Roger Federer is not the GOAT

[cat in sydney]

So as it stands Federer is GOAT but Nadal is still coming.

Potentially interesting development overnight.

Federer is looking very good this tournament so far, and if he manages to defeat Novak in the final (making the assumption they both make it), takes him to 17 slams. With injuries and age starting to impact Nadal, he may end up well short of 17 slams, despite a one-on-one edge over Fed.

Nadal fans talk about his mental toughness... an example that it might be fading the older he gets was last night. Couldn't handle the emotive side of the match last night, and lost it mentally.
With Novak's recent emergence, how will he respond? Perhaps the answer to that question will go part way to answering the GOAT question.

 

[Flameboy]

Potentially interesting development overnight.

Federer is looking very good this tournament so far, and if he manages to defeat Novak in the final (making the assumption they both make it), takes him to 17 slams. With injuries and age starting to impact Nadal, he may end up well short of 17 slams, despite a one-on-one edge over Fed.

Nadal fans talk about his mental toughness... an example that it might be fading the older he gets was last night. Couldn't handle the emotive side of the match last night, and lost it mentally.
With Novak's recent emergence, how will he respond? Perhaps the answer to that question will go part way to answering the GOAT question.

Ha. Talk about over reacting. My gosh.

And assuming they both get there Federer will take on Djokovic in the Semi's. (Probably says enough about your Tennis knowledge that you didn't know this)

 

[cat in sydney]

Ha. Talk about over reacting. My gosh.

And assuming they both get there Federer will take on Djokovic in the Semi's. (Probably says enough about your Tennis knowledge that you didn't know this)

Fair enough about the mistake re the semi-final, not final. I apologise.

Do you care though to refute the fact that Nadal lost the mental side of that match?

And all I did was pose the question that it will be interesting to see how Nadal responds to his worst result in about 7 years or something. Yes, Nadal just won the FO, but he isn't what he was two-three years ago, and now has a player himself that he struggles to beat consistently (Djokovic). Just because he's on 11 now and younger than Federer, doesn't mean he'll just waltz past him.
If he responds in a way that he now goes on to win another six titles and accumulates the most ever, then fine, clearly he'll be the GOAT. But there's a long way to go before that.

Don't get your knickers in a knot over a simple question, fanboy.

 

[Flameboy]

Fair enough about the mistake re the semi-final, not final. I apologise.

Do you care though to refute the fact that Nadal lost the mental side of that match?

And all I did was pose the question that it will be interesting to see how Nadal responds to his worst result in about 7 years or something. Yes, Nadal just won the FO, but he isn't what he was two-three years ago, and now has a player himself that he struggles to beat consistently (Djokovic). Just because he's on 11 now and younger than Federer, doesn't mean he'll just waltz past him.
If he responds in a way that he now goes on to win another six titles and accumulates the most ever, then fine, clearly he'll be the GOAT. But there's a long way to go before that.

Don't get your knickers in a knot over a simple question, fanboy.

You mean, this is a question?

Nadal fans talk about his mental toughness... an example that it might be fading the older he gets was last night.

I mean seriously, that's a ridiculous comment. If you honestly, hand on heart think Nadal is starting to lose it mentally, you're in for a rude shock over the next few years.

Edit: and no one expects Nadal to just 'waltz' past 16 Grand Slams. Who said that? I do think it's universally acknowledged however that if he gets to around 14-15 and Federer stays araldited on 16, Rafa will go down as the superior player. (Which I think will happen).

 

[Geddy Lee]

Roger Federer is the GOAT.

Don't take my word for it, ask Sampras or Laver.

 

[Flameboy]

Roger Federer is the GOAT.

Don't take my word for it, ask Sampras or Laver.

Out of interest, who does Federer view as the GOAT?

 

[Geddy Lee]

Out of interest, who does Federer view as the GOAT?

I have no idea. If he's bright, himself.

 

[Flameboy]

I have no idea. If he's bright, himself.

Get back to me when you find out then.

