Roger Federer is not the GOAT

[bato]

The improvements he's made in his ball control haven't come close to matching what he's lost in aerobic capacity.

I think you're underrating his physical condition and abilities. He is still a supreme athlete and as fit as ever. He's said so himself.

 

[tehnoodnub]

At the moment, I think it is hard to look past Federer as the GOAT but, had Novak knocked off Stan at Roland Garros last year then, despite the difference in GS titles I would see them as neck and neck. Obviously, should Novak win all four GS titles this year, then I think he would have to be considered the GOAT. That's a big if and he would still be a few short of Federer but the achievement is immense.

 

[Maester]

I think Federer's serve is as good as ever and agree his fitness is too. It's more the recovery time that increases as you get older and this is a hindrance at the slams. He's not as good around the court and crucially I think his forehand is not as deadly as it was - that was the best shot in tennis for a long time. Backhand is probably a bit more consistent now with the bigger racquet.

I have little doubt Djokovic will continue to be a top player into his early 30's. But that doesn't mean he'll keep winning heaps of slams. Just depends who comes through from the younger players. He may end up like Federer, still right at the top of the game but kept from winning slams by 1 or 2 younger players, or maybe he'll continue to get the better of the younger players and destroy all records. Time will tell.

 

[Tulip]

I think you're underrating his physical condition and abilities. He is still a supreme athlete and as fit as ever. He's said so himself.

If he doesn't believe it, who will? Doesn't make it true, makes it the sign of a true winner. Just have to look at what Murray wrote in The Age yesterday to see that real winners back themselves in.

 

[bato]

If he doesn't believe it, who will? Doesn't make it true, makes it the sign of a true winner. Just have to look at what Murray wrote in The Age yesterday to see that real winners back themselves in.

Well he's played a few five setters against Djokovic and the difference between the two really hasn't been that much. I recall Djokovic stating something like he has a very slight advantage physically over Fed when it goes five sets. Maybe it just comes down to purely how both play - Fed being far less physical of course.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Well he's played a few five setters against Djokovic and the difference between the two really hasn't been that much. I recall Djokovic stating something like he has a very slight advantage physically over Fed when it goes five sets. Maybe it just comes down to purely how both play - Fed being far less physical of course.

Under pressure Fed's backhand is very error prone as he has got older especially, so many framed shots in that semi and backhand to backhand suits Novak every time. Also Novak loves a passing shot so he can't just come to the net all the time.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Wawrinka says hello. Not quite 'mid-30s' but will still go nice and strong for the next few years, considering he started his 'peak' super late in his career.

Heck, Ken Rosewall won 3 GS titles as a 35-36 year old? Agassi won a GS as a 32 year old.

I think Fed was more consistently good back in 2006, but fast forward to 2015-2016 and he's showing more 'complete' tennis every few matches. He's obviously more prone to the odd Andreas Seppi match, but refining his game into the guy he is today has shown a huge improvement in his game.

Wawrinka is now exactly 30. Just within the outer limit of 30/31 for slam winning. He won in Melbourne aged 28 and in Paris a few weeks after his 30th. You are right in saying his peak came late but he will decline from now on. I may be wrong but if I am it will be a statistical outlier.

Agassi? yes he did win a slam at 32 but again highly unusual. he is the only 32 year old to win a slam since the early 1970s. In almost 180 tournaments a man aged over 31 has won ONCE.

Rosewall. many decades ago now and the exception that proves an other wise iron rule which is that with the rarest exceptions Grand slam events are not won by men who are more than 6 months past their 31st birthday

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

6 reasons for why Djokovic has now overtaken Roger Federer as the G.O.A.T

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree, but Novak needs 15 Slams to be in the mix I would say so he has 4 to go there. That would be the minimum.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Sampras was God of Tennis

 

[Wolfs]

Don't think there is a GOAT in tennis.

My reasons why Federer isn't the GOAT
- No Olympic Gold Medals (Singles)
- One Davis Cup (I would like to see him win one more)
- No Grand Slam Calendar thing (To be fair no one has done it)
- Djokovic and Nadal have winning records against him

Now to be fair on Federer
- He's evolved his game
- Played in 3 eras of tennis (Sampras era, Federer era and Djokovic/Nadal era) and has adapted his game
- Still a top 3 player

I hate the excuse that Federer's era was weak. You had several good players, sure the level all around wasn't that great but the game was a different game now. The courts are slower and the type of gamestyle has changed. I mean Federer's domination era had some great players (Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Blake, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Haas, Nadal) that a lot of people don't give credit to. It was these players that pushed Federer to become better and likewise Federer pushed Nadal, Murray, Berdych, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Ferrer for example to be better players. Federer's era had faster courts than now and so the style was kind of different in a way.

He's not the GOAT and I don't think there is a GOAT in tennis tbqh. It's a sport that changes so frequently on how it's played, technology and stuff that it is hard to really say. You can make arguments for Djokovic, Sampras, Connors, Laver, pre-Pro players, Federer, Nadal. I mean it's tough. Women's some will say Martina, Steffi, Serena or Court.

 

[HalloweenJack]

Rod Laver won the calendar grand slam twice. 1962 and 1969 if my memory serves me well. The last was in the open era and the first in the amateur era. I also recall another amateur era grand slam. Maybe Don Budge but just can't recall this.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Rod Laver won the calendar grand slam twice. 1962 and 1969 if my memory serves me well. The last was in the open era and the first in the amateur era. I also recall another amateur era grand slam. Maybe Don Budge but just can't recall this.

Yes it was Don Budge in 1938.

 

[Wolfs]

Rod Laver won the calendar grand slam twice. 1962 and 1969 if my memory serves me well. The last was in the open era and the first in the amateur era. I also recall another amateur era grand slam. Maybe Don Budge but just can't recall this.

Thought I said no one has done it since Laver. Forgot the last part lol.

 

[HalloweenJack]

Thought I said no one has done it since Laver. Forgot the last part lol.

Easy to do. Just wanted to add my bit to your perceptive post.

 

[tehnoodnub]

I agree, but Novak needs 15 Slams to be in the mix I would say so he has 4 to go there. That would be the minimum.

I agree. Novak should reach that mark sometime next year unless he drops off or someone steps up a fair bit. At this stage Nadal appears to be out of the equation so only Fed and Wawrinka stand in his way IMO. However, I would also say that if Novak takes out the Calendar GS this year that he will hold the mantle despite being a few slams short of Federer.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree. Novak should reach that mark sometime next year unless he drops off or someone steps up a fair bit. At this stage Nadal appears to be out of the equation so only Fed and Wawrinka stand in his way IMO. However, I would also say that if Novak takes out the Calendar GS this year that he will hold the mantle despite being a few slams short of Federer.

Well said probably my thoughts as well. Will need the number of Slams or the Calendar Slam

 

[Wallaby]

Laver won the Grand slam in 1962. However, many of the worlds top players were actually professional (Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales etc). Still, no one had done it since 1938.

From 1963-1969, he was a member of the Pro circuit. During that period, there were 3 'Professional Majors' - the US Pro, French Pro, and Wembley (UK) Pro. Rosewall won all 3 in 1963. From 1964-1969, Laver won 14 of the 18 Pro Majors (Rosewall won the other 4 - none after 1966). In 1967, 68 and 69, Laver won all 3 Pro majors.

In 1968, there was some reconciliation, and the Wimbledon and French majors became Open - open to both amateurs and Professionals. Rosewall beat Laver in the French final, and Laver won the US Open. There were 6 other Open events where amateurs and professionals could compete against each other - Laver won 4 of them.

In 1969, Laver won the Open Grand Slam and the 3 Pro Majors. After 1969, the Pro majors finished, although there was still a pro circuit running, where Laver dominated for the next few years (although the Pro circuit was getting old, as no new blood was coming into it).

According to most experts, Rosewall was the clearly the best player in the world from 1961-63. You can argue for either Roseall or Laver in '64, but Laver said it was Rosewall, so that's that. Laver was best in the world from 65-70.

Laver is still No 5 in total tournaments won (74) in the Open era. He won 69 of those after turning 30 (from 1968-1975). He rates No 8 in total winning % in the Open Era (Djokovich has an 82% win rate - Laver is on 79%) Remember, Laver didn't start playing in the Open Era until he was 29 years old!

ATP rankings started in 1973 (when Laver was 35), He ranked No 3 in '73 and No 4 in '74. Guess who is the oldest player ever to hold rankings that high?

Laver is the GOAT.

 

[Leeda]

Sampras was God of Tennis

Lol.. they can always be surpassed. unfortunately..

Some players are just too good and some players seem to want to plod along.

Federer and Djokovic are those two who will just want to raise the bar.

I wish there were a few more players like Murray and that other Swiss dude like um Stan who will keep
the other two honest. Makes the tennis world a bit more fluent.

There are more of them out there but they ain't biting. Hmm.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

So Djokovic is now officially favourite in the race to GOAThood


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pepsi]

Which betting agency. Willing to put $$$ on federer in this bet. History will show how many slams a person wins after 28 is minimal. Djokovic is not going to blow away the history books and win 7 more.

 

[Brad Goodman]

That looks like Sportsbet.

 

[tehnoodnub]

Which betting agency. Willing to put $$$ on federer in this bet. History will show how many slams a person wins after 28 is minimal. Djokovic is not going to blow away the history books and win 7 more.

On the balance of probability, I do tend to agree but I don't think it's anywhere near a given. I think the tie odds are pretty juicy.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Djokovic is not going to blow away the history books and win 7 more.

History says that this is the case but the competition just isn't there for anyone to topple Djokovic in the immediate future.

He has a massive chance this year and possibly next year but I think his decline will start some point next year albeit it will be very gradual that it will be hard to tell initially.

 

[vaughany]

What would happen if (a big if) they paid out on this type of bet once a player retires but then suddenly 12 or 18 months later this player comes out of retirement and wins a slam :O

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk