P
PETEhammer
Guest
o_o
Winning two slams 5 times in a row
- Thread starter MrFlip
- Start date
yokied
Hall of Fame
... @Federer and Del Potro giving himself a stern talking to in this exchange between @PETEhammer and @Pistol Pete ...
P
PETEhammer
Guest
*Pilot Pete, who I don't believe is a Pete fan
Sport
G.O.A.T.
"He solved it" (only one year in 2017, and outside clay) against Nadal in his 30s not against the defensive beast of 2008-2009. I have no doubt that his improvement on the backhand side would have been benefitial to his game against Nadal. Whether it would have been translated in "solving" (outside clay) 2008-2009 Nadal is just a matter of untestable speculation. 2008-2009 Nadal is a player with a different set of characteristics than Nadal in 2017 or 2019.
You call it "complacency", but that it an excuse. Did Berdych lose to the Big 3 for "complacency"? Please. He lost because was a worse tennis player. Analogously, Federer was simply a slightly worse tennis player than Nadal in 2008-2009, it had nothing to do with "complacency".
Using your "complacency" excuse I can also say that the reason why Nadal lost to Federer after the AO 2017 and IW losses is because of complacency. Nadal was lazy to develop a new gameplan against Federer. So Nadal losing to Federer at Wimbledon 2019 is explained by "complacency".
Please note that if you defend the complacency excuse for Federer but not for Nadal you would be displaying the double standard fallacy: judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard.
More about the double standard fallacy here:
Double Standard
Judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. Used in argumentation to unfairly support or reject an argument.
Last edited:
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Sport over here owning everyone with debate logic 101 and fallacies."He solved it" (only one year in 2017, and outside clay) against Nadal in his 30s not against the defensive beast of 2008-2009. I have no doubt that his improvement on the backhand side would have been benefitial to his game against Nadal. Whether it would have been translated in "solving" (outside clay) 2008-2009 Nadal is just a matter of untestable speculation. 2008-2009 Nadal is a player with a different set of characteristics than Nadal in 2017 or 2019.
You call it "complacency", but that it an excuse. Did Berdych lose to the Big 3 for "complacency"? Please. He lost because was a worse tennis player. Analogously, Federer was simply a slightly worse tennis player than Nadal in 2008-2009, it had nothing to do with "complacency".
Using your "complacency" excuse I can also say that the reason why Nadal lost to Federer after the AO 2017 and IW losses is because of complacency. Nadal was lazy to develop a new gameplan against Federer. So Nadal losing to Federer at Wimbledon 2019 is explained by "complacency".
Please note that if you defend the complacency excuse for Federer but not for Nadal you would be displaying the double standard fallacy: judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard.
More about the double standard fallacy here:
Double Standard
Judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. Used in argumentation to unfairly support or reject an argument.www.logicallyfallacious.com
if nadal win this year 2021 French Open, he will win FO 5 consecutive times twice in his life
a feat similar to fed achievements of winning 5 consecutive Wimbledon & 5 consecutive US Open
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
2009-2011 the outcome was decided by a few points, 2012 overplayed with other tournaments, 2013 sucked, 2014 same as 2012 with Cilic goating, 2015 Djoker decided to show up, 2016-2019 injuries
And none of the other two will ever match winning GSs while being married to Mirka! That makes him GOAT!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
beard
Legend
What does beating Sampras has to do with a topic?
Sunny014
Legend
Sportsmen with the Most Laureus World Sports Award
Federer - 5 times as best sportsperson of the year + 1 Award for best comeback of the year
Djokovic - 4 Times as best sportsperson of the year
Usain Bolt - 4 Times as best sportsperson of the year
Michael Schumacher and Tiger Woods - 2 Times each as best sportsperson of the year
Nadal - 1 Time as best sportsperson of the year + 1 Award for best comeback
Apart from this Federer is also the richest Tennis Player among all the GOATs, richer than Federer+Nadal combined.
Roger Federer remains the GOAT even if someone is on 22 or 23 slams, doesn't matter !
Federer - 5 times as best sportsperson of the year + 1 Award for best comeback of the year
Djokovic - 4 Times as best sportsperson of the year
Usain Bolt - 4 Times as best sportsperson of the year
Michael Schumacher and Tiger Woods - 2 Times each as best sportsperson of the year
Nadal - 1 Time as best sportsperson of the year + 1 Award for best comeback
Apart from this Federer is also the richest Tennis Player among all the GOATs, richer than Federer+Nadal combined.
Roger Federer remains the GOAT even if someone is on 22 or 23 slams, doesn't matter !
Sunny014
Legend
Those Milk Duds kicked Sampras out of Tennis and were having all the confidence before Federer.
Just before Wimbledon 2003
Hewitt - 2 Slams ( ranked 1 )
Safin - 1 Slam ( ranked 1 )
Ferrero - 1 Slam
Federer - 0 Slam
At the end of 2003 .... Roddick also ranked 1 and won his 1st Slam.
From here on Federer broke an entire generation + Andre Agassi (8 times slam winner) who was around seeking more slams.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Just remember, Federer's era was strong because there were no free hardcourt slams
Sunny014
Legend
"He solved it" (only one year in 2017, and outside clay) against Nadal in his 30s not against the defensive beast of 2008-2009. I have no doubt that his improvement on the backhand side would have been benefitial to his game against Nadal. Whether it would have been translated in "solving" (outside clay) 2008-2009 Nadal is just a matter of untestable speculation. 2008-2009 Nadal is a player with a different set of characteristics than Nadal in 2017 or 2019.
You call it "complacency", but that it an excuse. Did Berdych lose to the Big 3 for "complacency"? Please. He lost because was a worse tennis player. Analogously, Federer was simply a slightly worse tennis player than Nadal in 2008-2009, it had nothing to do with "complacency".
Using your "complacency" excuse I can also say that the reason why Nadal lost to Federer after the AO 2017 and IW losses is because of complacency. Nadal was lazy to develop a new gameplan against Federer. So Nadal losing to Federer at Wimbledon 2019 is explained by "complacency".
Please note that if you defend the complacency excuse for Federer but not for Nadal you would be displaying the double standard fallacy: judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard.
More about the double standard fallacy here:
Double Standard
Judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. Used in argumentation to unfairly support or reject an argument.
Federer would have sorted out Nadal a lot quicker if he grew up with Nadal and faced him more since his teen years uniformly on all courts, it is not easy to reverse an edge which a youngster gains over time over the guy form the prev gen. .... In 99% of the cases they don't get reversed!
Even nature has it all in favor of the younger guy because the younger guy wouldn't meet the older guy on his (younger guy's) worst turfs until the older guy slows down or the gap is evened but on his best turf the younger guy meets the older guy, so either the younger guy loses closely or wins, either way next time he will come much better learning from his loss because physically he is getting better but cannot say the same for the older guy who is like 26 or 27+......
Thats why when people say Federer would have struggled with an ATG in his generation I find it silly because we all know for a fact that a more talented ATG in a gen always will win on his turf, Sampras never was at a disadvantage because of Agassi at the USO/Wimbledon and vice versa Agassi also had the edge over Sampras at the AO, sameway Safin or Federer neither of them are at an advantage/disadvanatge, they all are aged same as their peer and will win over their rival, Nadal-Djoker too you can see, Novak always won the AO, Nadal always won clay, nothing changes most of the times with another ATG in your gen if you are better.
But having 1 ATG in the immediate gen below you sucks, having 2 is like absolutely terrible, because whatever initial 2 or maybe 3 years that you have an edge when you face that person will be nullified by many years of facing him afterwards.
Borg after initial success vs Mcenroe had started to struggle, Edberg after initial success vs Sampras had started to struggle, Becker too started to struggle everytime he faced Pete..... So Nadal would never have won wimbledon beating Federer if they both were of the same age, neither would Novak, sameway at the AO and possibly at the USO as well Nadal would have struggled vs Federer if their ages were same. ..... Nadal despite his best efforts never could sort out Djokovic (post 2010) outside clay except his 2013 USO win. .... why was that? It is because when ATGs are of the same age always the more talented player on that turf wins ..... !
Last edited:
Sunny014
Legend
Just remember, Federer's era was strong because there were no free hardcourt slams
Ohh yes, sad that Pete could not exploit the actual vaccum era (2000-03) when Agassi took home 3 out of 4 AOs and Thomas Johansson took 1 AO
nd post TMC 2003 Federer and Safin stopped Agassi from winning those free AOs, so yes there were no free HC slams and even when there were your hero Pete could not win them .... he was that weak
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
I wonder if this will motivate Nadal to win USO for a fifth time this season.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
2017, 2019 injured or scared of a loss there to Nadal
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's a different kind of feat, not similar, because Fed's feat occurred on 2 different surfaces.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
The Agassi who was Federer's only hard competition for two yearsOhh yes, sad that Pete could not exploit the actual vaccum era (2000-03) when Agassi took home 3 out of 4 AOs and Thomas Johansson took 1 AO
nd post TMC 2003 Federer and Safin stopped Agassi from winning those free AOs, so yes there were no free HC slams and even when there were your hero Pete could not win them .... he was that weak
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
We will just take it on the careers between them if Nadal is 2 slams ahead you will take Nadal over federer my poll pretty much certified that
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
At the end of the day no one is putting Lendl, connors above Borg and look at how many more weeks they have over Borg those 3 slams he has over them carries way more weight they are blowing him out of the water by 160 plus weeks at number one at the end of the day it’s pretty simple in this era of the big 3 this was the measuring stick the other stuff is tiebreakers but the slam record is by far the most valuable.
Sunny014
Legend
The Agassi who was Federer's only hard competition for two years
At least he was something Pete couldn't be because Pete was busy having a losing H2H to the big 4 from Fed's gen ( Fed + Safin + Roddick + Hewitt ) and finally ran away when Fed won his 1st slam .... sad
P
PETEhammer
Guest
"Was a strong era because there were no free hard slams"...sorry I'm still laughing...bahahahahaaaa
Sunny014
Legend
When I was a schoolkid I used to hear people consider Sampras the GOAT who crossed emerson's record of 12 Slams.
Borg was spoken in the same league as Mcenroe/Becker/Edberg/Lendl type greats, Borg was no GOAT before Sampras, he was just in the same league as those other dudes.
Sunny014
Legend
If there were free slams then Agassi could have won HC slams and Nadal who was winning frenchs and making wimbledon finals could have won HCs too, but they couldn't.
Nd obv it was beyond Pete's paygrade to even compete at the level that Andre did in the mid 00s, so he ran away....hehe
So please don't cry (I know you say you are laughing but you are crying in real
)Roddick owns Djokovic.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Truth hurts so much sometimes it needs to be covered with fake laughter.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Its Federer's one good win against a (fading) GOAT candidate so we have to bring it up because FedrWhat does beating Sampras has to do with a topic?
Sunny014
Legend
Federer was so damn good that anyone growing up with in his gen could have ended up as Ferrero Rocher/Lindt/Almond Joy/Snickers/Bounty/toblerone etc etc
Even Novak would have been Tobelrone throughout his life if he was born in 1980/81.
Except Rafael Nadal (born with Federer) everyone else would have been like chocolate for the Swiss Maestro who was way too talented, in Nadal's case he would have had an initital edge which Fed would have sorted out by the time he turned 22 or 23, would have shifted to his 97 bazooka by then and thats it, a clear cut 15 years of bulldozing everyone, 30+ slams and you would be crying a lot more than you do now.
Even Novak would have been Tobelrone throughout his life if he was born in 1980/81.
Except Rafael Nadal (born with Federer) everyone else would have been like chocolate for the Swiss Maestro who was way too talented, in Nadal's case he would have had an initital edge which Fed would have sorted out by the time he turned 22 or 23, would have shifted to his 97 bazooka by then and thats it, a clear cut 15 years of bulldozing everyone, 30+ slams and you would be crying a lot more than you do now.
6august
Hall of Fame
Whut? In his best year Nadal lost to Hewitt (I can tolerate this because Hewitt is an ATG ^^) at AO, lost to Lujbicic (it's also OK because Ivan is Federer's master ^^), but lost to Gilles Muller and James Blake???
Sure, but that's because Nadal's peak is inferior to Federer's when considering play across all surfaces.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
I’m trying to say that Borg will always rank above Connors and Lendl even though they have a massive lead in weeks at number one because of his slam difference on them
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Crazy he was very close to winning them 6 times in a row and failed at both.
Sunny014
Legend
I am not sure if borg will rank ahead of those 2 for sure, I mean I dont know how things were in the 70s or the 80s or even in the mid 90s but in the 00s people considered all 3 in the same league, even the tabloids used to mention the same, just Pete was considered ahead of them, a clear league above due to slams ....
The slams being the parameter for GOAT started in the early 00s during Pete and Andre's retirement period I think so, not before, so unfair to judge connors by a millennial trend.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Federer achieved this when he was older than Djokovic (2017 AO)
Dj has a chance but he must win this year USO
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes it’s true slams were more important during Petes era as finding a barometer to judge, but regardless you find a list where connors or Lendl or McEnroe will be rated above Borg on the fact he has 11 slams vs 8,8,7 the career titles connors and weeks at number one are not enough to make up 3 slam differential
Similar threads