 

[Mint Condition]

I do think it's universally acknowledged however that if he gets to around 14-15 and Federer stays araldited on 16, Rafa will go down as the superior player. (Which I think will happen).

As if...he'd just be in the overall argument along with Federer, Laver, Tilden and Sampras. If Federer ends up with more slams (even 1 more), more weeks at number 1, more of every slam except for the French, more tour finals etc there'll always be a large amount of people that rate him higher. Probably more than not.

I'm pretty sure Federer has said he doesn't believe there is a single greatest player of all time...which is the right answer. Men's tennis just hasn't had a Bradman, Phelps or Gretzky.

 

[jod23]

You mean, this is a question?


I mean seriously, that's a ridiculous comment. If you honestly, hand on heart think Nadal is starting to lose it mentally, you're in for a rude shock over the next few years.

Edit: and no one expects Nadal to just 'waltz' past 16 Grand Slams. Who said that? I do think it's universally acknowledged however that if he gets to around 14-15 and Federer stays araldited on 16, Rafa will go down as the superior player. (Which I think will happen).

Universally acknowledged?? Hahah... so if he ends up winning 1 or 2 less Grand Slams, wins no end of season tournaments which is pretty much the 5th major. Not as many total tour tournament wins and nowhere near as many weeks at number 1. But yeah, universally regarded as better.

You're funny.

Roger is the GOAT. I hope he wins Wimbledon and makes it 17.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Pele or Maradona? Magic or Larry Bird? Nicklaus or Woods? Ali or Sugar ray Robinson?...the list could go on and on. There is no universally acknowledged GOAT in any major sport.

Fed and Nadal feature and will feature in any such discussions along with the likes of Borg, Laver, Tilden, McEnroe and a few more but as long as slam winning is the be all and end all Federer will be the semi official GOAT of the post Laver open era.

 

[Geddy Lee]

This is not an intended troll....for serious discussions only.Ok i have a few points to make here .

1.The weak generation argument - this is well supported by the fact that from 2004-2007 his main rivals were hewitt and roddick who had 3 slams between them, prior to Roger joining the party.Its almost a fact that other than Roddick serve, none of them had any weapons which could hurt Roger.Other players include Agassi, Safin and Henman who were nothing but battlers.Seriously, show me one good argument to support Rogers generation and what weapons should hewitt or agassi or roddick should have used to hurt Roger?

My 2c

Whenever someone brings up this argument I direct them towards this.

Y'know who reached the French Open Final a month before Federer won Wimbledon for the first time? Martin ******* Verkerk. Todd Martin was doing well. Wayne Ferreira was often in Semi Finals. Pre-Federer was weak.

Federer had a 94% winning record across THREE years - 05, 06, 07. He pummelled an absolutely on-fire Fernando Gonzalez in straight sets in the AO final.

The Nadal - Federer matchup head-to-head is overrated as well. 18-10 to Nadal, but if Nadal was a better player on other surfaces besides clay (e.g. reaching further into the US and Aus Open each year), the ratio would be much more even. Take clay out of the equation, it's 8-6 Federer's way.

 

[gaelictiogar]

My 2c

Whenever someone brings up this argument I direct them towards this.

Y'know who reached the French Open Final a month before Federer won Wimbledon for the first time? Martin ******* Verkerk. Todd Martin was doing well. Wayne Ferreira was often in Semi Finals. Pre-Federer was weak.

Federer had a 94% winning record across THREE years - 05, 06, 07. He pummelled an absolutely on-fire Fernando Gonzalez in straight sets in the AO final.

The Nadal - Federer matchup head-to-head is overrated as well. 18-10 to Nadal, but if Nadal was a better player on other surfaces besides clay (e.g. reaching further into the US and Aus Open each year), the ratio would be much more even. Take clay out of the equation, it's 8-6 Federer's way.

The problem with the weak generation argument is that it is circular.

EG take this example....Messi is essentialy useless. He benefits from playing for the best team in a leagu weakened by concentration of financial power in a duopoly and the general concentration of top talent in a handful of European clubs.

This is essentially a generational arguemnt and s both irrefutable and at the same time incapable of being proved.

