D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
WOW! What an original thread!
1. If Federer had no competition off clay then I have no idea what kind of competition Nadal had on clay.
I mean I could come up with more than 2 if I wanted, but these are the strongest 2- and for me the relevant ones.
In terms of what is for him, well statistically he is the strongest, no doubt about that.
The debate is: are my two criticisms correct (were the players around his age he beat 2003-2007 in the latter stages of hard court and grass weaker than the 'Nadalovicurray' younger triad; and does Federer struggle against his main rival)?
And if I am correct in my two criticisms, are they a significant blow to Federer's call to GOAThood? Are there any other greats who have struggled against their main rival as Roger has? Federer won 12/17 of his slams between 2003 and 2007, and this was when his vast majority of time at number one was in this period too.
WOW! What an original thread!
![]()
Request Permission to sig sir!
Are people really suggesting that Agassi is tougher than playing Nadal on slow high bouncing surfaces?
Roger would take Agassi over Nadal every single time. Hell, he would pay Pete a million bucks to switch their rivals and Pete would refuse. :lol:
IKR! to all the new posters, its understandable you may think your arguments are original but more than likely its already been posted. Please do some research![]()
Request Permission to sig sir!
Too late! Already got it. :razz:
It's mine! All mine! :twisted: (And, of course, credit to Razz11)
You wouldn't mind sharing would you?![]()
As I said, I put Federer in the top 10 of all time on clay, despite it being his weakest surface.
Did Federer have any rivals his age on any court who were as difficult to beat as himself on clay?
The idea that Baghdatis on hard court is as hard as Federer on clay is ridiculous, despite 200 illogical people using it as their signature.
Why? Why is Baghdatis not equivalent?
Because Federer on clay is better than Baghdatis on hard.
Can anyone argue differently? Can anyone logical argue differently?
That begs the question.
Let me rephrase, since I think you're confused. Why is Federer better on clay than Baghdatis is on hard?
If Federer had no competition off clay then I have no idea what kind of competition Nadal had on clay.
He will never be GOAT because of all the extra help he has gotten from the best in sophisticated pharmaceutical treatments from Swiss companies.
WOW! What an original thread!
The idea that Baghdatis on hard court is as hard as Federer on clay is ridiculous, despite 200 illogical people using it as their signature.
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.
Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.
Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.
Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.
Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?
He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.
Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.
So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.
Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.
Not much to add really. Philippousis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and old man Agassi approve of this post. Federer would easily be clay GOAT or close to it in the absence of Nadal.I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.
Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.
Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.
Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.
Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?
He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.
Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.
So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.
Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.
There are more players who are good at hardcourt than there are those who are good on on clay therefore hardcourt competition is tougher. It's that simple.
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.
Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.
Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.
Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.
Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?
He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.
Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.
So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.
Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.
Hey, FOD. Since I respect you as a poster, what do you think of my last post (#119)?
If only Federer had lost to all those guys more. That would have proven his competition was tough.
Oh well. Federer showed how weak his competition was by not losing to them.
Thanks for being so dismissive and not really responding to my post, but either way, I'm talking about top competition here. What top competition did Federer have to consistently overcome from 2004-2007 outside of Nadal on clay?
Outside of Federer, who was Nadal's competition on clay? Djokovic only became a legitimate threat in 2011. He was losing to Melzer and Kohlscrieber before that. If Nadal and Federer were meeting each other so often then the competition on clay must have been weak.
Competition doesn't mean one player. The depth of the competition on clay is inferior compared to the depth of the competition on hard. This is because there are 2 HC slams and more than 50% of the tour is played on HC. The majority of the top players performed their best on HC.
Why does it have to be restricted to top competition? Last time I checked tennis isn't restricted to top players.
Besides, Djokovic is far better on hardcourt than he is on clay.
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.
Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.
Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.
Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.
Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?
He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.
Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.
So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.
Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.
If only Federer had lost to all those guys more. That would have proven his competition was tough.
Oh well. Federer showed how weak his competition was by not losing to them.
It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.
How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.
Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.
Not necessarily. They could have proven themselves by actually winning big titles, being consistent, bringing their best day in and day out. The problem is they couldn't or their best just wasn't that good. And Federer was not the sole reason. Or they would have only ever lost to him.
Each of the big 4 today has their own resumes and has shown supreme consistency that was not matched by the top players from Fed's generation. Whether that consistency is due to surface homogenization or whatever, doesn't matter to me.
Roddick- Wimbledon 2003, Wimbledon 2004, Wimbledon 2005, USO 2006, AO 2007, USO 2007, AO 2009, Wimby 2009.
Roddick may not have been Sampras but he was a decent player. He even had a winning record against Djokovic. Federer just made him look bad just like he made everyone look bad.
Now I agree that today's game has more competition and is stronger! But going by that Laver didn't have much competition at all. So does that mean he doesn't count? In the end (IMO) the only thing that remains are records and numbers. Nobody will remember who played whom in a 100 years. That being said I can't help but have a niggling feeling at the back of my head at the fact if a 30+ Federer can still beat Djokovic and Murray wouldn't they just have been the next Hewitt and Roddick had Fed been in his prime? If Roddick didn't have prime Fed he would have won 6-8 slams like Novak. Hewitt has the same number of slams as Murray.
It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.
How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.
Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.
Even if we're going by your opinion, Federer and Djokovic and most top players are better on hardcourt than they are on clay so hardcourt comeptition is tougher.
But has that shown to be a major problem for Nadal on hard courts? He's made himself a pretty solid resume there, too. So even if they were better on clay, would it make a difference to Rafa?
Or does that show that it's not that competitive since Nadal can win on hard courts too?
Except the OP was talking about how those guys didn't beat Federer, and using that as an argument against the strength of his competition.
What's more, those guys often beat up on each other. You see, there was this thing called "depth" in the men's game when Federer was winning.
It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.
How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.
Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.
Relative to his success on clay it has.
you're also making the assumption that Nadal is not good at hardcourt which is not true.
I wasn't sure if you felt Nadal was good on hardcourts or not, that was more the reason for my second question.
Relative to his success on clay, yes, but I would argue that his biggest problem on hard courts has really just been Djokovic. I don't know who else has CONSISTENTLY given him problems since he improved off of clay. I would also say injuries have played a big part in limiting his hard court success. The clay seems to agree more with his knees.
Majors since 2008:
AO 2008 - Tsonga practically redlined to beat Nadal in the semis
USO 2008 - Loss to murray in semis (probably the one good example of increased depth on hard courts)
AO 2009 - Won
USO 2009 - Redline performance from Del Potro in semis (who also beat Federer)
AO 2010 - Retired against Murray in quarters
USO 2010 - Won
AO 2011 - Lost to Ferrer in quarters (evident hamstring injury)
USO 2011 - Djokovic 2011, enough said.
AO 2012 - Again, peak Djokovic, and Nadal still took it to 7-5 in the 5th
USO 2012 - missed
AO 2013 - missed
USO 2013 - Won
AO 2014 - In final against wawrinka