Why tennis superstar Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT

[drm025]

That supports my point. When there are more players who are good on hardcourt the "redline" performances are more likely to happen. Therefore if you have an off-day or injured, you are more likely to be upset.

But thats why I mentioned consistency. Neither Tsonga nor Del Potro have really replicated those performances in slams since. And both have shown skill on the clay too.

Either way, as you know, I'm more focused on the top competition. And I feel that its really the same on either hard or clay at the moment.

I get what you're saying that more of the top players prefer hard, though. So point taken, there. I guess it's just not that significant to me, because I feel that Rafa has proved himself enough that harder competition on clay wouldn't change much.

Good conversation, by the way. I'm glad that we have been able to converse respectfully, at least that's how I see it This is hard to come by on here.

 

[msc886]

But thats why I mentioned consistency. Neither Tsonga nor Del Potro have really replicated those performances in slams since. And both have shown skill on the clay too.

Either way, as you know, I'm more focused on the top competition. And I feel that its really the same on either hard or clay at the moment.

I get what you're saying that more of the top players prefer hard, though. So point taken, there. I guess it's just not that significant to me, because I feel that Rafa has proved himself enough that harder competition on clay wouldn't change much.

Good conversation, by the way. I'm glad that we have been able to converse respectfully, at least that's how I see it This is hard to come by on here.

It's more difficult to be consistent when there are lots of good hardcourt players. The fact that Federer has done so well on hardcourts really shows how good he really was.

My original point was that hardcourt competition is tougher than claycourt competition not whether Nadal would do better or worse if the clay comp goe tougher.

 

[drm025]

It's more difficult to be consistent when there are lots of good hardcourt players. The fact that Federer has done so well on hardcourts really shows how good he really was.

My original point was that hardcourt competition is tougher than claycourt competition not whether Nadal would do better or worse if the clay comp goe tougher.

Well, Federer has only won 2 HC majors after 2007...

Who are the good HC players that you are talking about, besides the Big 4 and what makes them good?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Why tennis superstar Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT

....he never won the Grand Slam.

He's just fighting for best of his generation.

 

[msc886]

Well, Federer has only won 2 HC majors after 2007...

Who are the good HC players that you are talking about, besides the Big 4 and what makes them good?

Hindsight is always 100%. The "big four" weren't "big four" at the time.

He's past his prime. Of course he will lose more often.

He has been upset or struggled in early rounds on hardcourt. He's lost to countless people who weren't the "big four"

If you're going to include after 2007, why not include before 2004? It's bias otherwise.

You're points are not showing that clay court competition is tougher than hardcourt competition.

 

[RF20Lennon]

....he never won the Grand Slam.

He's just fighting for best of his generation.

This is a strong argument but Federer has other things to make up for it.

 

[Shady_Sawyer]

Federer Nadal AO 2014 Highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLG3nM-CUZc

 

[jrs]

In my book Federer is the closest to being a GOAT - however just came short due to Nadal & French Open (winning FO by beating Nadal) and Olympic Gold in Singles.
He's pretty much won everything else.
Oh yeah...No proper grand slam is also missing.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

There is no GOAT.

The same people who 3 years ago were screaming everywhere to everyone "Federer is the Greatest of All Time", now claim "There is no GOAT"

LOL. Too easy.
(i don't mean you Luminaire by the way, I just quote your sentence to make my point).

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Apologies! I should have made myself a bit more clear.

Murray and Djokovic have directly not denied Federer any slams. Federer has beaten Murray in all the finals that they have met. And Djokovic only started beating Fed in slams CONSISTENTLY after 2010 (an almost 30 year Roger Federer). And not to mention Djokovic had to save two match points on two occasions to beat Fed (USO 2010 and 2011). Now imagine if Fed was in his prime, how would that have turned out?

One way it could have turned out was AO2008. Oh wait, that one doesn't count because of mono/federerwaspasthisprimeat26.

Also, the "lost-narrowly-so-in-prime-would-have-won" argument doesn't always hold water. If applied consistently prime Agassi would own Federer left right and centre due to being able to push him at slams at age 34/35.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

This weak era argument is really funny. Should we then take into account Nadal's cupcake draws, because he has got very kind draws in his HC slams. USO 10,13 and now AO 13. He escaped a Djokovic defeat in RG 11 too. Didn't face anyone of note in Wim 10 too. RG 10 was a bit of a joke too but atleast he faced Soderling in the final. Let's cancel his 5 slams and bump him down to 8 slams.

Funny how Wawrinka is a cakedraw for Nadal but Baghdatis is a tough opponent for Roger. And Gonzalez, Philippoussis...

Actually Wawrinka is a similar opponent to Gonzalez, you can't say Gonzalez is tougher, Wawrinka/Gonzalez= pretty much the same league, similar players, great shotmakers, clay players who ended having great results on HC and pretty weak on grass.

And funny how you mention US open 2013 but he clearly had a tougher draw than Djokovic anyway, and not his fault if Roger lost to Robredo, and it's a joke to think Roger would have given troubles to Nadal :lol:

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

This weak era argument is really funny. Should we then take into account Nadal's cupcake draws, because he has got very kind draws in his HC slams. USO 10,13 and now AO 13. He escaped a Djokovic defeat in RG 11 too. Didn't face anyone of note in Wim 10 too. RG 10 was a bit of a joke too but atleast he faced Soderling in the final. Let's cancel his 5 slams and bump him down to 8 slams.

By the way, in 12 out of his 14 grand slams, Nadal beat Djokovic or Federer, or both to win.
You fail again.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Can any other player with 13 majors lose 7 consecutive times to another player ?

Why 13 majors ? has anyone with even 3 majors lost 0-7 ?

And that too in their prime ? And including beating on their favorite surface ?

Well, do you know Federer had 0-5 loss streaks against Nadal... and it happened 3 times :shock: 3 streaks of 0-5 losses, lol. Can''t get more owned than that.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

That begs the question.

Let me rephrase, since I think you're confused. Why is Federer better on clay than Baghdatis is on hard?

Because Roger won around 10 titles on clay including several Master 1000 where he beat Nadal and a grand slam (without beating Nadal though) ?

What Master 1000 did Baghdatis win ?

I can't believe i'm giving a serious answer to this question...

 

[Manus Domini]

Is that a serious question? Obviously you're not looking for accomplishments.... So what are you getting at?

Dead serious. If the weak era argument applies to Fed's era, it applies to RG as well, meaning Fed got to finals because he lacked real clay court competition--meaning he's not necessarily a clay court great.

 

[Manus Domini]

Because Roger won around 10 titles on clay including several Master 1000 where he beat Nadal and a grand slam (without beating Nadal though) ?

What Master 1000 did Baghdatis win ?

I can't believe i'm giving a serious answer to this question...

I think you're missing the point of the question. See my above post.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I think you're missing the point of the question. See my above post.

Still you can't compare, Federer beat great clay players in the past, Coria, Ferrero, and Nadal too, don't forget Federer was 1 point away from beating Nadal in a best of 5 sets match on clay (Rome 2006), you can't compare with Baghdatis who made 1 great run on hardcourt (and 1 at Wimbledon I think).

By the way, totally off topic but that makes me think, I find it strange that Baghdatis beat Nadal only 1 time but Davydenko did it 6 times.

 

[Manus Domini]

Still you can't compare, Federer beat great clay players in the past, Coria, Ferrero, and Nadal too, don't forget Federer was 1 point away from beating Nadal in a best of 5 sets match on clay (Rome 2006), you can't compare with Baghdatis who made 1 great run on hardcourt (and 1 at Wimbledon I think).

Well, you can. If the HC field was stronger than the CC field, it would be harder to make a great run on HC than on clay.

By the way, totally off topic but that makes me think, I find it strange that Baghdatis beat Nadal only 1 time but Davydenko did it 6 times.

Match-ups.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Well, you can. If the HC field was stronger than the CC field, it would be harder to make a great run on HC than on clay.

I don't think the difference between clay and HC is that big anymore anyway, of course it's still different (see Murray's results on clay for example) but it's not a huge difference like it used to be in the 90's. And i mean now players are mutli surfaces for the big majority of them.

Match-ups.

Davydenko/Baghdatis same game pretty much, that's why i was wondering

 

[Manus Domini]

I don't think the difference between clay and HC is that big anymore anyway, of course it's still different (see Murray's results on clay for example) but it's not a huge difference like it used to be in the 90's. And i mean now players are mutli surfaces for the big majority of them.

The difference was mitigated further throughout the 2000s, I'm pretty sure.

Plus, they are rather different in terms of play style (sliding on clay, for example).

Davydenko/Baghdatis same game pretty much, that's why i was wondering

Intangibles?

 

[Bud]

Djokovic has beaten Nadal more than 15 times.

31 year old Fed was number 1 when the three other competitors were 24-26. Enough said, that Fed was numero uno across all eras.

302 weeks at number 1 proves that.

And Nadal has beaten Djokovic 22 times and on the most important stages - majors.