All any tennis great has ever done is dominate his peers while he was in the 22 to 28 age range. That is what Roger Federer did. That is what Messi id doing.

 

[reubski23]

Pele or Maradona? Magic or Larry Bird? Nicklaus or Woods? Ali or Sugar ray Robinson?...the list could go on and on. There is no universally acknowledged GOAT in any major sport.

Fed and Nadal feature and will feature in any such discussions along with the likes of Borg, Laver, Tilden, McEnroe and a few more but as long as slam winning is the be all and end all Federer will be the semi official GOAT of the post Laver open era.

Michael Jordan????

 

[Caesar]

A lot of sports have a generally acknowledged GOAT. Basketball has Jordan. Cricket has Bradman. Hockey has Gretzky. Cycling has Merckx. Tennis used to have Laver. I mean, you will always have fans of those sports who will argue for others, but it's as close as you can get to universal approval.

Other sports don't. Baseball, Australian football, American football, soccer etc. all have anything from a couple to half a dozen players or more with a legit claim to being the greatest and its hard to compare.

Tennis has changed so much in the last 15 years that it will probably always fall into the second category.

 

[gaelictiogar]

A lot of sports have a generally acknowledged GOAT. Basketball has Jordan. Cricket has Bradman. Hockey has Gretzky. Cycling has Merckx. Tennis used to have Laver. I mean, you will always have fans of those sports who will argue for others, but it's as close as you can get to universal approval.

Other sports don't. Baseball, Australian football, American football, soccer etc. all have anything from a couple to half a dozen players or more with a legit claim to being the greatest and its hard to compare.

Tennis has changed so much in the last 15 years that it will probably always fall into the second category.

Without changing the subject here I think that while Bradman is clearly incomparable as a BATSMAN there are many especially outside Australia who would compare Sobers to him as an all round CRICKETER. Equally while Gretsky is the generally accepted best there are many who would argue that but for circumstances Lemieux would have posted similar stats.

Merckx yes. Unarguable that one but there are surprisingly few major sports where there is no argument.

Rubgy Union? Rubgy League? Dwnhill skiing, swimming etc all have their arguments which is great barroom conversation as is the Tennis GOAT one.

As I said above it really depends on wht we regard as the ultimate test. If its slam wins - and that seems to be the standard test in tennis as well a golf - then it is Federer at the moment as it is Nicklaus in golf. Both COULD change but neither have yet.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

Interesting question about who would be considered the GOAT if Nadal gets to 15 slams at the end of his career and Federer stays on 16 at the end of his. If you were a professional tennis player, would you rather have the extra slam win over your biggest rival in what is the biggest rivalry in the mens' game but be owned by him in head to head, or vice versa, have one less slam than your biggest rival but own him in head to head? Imagine in years to come, you keep meeting up with your biggest rival at tennis renunions or majors, you're sitting next to him with one extra slam but knowing he has an 8-2 or whatever the record is against you in all slam matches. You need to win seven matches to win a slam, Nadal basically has this lead over him in head to head slam matches.

Having said all that, I still think Sampras is the GOAT. His serve is the biggest weapon in the history of the game.

 

[Mint Condition]

Karlovic's serve is just as big and possibly an even bigger weapon than Sampras's. If he had just an okay serve he wouldn't be in the top 1000, whereas Sampras would still have been a good player. Results matter more than weapons. I think the big thing that counts against Sampras is that he really wasn't any good on clay. That's the thing about the contenders in tennis for the GOAT...they all have something against them that means they can't be put out ahead on their own. Federer has his h2h with Nadal, Sampras his record on clay, Laver played in an era before tennis was truly global, Tilden even more so, Borg retired too early, Nadal has been overshadowed most of his career. There's no one without some question mark over their record.

Btw Gaelictiogar...there's no way in the world that anyone challenges Bradman for the title of GOAT in cricket. He is by far the greatest player ever in cricket. Sobers a better all round cricketer, sure...but he wasn't twice as good as everyone else ever like Bradman was. And not sure why you would include swimming on your list. Phelps has won 14 olympic gold medals (with at least 2 or 3 more coming). Spitz won 8, Thorpe I think 5 or 6. There is no doubt.

 

[jod23]

On Bradman, I dont think you can call him the greatest cricket player of all time. You can easily call him the greatest batsman of all time. But in Cricket, bowling and batting are two completely different animals.

 

[jod23]

Without changing the subject here I think that while Bradman is clearly incomparable as a BATSMAN there are many especially outside Australia who would compare Sobers to him as an all round CRICKETER. Equally while Gretsky is the generally accepted best there are many who would argue that but for circumstances Lemieux would have posted similar stats.

Merckx yes. Unarguable that one but there are surprisingly few major sports where there is no argument.

Rubgy Union? Rubgy League? Dwnhill skiing, swimming etc all have their arguments which is great barroom conversation as is the Tennis GOAT one.

As I said above it really depends on wht we regard as the ultimate test. If its slam wins - and that seems to be the standard test in tennis as well a golf - then it is Federer at the moment as it is Nicklaus in golf. Both COULD change but neither have yet.

Michael Jordan say's hi. Universally known as the GOAT for basketball. So much so, that when you are talking about Tiger or Fed etc, you say, Tiger is the Jordan of Golf or Federer is the Jordan of Tennis.

MJ owns.

 

[Mint Condition]

On Bradman, I dont think you can call him the greatest cricket player of all time. You can easily call him the greatest batsman of all time. But in Cricket, bowling and batting are two completely different animals.

Every sport has different positions. That's like saying Babe Ruth can't be considered the best ever baseball player because he wasn't a regular pitcher. All rounders, batsmen, bowlers and wicket keepers are all cricketers. Bradman was by far the most dominant in cricket history. He is the GOAT and every poll ever done by Wisden or anyone else confirms this.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Every sport has different positions. That's like saying Babe Ruth can't be considered the best ever baseball player because he wasn't a regular pitcher. All rounders, batsmen, bowlers and wicket keepers are all cricketers. Bradman was by far the most dominant in cricket history. He is the GOAT and every poll ever done by Wisden or anyone else confirms this.

The Don is NOT recognised as "by far the most dominant in cricket history". he is recognised as the accepted No.1 ahead of but not "far" ahead of Sir Garfield Sobers.

When Wisden invited expert votes for their cricketers of the 20th century Jack Hobbs finished 3rd with 30 votes. Ahead of him....miles ahead were the Don with 100 and Sobers with 90. While it is true to say Bradman is recognised as the No.1 there is no huge gap in appreciation for both.

It is necessary to recognise Australian national pride at Bradman's achievement nd to prevent ourselves supposing that a huge gulf exists in recognition of him and the next best.....no such gulf exists.

 

[lewigie]

Michael Jordan say's hi. Universally known as the GOAT for basketball. So much so, that when you are talking about Tiger or Fed etc, you say, Tiger is the Jordan of Golf or Federer is the Jordan of Tennis.

MJ owns.

Wilt Chamberlin?

 

[Caesar]

When Wisden invited expert votes for their cricketers of the 20th century Jack Hobbs finished 3rd with 30 votes. Ahead of him....miles ahead were the Don with 100 and Sobers with 90. While it is true to say Bradman is recognised as the No.1 there is no huge gap in appreciation for both.

Each expert had multiple votes, so that result doesn't mean that 100 think Bradman is the greatest and 90 think Sobers is. It just means that people overwhelmingly regard them as the two best cricketers of all time.

I've never seen a credible poll that has actually ranked Sobers over Bradman. I'm sure they exist, but there'd be a very small number of them.

There will always be a minority of people who prefer Chamberlain over Jordan, Sobers over Bradman, Armstrong over Merckx, Lemieux over Gretzky, etc. but the vast majority of people agree that the latter guys are the best.

It's not like baseball where guys like Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays etc. can end up anywhere in the top 10 based on who's compiling the rankings.

 

[jod23]

Wilt Chamberlin?

Please...