Will Federer be an underachiever if he doesn't win more Slams than Sampras?

[Deleted member 3771]

If they played in slam finals the odds are with Sampras, he was more unstoppable in Slam finals. His average performance in the slams finals is a bit better than Fed's.

14-4>13-5. Sampras wins.

Averages are what's important, not the best level. So wilander goes to federer. I already listed moya, kuerten. I agreed with you about ferrero.

How about gasquet, djokovic, haas, medvedev and enqvist? direct comparisons or just nice things to say about sampras?

 

[vtmike]

Oh I'm gonna beat the hell out of this. Sampras was hammered Becker, Courier, Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Henman and P'sis en route to his 7 Wimbledon crowns, who the hell did Fed beat???

Aah yes that dynamic duo of Roddick and Hewitt. Impressive, a 48th ranked P'sis (a Sampras era holdover ) and Henman (oh wait.... another Sampras era holdover). Then Nadal in his 4th grass tourney of his life. Then esacaped vs Nadal who played 4-5 consecutive days, hurt his knee in the final and Fed still needed him to choke 4 break pts in the 5th set to come through.

US Open, Fed's 1st title he struggled through 5 sets with 34 yr old Dre. Dre took 3 sets in 4 matches vs Pete in Flushing, but took 2 of the 1st 4 vs PEAK Roger. Then beat Henman in SF (oh... that Sampras era holdover again) In 1995 US Open F Sampras HAMMERED a PEAK Agassi, he was up 6-4,6-3 and a break 2-1 in the 3rd set before double faulting twice and making errors to let Agassi back in. While PEAK Federer trailed BROKE BACK Dre at 35 yrs of age, coming of 3 straight 5 setters, 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0. Please. Are you serious??? Sampras beat Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Ivanisevic, Haas, damn even Roddick and Hewitt got straight setted by Pete in Flushing. Roger beat Hewitt and Roddick (that dynamic duo again), 34-35 yr old Agass (A Sampras era holdover) Henman (another Sampras era holdover), Djokovic (who blew 6how many set pts serving at 6-5 40-0 in the final and then a 4-1 lead in the 2nd set), and Murray (and his exceptional 16 winner, 28 unforced error performance).

As far as Roland Garros when Sampras got to the Qf he would get Agassi, Bruguera, and Courier (twice). In Fed's runs his QF opponents were, Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez. I really don't think you wanna compare do you??


I told you I would destroy your idiotic post. Venni... vetti.... vecci!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such a long post and that was based on what? a sarcastic post which was a reply to the TheNatural's pathetic post! Try to read the whole thread and understand the context of the post before going into an angry hissy fit!

I don't believe in weak era's PERIOD Sampras' era was NOT weak and neither was Federer's...You cannot criticize Fed for having a weak era...ofcourse his era will look weak...he was beating the crap out of EVERYONE! Ofcourse Sampras' era on grass will look weak...He was beating the crap out of EVERYONE!

I can criticize and nit pick all the players Sampras has beat by degrading them just like you did....Lets see Pat Rafter was 30 when Sampras beat him in 2000 Wimbledon...Who else did Sampras beat...Goran Ivanisevic? Henman? Pioline? Michael Chang? Todd Martin? great players?

See you can keep playing the same game back and forth without achieving anything significant! The point is any comparison between eras is baseless and pointless...we don't know how Sampras would adjust in today's game just like we don't know how Federer would adjust in the Sampras era...They are both great and always will be...Nothing you or me spew here is going to change that fact!

 

[GameSampras]

Well whos to say what "weak" is. But there is no doubt some eras that are weaker than others in terms of depth on surfaces, the players at the top of the rankings etc.

 

[bolo]

If they played in slam finals the odds are with Sampras, he was more unstoppable in Slam finals. His average performance in the slams finals is a bit better than Fed's.

14-4>13-5. Sampras wins.

Sampras Rules!

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

If they played in slam finals the odds are with Sampras, he was more unstoppable in Slam finals. His average performance in the slams finals is a bit better than Fed's.

14-4>13-5. Sampras wins.

Yet he never made a GS final on his worst surface while Federer has with 3 consecutive finals and counting hmm....

 

[Safinator_1]

No one remebers who was finalist only who won, In this long run coming 2nd ain't good enough so if Fed doesn't win French he won't win the majority of people who doubt still him, i.e They will still think Sampras is better period. 2nd is just as good as losing in semi or quarters

 

[vtmike]

No one remebers who was finalist only who won, In this long run coming 2nd ain't good enough so if Fed doesn't win French he won't win the majority of people who doubt still him, i.e They will still think Sampras is better period. 2nd is just as good as losing in semi or quarters

After reading all your posts in this & some other threads, it seems like you have consumed some happy pills

Well anyways, the bold portion just goes to show how flawed and pathetic your logic is!

 

[Safinator_1]

After reading all your posts in this & some other threads, it seems like you have consumed some happy pills

Well anyways, the bold portion just goes to show how flawed and pathetic your logic is!

Sorry if you feel that way Vt but i don't really count nor care who comes second only who wins the trophyn and the record in the end that is is why for me i said if you lose in the final, your just about the same as in quarters or semis.

Applying that to Fed never won FO therefore not ahead of Sampras in my books, don't care if he made finals or not point is he didn't win period

 

[vtmike]

Sorry if you feel that way Vt but i don't really count nor care who comes second only who wins the trophyn and the record in the end that is is why for me i said if you lose in the final, your just about the same as in quarters or semis.

Applying that to Fed never won FO therefore not ahead of Sampras in my books, don't care if he made finals or not point is he didn't win period

I guess to each his own...maybe some others agree with you on this, but I don't...

 

[Safinator_1]

I guess to each his own...maybe some others agree with you on this, but I don't...

Its fine i don't expect you to agree

 

[380pistol]

Averages are what's important, not the best level. So wilander goes to federer. I already listed moya, kuerten. I agreed with you about ferrero.

How about gasquet, djokovic, haas, medvedev and enqvist? direct comparisons or just nice things to say about sampras?

Sampras' "average" level was good enough for 14 slams, and the mpst week and years spent at #1.

Agassi once said "Many great players are great cuz they have the ability to raise their level above their peers. Sampras had 2 options. He could raise his level, or bring yours down".

Djokovic said Sampras is "the best ever"... you can take from that what you want. Medveved "Sampras the best to ever pick up a tennis racquet".

And Hass, said "He's happy to defeat Sampras as he can tell his kids that he beat the greatest ever" and at another time, the Aus Open one year I believe said "He's not completely convinced of Roger's greatness". Damn!!! I'm a Pete an and even I can appreciate Roger's greatness.

 

[380pistol]

Such a long post and that was based on what? a sarcastic post which was a reply to the TheNatural's pathetic post! Try to read the whole thread and understand the context of the post before going into an angry hissy fit!

I don't believe in weak era's PERIOD Sampras' era was NOT weak and neither was Federer's...You cannot criticize Fed for having a weak era...ofcourse his era will look weak...he was beating the crap out of EVERYONE! Ofcourse Sampras' era on grass will look weak...He was beating the crap out of EVERYONE!

I can criticize and nit pick all the players Sampras has beat by degrading them just like you did....Lets see Pat Rafter was 30 when Sampras beat him in 2000 Wimbledon...Who else did Sampras beat...Goran Ivanisevic? Henman? Pioline? Michael Chang? Todd Martin? great players?

See you can keep playing the same game back and forth without achieving anything significant! The point is any comparison between eras is baseless and pointless...we don't know how Sampras would adjust in today's game just like we don't know how Federer would adjust in the Sampras era...They are both great and always will be...Nothing you or me spew here is going to change that fact!

Well you could have said you were responding to TheNatural's post, or you could have taken my post in context the way yurs was to him, couldn't you???

You can believe what you believe. But I love that arguement one era cannot be weaker than another. Funny how when many (incl. myself) feel the 80's may be the stongest decade ever, there's no complaints, weak(er) era.... imagine that???

You can criticiz Sampras and his peers all you want, but you might wanna start by getting the facts straight. Pete won Wimbledon in 2000 a month before he turned 29, and he is older than Rafter, who you claim to be 30 when that match took place?!?

I have broken down Ivanisevic, based on something known as facts. Throw out Martin and Pioline?? Make you feel better?? help you sleep at night. Why not every player I mentioned (for both)??? And secondly why bother with names as you just said you believe one era is not weaker than another, so your point of nit picking the players Sampras played and beat would be....???

 

[vtmike]

Well you could have said you were responding to TheNatural's post, or you could have taken my post in context the way yurs was to him, couldn't you???

