Amritia
Hall of Fame
I would start this article off by saying that I have a huge amount of respect for Roger Federer, and despite not being a fan of his I do like watching him play tennis.
I would also add that I think he is right up there in the pantheon of greats, but I do not think he is right the at the top of the list despite having the best stats, for the following reasons:
1/ Lack of Competition at his Prime
I believe the lack of world class competition at his prime (away from clay) was due to the shortage of ATG players playing at a sustained high level in his age group (ie +/- 3 years).
This statistic, researched by ATP.com, in my eyes reveals a lot:
The above stat is not me making a case for or against Murray (I recognise that Federer still wins majority of Slam matches against him), but it showcases how poor Federer's contemporaries were. How could all those players combined only get 3 wins in all competitions against Federer between 2004-2008, while Murray got 4?
Now we go to 2007, and see the top 3: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
This is when Federer is 26/27 years old- so players around his age should be around prime level. But wait... at spot 2 and 3 we have 2 youngsters; Nadal and Djokovic despite bring pre-prime are higher in the rankings than players Federer's age, who should be at prime level. Does that not say a lot?
None of Federer's potential rivals his age were able to maintain a sustained challenge to Federer:
Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?
The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.
So to conclude point number 1, this gives Roger Federer a huge advantage. He has no 'great' contemporaries who can launch a sustained challenge, and the world class opposition he has to worry about are much younger players; this gives him a window off opportunity to accumulate sensational statistics relatively easily between 2004 and 2007 (exception being Nadal on clay- he was great on clay even when he was very young).
2/ Roger Federer struggled against his greatest rival
Federer's head to head against his greatest rival Nadal is not even close, and since Nadal won their first match on the hard court of Miami in 2004 (yes hard court... not clay), Federer has never led Nadal in the H2H. Nadal leads currently 23-10, and 9-2 in slams. Even if you take away Nadal's favourite surface, clay, he STILL leads the H2H.
Can you remember any all time great across any sport struggling against their biggest rival to that extent... Federer has simply been dominated. Borg, Nadal, Sampras etc. have never been dominated to such an extent by a major rival.
People say 'match up issues'- but this itself is an admission of a weakness- surely the GOAT would be so good that finding a player who could cut him apart would be impossible? And secondly, isn't part of being a great having the ability to overcome such challenges. Nadal struggled against Djokovic in 2011, but after that leads the H2H; and overall leads the H2H 22-17.
Thus, given both these reasons, is it really not understandable that people say Roger Federer despite being an all time great, is not the GOAT?
I would also add that I think he is right up there in the pantheon of greats, but I do not think he is right the at the top of the list despite having the best stats, for the following reasons:
1/ Lack of Competition at his Prime
I believe the lack of world class competition at his prime (away from clay) was due to the shortage of ATG players playing at a sustained high level in his age group (ie +/- 3 years).
This statistic, researched by ATP.com, in my eyes reveals a lot:
Between the period 2004-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin did put together.
This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic, as well as many others.
The above stat is not me making a case for or against Murray (I recognise that Federer still wins majority of Slam matches against him), but it showcases how poor Federer's contemporaries were. How could all those players combined only get 3 wins in all competitions against Federer between 2004-2008, while Murray got 4?
Now we go to 2007, and see the top 3: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
This is when Federer is 26/27 years old- so players around his age should be around prime level. But wait... at spot 2 and 3 we have 2 youngsters; Nadal and Djokovic despite bring pre-prime are higher in the rankings than players Federer's age, who should be at prime level. Does that not say a lot?
None of Federer's potential rivals his age were able to maintain a sustained challenge to Federer:
Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?
The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.
So to conclude point number 1, this gives Roger Federer a huge advantage. He has no 'great' contemporaries who can launch a sustained challenge, and the world class opposition he has to worry about are much younger players; this gives him a window off opportunity to accumulate sensational statistics relatively easily between 2004 and 2007 (exception being Nadal on clay- he was great on clay even when he was very young).
2/ Roger Federer struggled against his greatest rival
Federer's head to head against his greatest rival Nadal is not even close, and since Nadal won their first match on the hard court of Miami in 2004 (yes hard court... not clay), Federer has never led Nadal in the H2H. Nadal leads currently 23-10, and 9-2 in slams. Even if you take away Nadal's favourite surface, clay, he STILL leads the H2H.
Can you remember any all time great across any sport struggling against their biggest rival to that extent... Federer has simply been dominated. Borg, Nadal, Sampras etc. have never been dominated to such an extent by a major rival.
People say 'match up issues'- but this itself is an admission of a weakness- surely the GOAT would be so good that finding a player who could cut him apart would be impossible? And secondly, isn't part of being a great having the ability to overcome such challenges. Nadal struggled against Djokovic in 2011, but after that leads the H2H; and overall leads the H2H 22-17.
Thus, given both these reasons, is it really not understandable that people say Roger Federer despite being an all time great, is not the GOAT?
Last edited: