Roger Federer is not the GOAT

[gaelictiogar]

Ah, no. Nadal would still be able to direct his massive topspin forehand to Federer's weak backhand. That is the main factor behind Nadal's lop sided record against Federer.

Nadal's backhand is more solid that Federer's too.

You are right.

That topspin against Fed's backhand was brutality attacking fragile beauty. Hideous but effective.

 

[Demosthenes]

Nadal's backhand is more solid that Federer's too.

I don't think that is true. Nadal's backhand is kind of ordinary and not at all a weapon. What his backhand is good for (as are most 2HBHs) is providing a solid base to redirect the ball DTL and switch the rally onto the opposite diagonal. He did it all the time to Federer, and once he got Federer's backhand rallying against his forehand it was pretty much game over. Federer couldn't pull the same trick, because there's far less margin of error redirecting a ball DTL with a 1HBH.

Playing your strength against your opponent's weakness is how you win tennis matches, and thanks to how his game was constructed Nadal did this to Federer better than anyone. Nadal's backhand has always been a bit of a nothing shot, but due to his mobility and handedness, very few players have ever trapped him into playing it consistently enough to break it down.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

I don't think that is true. Nadal's backhand is kind of ordinary and not at all a weapon. What his backhand is good for (as are most 2HBHs) is providing a solid base to redirect the ball DTL and switch the rally onto the opposite diagonal. He did it all the time to Federer, and once he got Federer's backhand rallying against his forehand it was pretty much game over. Federer couldn't pull the same trick, because there's far less margin of error redirecting a ball DTL with a 1HBH.

Playing your strength against your opponent's weakness is how you win tennis matches, and thanks to how his game was constructed Nadal did this to Federer better than anyone. Nadal's backhand has always been a bit of a nothing shot, but due to his mobility and handedness, very few players have ever trapped him into playing it consistently enough to break it down.

Most player's backhand are simply neutralizing shots. It is very rare that a player will have an excpetional backhand they can readily attack with, stronger than their forehand. Gasquet and Wawrinka are exceptions. Djokovic's ability to hit his down the line in worth a mention too.

Yet everywhere you go at the club and rec level people are trying to develop these super human, aesthetically pleasing backhands but inconsistent and ineffective backhands to be just like Federer, Gasquet and Wawrinka. It ain't gonna ever happen.

Federer might have the ability to hit more winners with his backhand. But I'd still go with Nadal because its more consistent and solid. And stats show its errors (unforced and forced) that determine tennis matches all the way up to the pro level, as opposed to outright winners.

 

[Slax]

You're probably right, Roger's prime was probably even younger. Maybe around 25 or so. Either way, Roger in his prime would easily beat all comers. He's the GOAT for a reason.

Totally disagree.

Laver is still clearly the GOAT, Federer #2. When you lose 5 years out of the prime of year career after doing the grand slam, come back and do it again, you're the GOAT. If he allowed to play for those 5 years there is little doubt he would of won at least another 6 titles to be tied with Federer's 17, more likely still that he would've won over 10 to take that total to above 20.

Best since Laver yes.

 

[Demosthenes]

Most player's backhand are simply neutralizing shots. It is very rare that a player will have an excpetional backhand they can readily attack with, stronger than their forehand. Gasquet and Wawrinka are exceptions. Djokovic's ability to hit his down the line in worth a mention too.

Yet everywhere you go at the club and rec level people are trying to develop these super human, aesthetically pleasing backhands but inconsistent and ineffective backhands to be just like Federer, Gasquet and Wawrinka. It ain't gonna ever happen.

That's not true at all. The ability to easily generate racquet head speed and vary angle/spin means most one-handed backhands are legit weapons. The idea that you need to have a 'superhuman' backhand in order to be able to attack with it is patently false. I know many club players at all levels whose 1HBHs are their best shots.

Of course, if you learned tennis in Australia from the '90s onwards, it was almost certainly drilled into you that you must hit your BH two-handed and flat. A shot like that will never be a serious weapon, because it is pretty much limited to being hit cross-court across the low part of the net. It's only there to defend until you can get something short that sets up your FH.

Federer might have the ability to hit more winners with his backhand. But I'd still go with Nadal because its more consistent and solid.

Again, I would argue that the perception of Nadal's BH as 'consistent and solid' lies in his ability to prevent opponents from targeting it. Whilst 2HBHs are generally more consistent than 1HBHs, his is a poor shot, and on the rare occasion that players put it under as much pressure as he puts Federer's BH under it cracks just as readily. See most of his matches against Djokovic.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

That's not true at all. The ability to easily generate racquet head speed and vary angle/spin means most one-handed backhands are legit weapons. The idea that you need to have a 'superhuman' backhand in order to be able to attack with it is patently false. I know many club players at all levels whose 1HBHs are their best shots.

Of course, if you learned tennis in Australia from the '90s onwards, it was almost certainly drilled into you that you must hit your BH two-handed and flat. A shot like that will never be a serious weapon, because it is pretty much limited to being hit cross-court across the low part of the net. It's only there to defend until you can get something short that sets up your FH.


Again, I would argue that the perception of Nadal's BH as 'consistent and solid' lies in his ability to prevent opponents from targeting it. Whilst 2HBHs are generally more consistent than 1HBHs, his is a poor shot, and on the rare occasion that players put it under as much pressure as he puts Federer's BH under it cracks just as readily. See most of his matches against Djokovic.

Absolutely no way.

 

[Demosthenes]

Strong argument, you've convinced me.

 

[Brock Lesnar]

Laver is the GOAT. He won the Grand Slam, the holy grail of tennis, you need to have done that to be the GOAT.

 

[pepsi]

Laver is the GOAT. He won the Grand Slam, the holy grail of tennis, you need to have done that to be the GOAT.

At a time when tennis was nowhere near as international as it is now.

At a time when not all the best players came to Australia to compete in the aus open.

At a time when 3 out of the 4 grand slam tournaments were played in grass and one on clay.

Imagine how many grand slams Sampras and federer would have won had 3/4 grand slam tournaments were played in grass?

 

[Brock Lesnar]

At a time when tennis was nowhere near as international as it is now.

At a time when not all the best players came to Australia to compete in the aus open.

At a time when 3 out of the 4 grand slam tournaments were played in grass and one on clay.

Imagine how many grand slams Sampras and federer would have won had 3/4 grand slam tournaments were played in grass?

The grass courts back then played at significantly different speeds, much like nowadays with the US Open and Aus Open playing completely differently, which has resulted in someone like Djokovic having lots of success at one slam, whilst not much at the other slam. You can't say for sure how Fed/Sampras would've done in those circumstances, it's complete conjecture. Did you know that the US Open and French Open were both played on clay at one stage, and Borg couldn't manage to win the US Open despite completely dominating Roland Garros, entirely because the courts played completely different. The French Open was played on red clay, US open was played on Hard-tru (similar to that blue clay court).

Regarding Laver, he was able to master the grass courts that year as well as the clay at the French, it's also worth noting he won the biggest hardcourt tournaments that year as well. And lastly conditions at the 1969 Forrest Hills were atrocious, the court was half freakin mud because of torrential rain and Laver still beat Roche in the final to complete the Grand Slam. The man clearly was the best in the world under any conditions, and he proved so.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Nadal had the equivalent record of 15,745 ranking points, which he achieved in 2008.
According to this article Djokovic has amassed 16,785 ranking points with the Paris Masters and the ATP World Tour Finals to round out his year.
I'm not proposing this is a strong argument for greatest of all time, it's just an interesting discussion that fits on this thread as much as any other.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/best-season-ever-djokovic-making-claim-032226850.html

Also possibly one of my favourite comments ever below that article:

All three could beat me even if they were playing with a frying pan.

 

[blackcat]

The grass courts back then played at significantly different speeds, much like nowadays with the US Open and Aus Open playing completely differently, which has resulted in someone like Djokovic having lots of success at one slam, whilst not much at the other slam. You can't say for sure how Fed/Sampras would've done in those circumstances, it's complete conjecture. Did you know that the US Open and French Open were both played on clay at one stage, and Borg couldn't manage to win the US Open despite completely dominating Roland Garros, entirely because the courts played completely different. The French Open was played on red clay, US open was played on Hard-tru (similar to that blue clay court).

Regarding Laver, he was able to master the grass courts that year as well as the clay at the French, it's also worth noting he won the biggest hardcourt tournaments that year as well. And lastly conditions at the 1969 Forrest Hills were atrocious, the court was half freakin mud because of torrential rain and Laver still beat Roche in the final to complete the Grand Slam. The man clearly was the best in the world under any conditions, and he proved so.

but those talented players were talented enough to change their game up a little. yes they would have come back to the field a little i recognise

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Im looking forward to Federer retiring simply because I cant stand his legion of circle jerking, one eyed, bandwagon supporters drowning everything else out.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Im looking forward to Federer retiring simply because I cant stand his legion of circle jerking, one eyed, bandwagon supporters drowning everything else out.

So sublime graceful tennis is not your thing. Each to his own.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

So sublime graceful tennis is not your thing. Each to his own.

Cheering like mad when the opposition hits a double fault or unforced error isn't either...

 

[Flameboy]

Cheering like mad when the opposition hits a double fault or unforced error isn't either...

Hardly Federer's fault tbf.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Cheering like mad when the opposition hits a double fault or unforced error isn't either...

I take the point but perhaps excessive showing of regard for and support for an ageing master is not new.

Federer fans know his best is behind him and know he will be gone from the competitive courts soon and regret that passing because with him will go that unique and bequiling talent which really only he possesses.

In my opinion Djokovic is if anything a greater "player" and Nadal a greater "competitor " but Fed is by miles the greater "talent". 10 minutes of Federer is worth a year of anyone else not because of winning and losing but because of grace, elegance, that quality of floating he has.

When he is gone - and it will be soon - that will be gone with him.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Even Federer has openly stated that he is playing his best tennis if his career right now. Yet Djokovic had double the amount of ATP points for the year, and Federer is ranked a very distant second.

Djokovic is playing at a level never seen before - and is better now than Federer ever was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gaelictiogar]

Even Federer has openly stated that he is playing his best tennis if his career right now. Yet Djokovic had double the amount of ATP points for the year, and Federer is ranked a very distant second.

Djokovic is playing at a level never seen before - and is better now than Federer ever was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

never mind what Federer or indeed anyone else says. No player has ever played his best tennis in his 30s. It simply doesn't happen.

Djokovic, who has been in his prime 24 to 28 window, will be 29 by the time the Northern hemisphere slam season kicks off and relatively few slams are won after 29. He is now not far from his own inevitable age related decline which is a year or two away at most and he will not be winning slams when he is over 32.

No one does. Just wait and see. No player in history has played anything like his best tennis at 34 which is fed's age. It is a physical impossibility no matter what a player may believe or pretend to believe.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Even Federer has openly stated that he is playing his best tennis if his career right now. Yet Djokovic had double the amount of ATP points for the year, and Federer is ranked a very distant second.

Djokovic is playing at a level never seen before - and is better now than Federer ever was.

Elite sportsmen often have incredible (sometimes delusional) belief in their own abilities. They will rarely admit weakness publicly when they're still competing at a high level. I can understand Fed himself believing that nonsense because it's probably beneficial overall. It's better than doubting yourself.

But there's no excuse for anyone else. It's nothing more than desperate agenda pushing. Federer is playing better than ever because it makes the recent dominance by Djokovic look even more out of this world. Pretty pathetic from someone who's calling out others for being one-eyed, circle jerking bandwagoners.

In reality, Fed is not defying biology and tennis history. He's not better at 34 than he was in his mid 20s. He's a heavily declined legend who remains near the top of the tree on pure talent and an unprecedented lack of development from recent generations of young players.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Elite sportsman often have incredible (sometimes delusional) belief in their own abilities. They will rarely admit weakness publicly when they're still competing at a high level. I can understand Fed himself believing that nonsense because it's probably beneficial overall. It's better than doubting yourself.

But there's no excuse for anyone else. It's nothing more than desperate agenda pushing. Federer is playing better than ever because it makes the recent dominance by Djokovic look even more out of this world. Pretty pathetic from someone who's calling out others for being one-eyed, circle jerking bandwagoners.

In reality, Fed is not defying biology and tennis history. He's not better at 34 than he was in his mid 20s. He's a heavily declined legend who remains near the top of the tree on pure talent and an unprecedented lack of development from recent generations of young players.

Nice theories - based on not much.... Sorry for offending you Fedfan, but if you have a look at the certain vital statistics you'll find he is playing a level higher than before - take first serve %, second serve points won %, return points won %, % unforced errors on backhand - they are all higher for Fed in the last couple of years than in any other period in his career. Its Djokovic that is denying him slams and masters titles cos he is so much better. Plus Federer chokes hard against him on the big points.

Djokovic is number 1. A whole lot of daylight second. Then Federer. No one has ever played at Djokovic's standard. Ever.

Federer has many of his early slams in a weak era against the likes of Roddick, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Philippousis, Baghdatis and Soderling. Djokovic has had to win all but one of his against the big 4 in the strongest era in history - and it looks almost certain he will add significant numbers to that

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Nice theories - based on not much....

Just common sense. Tennis history. Basic biology. Why on earth would a player be better at 34 than 24/25/26? Sure you're more experienced and will probably be a smarter player, but there's no way that overcomes the physical decline with age. There's literally zero chance Djokovic will be better in his 30s than he is now. And I guarantee I won't desperately claim it when he's losing to inferior players in order to denigrate him.

Its Djokovic that is denying him slams and masters titles cos he is so much better.

Djokovic is number 1. A whole lot of daylight second. Then Federer.

Cilic, Stakhovsky, Robredo, Seppi and Gulbis ring any bells? Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrinka? Or are they better than the Federer playing his very best tennis as well? All beat Fed in a slam in the last 2-3 years.

Djokovic is better than Federer now and has been for the last few years. No one is denying that.

Federer has many of his early slams in a weak era against the likes of Roddick, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Philippousis, Baghdatis and Soderling. Djokovic has had to win all but one of his against the big 4 in the strongest era in history - and it looks almost certain he will add significant numbers to that

As opposed to last year where Novak's main rival was a 34 year old relic? A washed up Nadal? Murray who hasn't reached anywhere near the heights he did before back surgery and his split with Lendl? 2015 was one of the weakest years in recent memory.

The few slams Djokovic won before Federer and Nadal declined were impressive, but most of his slams will have come in an era anything but strong if he ends up getting near Fed's 17.

There's pretty much nothing coming through to stop him. One generation has been a complete bust and the next generation isn't looking much better. At least when Fed was dominating we knew there was a great crop of talent there to stop him. Djokovic may well have an unfettered run against aging players and the least talented youngsters in decades.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Elite sportsmen often have incredible (sometimes delusional) belief in their own abilities. They will rarely admit weakness publicly when they're still competing at a high level. I can understand Fed himself believing that nonsense because it's probably beneficial overall. It's better than doubting yourself.

But there's no excuse for anyone else. It's nothing more than desperate agenda pushing. Federer is playing better than ever because it makes the recent dominance by Djokovic look even more out of this world. Pretty pathetic from someone who's calling out others for being one-eyed, circle jerking bandwagoners.

In reality, Fed is not defying biology and tennis history. He's not better at 34 than he was in his mid 20s. He's a heavily declined legend who remains near the top of the tree on pure talent and an unprecedented lack of development from recent generations of young players.

Spot on rabbit. Precocious talent kicks in big time at about 20 and starts to declines rapidly from 30 - very rapidly indeed.

21 to 26 the peak. These are FACTS.

Fed is not playing as well as he did pre 2011 and Novak will never play as well as he has been recently from about 2017.

Novak is a wonderful player up there with Fed and Laver among the very greatest elite talents who I admire greatly but does a 27/28 year old beating a man in his mid 30s prove anything about respective peak talent? No. Not now not ever.

Roger Federer will never win another slam. We all now that except him and the fact he does not or seems not to is I suppose why he won all the events he did win in his great days.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Plus Djokovic has won 90% of his slams playing against the big 4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rippersnipper]

I thought I read somewhere that most of the best players in Laver's era didn't even play on the same circuit as him. If that's the case (assuming it is) then he simply cannot be regarded as the goat. If that is incorrect then maybe but I reckon federer's grand slam record and overall record speak for itself. Nadal and the joker aren't too far behind either. When these guys retire its going to be absolute rubbish comparatively.