You can believe what you believe. But I love that arguement one era cannot be weaker than another. Funny how when many (incl. myself) feel the 80's may be the stongest decade ever, there's no complaints, weak(er) era.... imagine that???

You can criticiz Sampras and his peers all you want, but you might wanna start by getting the facts straight. Pete won Wimbledon in 2000 a month before he turned 29, and he is older than Rafter, who you claim to be 30 when that match took place?!?

I have broken down Ivanisevic, based on something known as facts. Throw out Martin and Pioline?? Make you feel better?? help you sleep at night. Why not every player I mentioned (for both)??? And secondly why bother with names as you just said you believe one era is not weaker than another, so your point of nit picking the players Sampras played and beat would be....???

I was just giving you an example on how you can ridicule anybody's opponents and take credit away from the winner just the way you have been doing with Federer's opponents...anyways I honestly think this era argument is like a bottomless pit and there is no convincing about strong or weak eras because everyone will be biased based on who their favourite players are...

I guess maybe you get a kick out of it and enjoy arguing with others...thats a different story but the important thing is not to get too serious about it...because finally anything you, me or any poster says about these great players will not affect their legacy or tarnish their achievements...They will all still continue to be great nonetheless

 

[bolo]

Sampras' "average" level was good enough for 14 slams, and the mpst week and years spent at #1.

Agassi once said "Many great players are great cuz they have the ability to raise their level above their peers. Sampras had 2 options. He could raise his level, or bring yours down".

Djokovic said Sampras is "the best ever"... you can take from that what you want. Medveved "Sampras the best to ever pick up a tennis racquet".

And Hass, said "He's happy to defeat Sampras as he can tell his kids that he beat the greatest ever" and at another time, the Aus Open one year I believe said "He's not completely convinced of Roger's greatness". Damn!!! I'm a Pete an and even I can appreciate Roger's greatness.

thanks for digging those up.

That agassi quote is pretty funny.

 

[bolo]

No one remebers who was finalist only who won, In this long run coming 2nd ain't good enough so if Fed doesn't win French he won't win the majority of people who doubt still him, i.e They will still think Sampras is better period. 2nd is just as good as losing in semi or quarters

It could mean, as some were guessing 5 years ago, that roger is giving up some upper level fast court success (7 wimbledons) for a few more slams on the slower courts. Right now if he doesn't win anymore that's basically the result. He wins one more australian, goes a couple of rounds deeper at the FO, but loses some wimbledons in the process.

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

Djokovic said Sampras is "the best ever"... you can take from that what you want. Medveved "Sampras the best to ever pick up a tennis racquet".

Yes and Djok has played Sampras alot of times...

Getting to 3 consecutive finals is an achievement in its own and it will be remembered stop trying to discredit Fed, its pretty sad. Not to mention he lost to the greatest clay-courter of all time.

 

[grafrules]

Yes and Djok has played Sampras alot of times...

Getting to 3 consecutive finals is an achievement in its own and it will be remembered stop trying to discredit Fed, its pretty sad. Not to mention he lost to the greatest clay-courter of all time.

The excuses for Federer not winning the French lately seem to be almost as persistent as all the excuses from the Selestards for Monica never winning Wimbledon.

I will just say the same thing I tell the Selestards on the Wimbledon topic:

Roger Federer- French Open titles: ZERO

The end.

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

The excuses for Federer not winning the French lately seem to be almost as persistent as all the excuses from the Selestards for Monica never winning Wimbledon.

You obviously don't know what the word "excuse" means as I didn't make any in my post.

 

[grafrules]

You obviously don't know what the word "excuse" means as I didn't make any in my post.

Read your post again. You brought up losing to arguably the greatest clay courter of all time as your excuse. That is no excuse. Champions find a way to win no matter what. Getting to the finals 3 different times (really 4 in a row since the 2005 semi with Nadal was the defacto final) and losing out each time to the same player, even if arguably the greatest clay courter of all time, is simply bad for a player of Federer's stature. He is good enough on clay to reach the finals that often, he is supposably a mens GOAT candidate. He should win it at some point. Losing out at that player again and again to the same player, no matter who it is, looks bad on him no matter how you slice it.

Champions find ways to win everything no matter who is in their path. Rod Laver, Steffi Graf, Andre Agassi, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Serena Williams. It didnt matter who was in their way, they won all the biggest titles in their sport. Federer couldnt.

