He would have been a nightmare for fed on all surfaces right from the start . H2h would have been 50-5
Click to expand...

Now THAT is pure speculation. We KNOW Federer can play fast or slow courts, we don't know about Nadal, you are just assuming.
 
SublimeTennis said:
First, I know there are endless threads on this topics. Fed fans will say Fed no matter what, likewise Rafa fans will say Rafa no matter what, insults go back and forth.

What I'm putting out is just my OPINION. I could be wrong, I just haven't seen this discussion on this board.

First, I do believe Rafa is the best in the "Modern Game" of slow courts and high tech racquets, but does that mean he's the GOAT?

Most reasonable people would say Sampras is one of the all time greats, but how did he do on Clay? If all courts were slow, we'd never hear of him, he'd be considered a low level player because of the slow courts.

Tale of two men:

Fed from a child trained serve and volley, play fast, end points quick. His game was made for fast courts. However when he "Broke Through", for a few years everyone said "He's so talented, he just can't win the big one". What was going on is that the courts were slowing down, dramatically. He had to alter his fast court S&V game to a baseline game, no easy feat. It's like training all your life in basketball with 10' hoops, then they raise them to 11'. Yet he was so talented that he could still dominate, and dominate he did, from 2004-2007 he had the most overwhelming domination in the history of tennis, winning 11 out of 15 GS finals, 4 were clay.

Rafa on the other hand started training as a kid as a baseliner. When he started as a pro he received a huge gift, the courts had slowed down! What a gift! Baseliner heaven, slow courts.

Experts have said that Wimbledon today is as slow as the French Open was in the 90's.

So what you have is a huge advantage to Rafa over Fed. Seems no one understands court speed, they understand the FO is hard for guys like Fed and great for Rafa, but they don't apply it to the rest of the courts.

Now be honest, how would Federer do throughout history on all surfaces versus Rafa on all surfaces? Does anyone really think Rafa could compete at any GS except possibly the FO? We are after all talking about Greatest of ALL TIME, not just this last decade.

We know Federer would probably do better in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's super fast courts AND has done well in the 2000's. What about Rafa?

I love both guys, both are INSANELY GREAT, but I simply think as far as "All Time", don't see how anyone can take it from Federer.

One other point. I don't go by how many GS's a guy has won. Look at Laver, how many would he have if we played all of those missed slams? I just think it's not the best barometer. I mean what if a kid comes along, plays one year, never drops a set, beats everyone 6-0, 6-1, wins 4 GS's, then he hurts himself and can never play again, does this mean he isn't a all time great because he doesn't pass the 17 GS mark?

One more observation. If Nadal didn't have the propensity for injuries, his TALENT would have given him more GS's by now. Likewise if Nadal wasn't around, Fed would be over 20 and everyone would think the debate is over.

Just some thoughts
Click to expand...

Good post op, you made some valid points
 
kiki said:
Yes I never discussed Fed is a very talented player.But his adulation is completely off limits.

Of course I missed a lot of tennis.I´d certainly give away 10 years of recent tennis to watch just one year of peak Budge,Gonzales,Tilden and Hoad.
Click to expand...

kiki, I believe Federer is the most overrated player at all, alongside with Emerson and Fraser though...;-)
 
kiki said:
Laver is the most complete I have seen and I have seen quite a bit.He is the supreme risk taker.
Rosewall is the most perfect technical subjetc I have seen.

Laver would hit a non invented shot and he would look like, that´s nice not bad.In the next play, he would aknowledge an opponent shot which was 5% of his own shot quality

Rosewall would hit a perfect smooth BH return and would look miserable and depressed while the other guy was still on the floor.

Unmatchable
Click to expand...

kiki, That's why I rank L&R as the two GOATS.
 
Backspin1183 said:
Federer can serve and volley a little bit but he's no match for a specialist SnV player. Stakhovsky served and volleyed to defeat Federer last year at Wimbledon. Federer's more of a baseline player like the rest of his generation.
Click to expand...
Uhhh how about fed was in his worst season ever in 2013? At that stage pete was retired.

I could say the same thing about bastl. Pete is not a real S&v-er
 
My thoughts are Federer's slam count would go up +4 if courts were fast and Nadal's slam count would go down -4. I have always thought that Nadal, Murray and Djoko have all benefitted from the slow courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Why Fed is GOAT-It's in the courts
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
Mick3391
M
S
Such a pity what the powers the be have done to Federer
2 3
Replies
101
Views
6K
RalphJ
RalphJ
S
Best player of all time VERSUS most successful
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Tennisanity
Tennisanity
P
Why Federer Will Not Have A Late Career Surge Like Agassi
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
jg153040
J
S
Super Fed fan admitting Nadal is a better player for the "modern game".
Replies
5
Views
944
RF20Lennon
RF20Lennon
Back
Top