 

[Satch]

Why should Fed be an underachiever?

At least he didn't had any prob's with injuries, so lucky player, he still can play, we will see.
He has all the best conditions to show himself in the best way, it's all in his hands.

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

Read your post again. You brought up losing to arguably the greatest clay courter of all time as your excuse. That is no excuse. Champions find a way to win no matter what. Getting to the finals 3 different times (really 4 in a row since the 2005 semi with Nadal was the defacto final) and losing out each time to the same player, even if arguably the greatest clay courter of all time, is simply bad for a player of Federer's stature. He is good enough on clay to reach the finals that often, he is supposably a mens GOAT candidate. He should win it at some point. Losing out at that player again and again to the same player, no matter who it is, looks bad on him no matter how you slice it.

Champions find ways to win everything no matter who is in their path. Rod Laver, Steffi Graf, Andre Agassi, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Serena Williams. It didnt matter who was in their way, they won all the biggest titles in their sport. Federer couldnt.

It's not an excuse I am just saying it makes his finals appearance even more astonishing. Of course Fed haters will find any reason to discredit Fed so I am not surprised by your response.

 

[grafrules]

It's not an excuse I am just saying it makes his finals appearance even more astonishing. Of course Fed haters will find any reason to discredit Fed so I am not surprised by your response.

I am not a Federer hater, I actually like him. If Steffi had lost the French Open final to Monica 5 times in a row and never won the French, or the Wimbledon final to Navratilova 5 times in a row and never won Wimbledon, I would say that is pathetic for such a great player too despite that she is my all time favorite player. Losing in the final that matter times to the same player is just a black mark on Federer's overall great career, it doesnt matter who it is to, and it is a black mark against any GOAT argument for him. Even a non GOAT contender like Agassi found a way to win Wimbledon and the French even with superior grass courters like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic and superior clay courters like Courier, Muster, Kuerten always around.

As for the competition argument it cuts both ways. If one says Federer is unlucky to run into Nadal one could argue he is lucky there arent more quality clay courters today. After all you did see a prime Federer getting spanked by a hip cripped Kuerten in 2004. You did see Federer going out 1st round in 2003 right before winning Wimbledon. Those are singular examples and of course on other occasions he could potentially do alot better, but all the same they are sufficient to show it is not like any top notch clay courter other than Nadal is a sure win for Federer, and there are virtually none other than Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic out there today (and Federer hasnt even been drawn to play Djokovic at the French yet).

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

I am not a Federer hater, I actually like him. If Steffi had lost the French Open final to Monica 5 times in a row and never won the French, or the Wimbledon final to Navratilova 5 times in a row and never won Wimbledon, I would say that is pathetic for such a great player too despite that she is my all time favorite player. Losing in the final that matter times to the same player is just a black mark on Federer's overall great career, it doesnt matter who it is to, and it is a black mark against any GOAT argument for him. Even a non GOAT contender like Agassi found a way to win Wimbledon and the French even with superior grass courters like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic and superior clay courters like Courier, Muster, Kuerten always around.

As for the competition argument it cuts both ways. If one says Federer is unlucky to run into Nadal one could argue he is lucky there arent more quality clay courters today. After all you did see a prime Federer getting spanked by a hip cripped Kuerten in 2004. You did see Federer going out 1st round in 2003 right before winning Wimbledon. Those are singular examples and of course on other occasions he could potentially do alot better, but all the same they are sufficient to show it is not like any top notch clay courter other than Nadal is a sure win for Federer, and there are virtually none other than Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic out there today (and Federer hasnt even been drawn to play Djokovic at the French yet).

Well if your not why are you discrediting Fed achievements?

 

[grafrules]

Well if your not why are you discrediting Fed achievements?

I dont feel I am discrediting them. Reaching 3 French Open finals is a very good feat true. However it is also not unreasonable for people to be pointing out how that can be seen as a negative for him. Like I said getting that close so many times and losing to the same player (4 times in a row since the 05 semis should be counted as virtually the same thing) is something that is going to look badly on him in a large way given that he is one of the greatest players in history and who he is compared to. For a player that great to get that close that many times at the same event, and lose repeatedly that often to the same player/rival, it is something that is a negative against him.

It is not like we are talking about a 2-time slam winner having this happen to him, in which case I could agree it is remarkable for him still. It is a 13-time slam winner. It is also not liking we are talking about someone obviously uncomfortable and inconsistent on clay like Sampras. We are talking about one of the all time greats good enough on clay to keep making it to the very end, yet have this keep happening to him.

 

[clayrules]

The poll results say it all. Federer will be an underachiever if he doesn't win more Slams than Sampras.

 

[380pistol]

Yes and Djok has played Sampras alot of times...

Getting to 3 consecutive finals is an achievement in its own and it will be remembered stop trying to discredit Fed, its pretty sad. Not to mention he lost to the greatest clay-courter of all time.

Agassi has played Sampras 34 times and Federer 1, and what did he say about Federer NOT being the greatest after 2009 Aus Open??? OK then be quiet. Moya, Guga, Kafelnikov, and even Ferrer, what did they say???

Close your mouth.

 

[380pistol]

I was just giving you an example on how you can ridicule anybody's opponents and take credit away from the winner just the way you have been doing with Federer's opponents...anyways I honestly think this era argument is like a bottomless pit and there is no convincing about strong or weak eras because everyone will be biased based on who their favourite players are...

I guess maybe you get a kick out of it and enjoy arguing with others...thats a different story but the important thing is not to get too serious about it...because finally anything you, me or any poster says about these great players will not affect their legacy or tarnish their achievements...They will all still continue to be great nonetheless

You can say I'm iscreditng Federer, but that just sounds like someone who is not reading what I'm saying, or the truth hurts too much they find anyway to ignore it.

Have I ever once blamed fed for the era he plays in?? No. But when comparing him to Sampras, Borg, Laver anyone, what each had to come up against has to considered. For those who don't want to, know it's true but try by any means to push it aside, cuz that is something that is not a good look for Roger.

I have said I believe Laver is a better claycourter than Federer, but , not necessarily based on his 2 French Open titles. Yes if Fed had to deal with guys like Rosewall, Emerson, Orantes and Roche, he may not even see the final, but I don't think Laver at his best can beat Nadal at his beast. Fed fans will forever use Rafa as a crutch, but not consider what Fed had to do to get to Nadal.

I posted every player Fed beat to see nadal at RG the last 4 years, and there are many Sampras, Becker, Connors etc. whonever reached a RG final, that probably would going through said players. I just say what I feel and believe and base if on something. I mean as soon as Roger isn't praised all day, Federphiles start with the waterworks.

Read the thread "what if Roger had a rival during his prime?" My first post said I don't think there'd 5 consecutive titles at Wimbledon and The US Open, or 3 slams a year 3 different times, and 237 consecutive weeks at #1,I don't know. But I do believe he'd still have a buch of slams, years with multiple slams, and would still spend a significant amount of tim at #1. mong MANY federphiles that's discrediting everything he's accomplished, saying he'd have no slams (Edberg505 had the loudest voice), he'd never be #1 etc.

Federphiles are funny like that.

 

[Nadalator]

Federphiles haha so fitting!

 

[vtmike]

You can say I'm iscreditng Federer, but that just sounds like someone who is not reading what I'm saying, or the truth hurts too much they find anyway to ignore it.

Have I ever once blamed fed for the era he plays in?? No. But when comparing him to Sampras, Borg, Laver anyone, what each had to come up against has to considered. For those who don't want to, know it's true but try by any means to push it aside, cuz that is something that is not a good look for Roger.

I have said I believe Laver is a better claycourter than Federer, but , not necessarily based on his 2 French Open titles. Yes if Fed had to deal with guys like Rosewall, Emerson, Orantes and Roche, he may not even see the final, but I don't think Laver at his best can beat Nadal at his beast. Fed fans will forever use Rafa as a crutch, but not consider what Fed had to do to get to Nadal.

I posted every player Fed beat to see nadal at RG the last 4 years, and there are many Sampras, Becker, Connors etc. whonever reached a RG final, that probably would going through said players. I just say what I feel and believe and base if on something. I mean as soon as Roger isn't praised all day, Federphiles start with the waterworks.

Read the thread "what if Roger had a rival during his prime?" My first post said I don't think there'd 5 consecutive titles at Wimbledon and The US Open, or 3 slams a year 3 different times, and 237 consecutive weeks at #1,I don't know. But I do believe he'd still have a buch of slams, years with multiple slams, and would still spend a significant amount of tim at #1. mong MANY federphiles that's discrediting everything he's accomplished, saying he'd have no slams (Edberg505 had the loudest voice), he'd never be #1 etc.

Federphiles are funny like that.

Say what you want but your opinions just like any other ***********'s opinions are completely 100% biased, or any *******, or Lavertard, or Borgtard, or Agassitard, or ******* for that matter...Basically everyone is going to try and justify their fav player by coming up with statistics tailored to fit their "greatness"...ofcourse rational judgement goes out the window when it comes to comparing another player to your idol! No matter what you say, your opinion will always be biased to me based on your previous posts! This is just an infinite circle of discussions with no end result!

What we need is a unbiased neutral fan of tennis who has seen a majority of these players...and we know such fans do not exist!

 

[GameSampras]

Say what you want but your opinions just like any other ***********'s opinions are completely 100% biased, or any *******, or Lavertard, or Borgtard, or Agassitard, or ******* for that matter...Basically everyone is going to try and justify their fav player by coming up with statistics tailored to fit their "greatness"...ofcourse rational judgement goes out the window when it comes to comparing another player to your idol! No matter what you say, your opinion will always be biased to me based on your previous posts! This is just an infinite circle of discussions with no end result!

What we need is a unbiased neutral fan of tennis who has seen a majority of these players...and we know such fans do not exist!

That is where I come in. LOL. You dont get more unbiased than me and 380 pistol

 

[vtmike]

That is where I come in. LOL. You dont get more unbiased than me and 380 pistol

ROFL! I needed a good laugh! You really are a very funny guy...I would've made this my new sig if you hadn't made that post earlier (my current sig) which is just slightly better IMO

 

[thejoe]

That is where I come in. LOL. You dont get more unbiased than me and 380 pistol

Funny joke.

 

[heftylefty]

If Federer is consider an underachiever if he doesn't pass Sampras' grand slam record, we all should hope we underachieve in should grand fashion.

13 Grand slam titles is underachieving?

Right now Switzerland is currently 4th in the total of Men's Grand Slams single titles won, tied Spain. Think about it; one person put is country 4th on the all time list. I don't think that fall under the definition of underachieving.

 

[380pistol]

Say what you want but your opinions just like any other ***********'s opinions are completely 100% biased, or any *******, or Lavertard, or Borgtard, or Agassitard, or ******* for that matter...Basically everyone is going to try and justify their fav player by coming up with statistics tailored to fit their "greatness"...ofcourse rational judgement goes out the window when it comes to comparing another player to your idol! No matter what you say, your opinion will always be biased to me based on your previous posts! This is just an infinite circle of discussions with no end result!

What we need is a unbiased neutral fan of tennis who has seen a majority of these players...and we know such fans do not exist!

Say what you say I call a spade a spade it is what it is. Am I a Sampras fan?? Hell yeah!!!!!!!!! But of course saying that if Fe had a rival or if Nadal had peaked alongside Roger (in 2005 not 2008), Federer's path would likely be different. But that makes me biased.

I know, I know, if I'm not jocking Federer all day, praisning left, right and center or worshipping at the Nazarene Church Of Roger, then I'm a.....
-***********
-Fed hater
-unbiased
-trolling

.... did I get it all?? I miss anything??? I know the rules by now.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Guys like 380pistol, TheNatural, GameSampras etc, are needed in this forum to keep the Fed fans in check.

 

[Cenc]

Guys like 380pistol, TheNatural, GameSampras etc, are needed in this forum to keep the Fed fans in check.

is it possible to keep them??? lol, no

 

[Nadalator]

Read your post again. You brought up losing to arguably the greatest clay courter of all time as your excuse. That is no excuse. Champions find a way to win no matter what. Getting to the finals 3 different times (really 4 in a row since the 2005 semi with Nadal was the defacto final) and losing out each time to the same player, even if arguably the greatest clay courter of all time, is simply bad for a player of Federer's stature. He is good enough on clay to reach the finals that often, he is supposably a mens GOAT candidate. He should win it at some point. Losing out at that player again and again to the same player, no matter who it is, looks bad on him no matter how you slice it.

Champions find ways to win everything no matter who is in their path. Rod Laver, Steffi Graf, Andre Agassi, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Serena Williams. It didnt matter who was in their way, they won all the biggest titles in their sport. Federer couldnt.

Absolutely brilliant! Great post!