Roger Federer is not the GOAT

[vast]

Nadal leads 8-5 on hard courts since 2006 though. 2-1 for Roger on grass courts. I'd say Rafa at his best can compete and even better Roger on any given surface.

I would love to see the head to head if nadal was right handed. I always joke to friends that Nadal is Federers kryptonite. You could not have found a more perfect weapon in Nadals forehand to combat fed if you tried.

Thats taking nothing away from Nadal who is a fantastic player and who set the bar for the defensive play that Djokovic and Murray show today. He is the master as returning the unreturnable and putting the oppenent on the back foot.

 

[vast]

Looking at some highlights from Federer in 2006 and his defence was supreme. Didn't end points as quickly as he does today. I'd say if 2006 Fed and 2015 Djokovic came up against each other, it would be dead even in terms of favouritism. Both are just so damn good on every surface.

Fed would win easily

 

[bato]

I would love to see the head to head if nadal was right handed. I always joke to friends that Nadal is Federers kryptonite. You could not have found a more perfect weapon in Nadals forehand to combat fed if you tried.

Thats taking nothing away from Nadal who is a fantastic player and who set the bar for the defensive play that Djokovic and Murray show today. He is the master as returning the unreturnable and putting the oppenent on the back foot.

Yep, I've always said that Nadal made Djokovic the player he is today. No player has given him that much trouble before, and when he eventually started getting the better of him, he started getting the better of Fed too.

 

[bato]

Fed would win easily

Lol, maybe on Top Spin 4.

 

[vast]

Lol, maybe on Top Spin 4.

To quote Rocky. Anyplace anytime!

 

[jod23]

Looking at some highlights from Federer in 2006 and his defence was supreme. Didn't end points as quickly as he does today. I'd say if 2006 Fed and 2015 Djokovic came up against each other, it would be dead even in terms of favouritism. Both are just so damn good on every surface.

I think you live in a dream world. Djokovic played out of his skin to beat Federer in the final of Wimbledon. Djoker is at his absolute peak right now. Federer is 34.

Federer at 27 or 28 would beat Djokovic comfortably.

 

[bato]

I think you live in a dream world. Djokovic played out of his skin to beat Federer in the final of Wimbledon. Djoker is at his absolute peak right now. Federer is 34.

Federer at 27 or 28 would beat Djokovic comfortably.

Err.. Federer was 28-29 in 2011... and lost to Djokovic four times that year.

 

[jod23]

Err.. Federer was 28-29 in 2011... and lost to Djokovic four times that year.

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.

 

[bato]

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.

You do realise Djokovic took a set off Federer in their first ever meeting? Djoko was only like 18.

Then beat him in 2007 when Federer was absolutely on top of his game. Don't pretend a result like that meant nothing. Djokovic being nothing like he is today back then, he still beat Fed. Then beat him again two meetings later at the Aussie Open in straight sets.

I don't see your point? Fed never really dominated Djokovic even when he was at his peak.

Same way, Djokovic hasn't really dominated Federer when he's at his peak.

 

[speedybundy]

Nadal at his best > Federer at his best

Federer at his best > Djokovic at his best

Djokovic at his best > Nadal at his best.

That's the beauty of our sport. Three absolute champions.

It depends on the surface....

Feds best on grass and fast hard/indoor beats nadals best on those surfaces.

Rafa beats Roger at his peak but Roger is the more skilled tennis player sums it up for mine. As for Novak I reckon he'll be mentioned with these two in future discussions. It's sorta funny I reckon his best surface is clay and grass is his worse, yet has 2 (or 3 now?) wimbledons. Is a funny sport

 

[jod23]

You do realise Djokovic took a set off Federer in their first ever meeting? Djoko was only like 18.

Then beat him in 2007 when Federer was absolutely on top of his game. Don't pretend a result like that meant nothing. Djokovic being nothing like he is today back then, he still beat Fed. Then beat him again two meetings later at the Aussie Open in straight sets.

I don't see your point? Fed never really dominated Djokovic even when he was at his peak.

Same way, Djokovic hasn't really dominated Federer when he's at his peak.

Their primes never came against eachother. Id always back Federer in because he is better in the big moments. His GS records prove that. Djokovic has a long way to go before getting into that conversation. He has 9 now though, he needs more.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Remember that while Fed is 33 rising 34 both Nadal and Djokovic are about 5 years younger......an eternity at the top of pro tennis.

No one successfully competes in slams after 30/31 years of age. Nadal won't. Djokovic won't. Almost certainly neither will final in a slam aged a month from 34. Why? Fantasic as they both are they rely more on athleticism. Fed is more talented. He is the best player.

Even on Sunday he hit more clean winners than Novak....as he almost always does. As so often he was undone by his unforced error count. He walks a high wire. He takes chances. Even now no one can trade winners with him. Even now he best - and Djokovic is the best in the world - need Fed's mistakes to aid them because winner for winner he will beat them in a shoot out.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Remember that while Fed is 33 rising 34 both Nadal and Djokovic are about 5 years younger......an eternity at the top of pro tennis.

No one successfully competes in slams after 30/31 years of age. Nadal won't. Djokovic won't. Almost certainly neither will final in a slam aged a month from 34. Why? Fantasic as they both are they rely more on athleticism. Fed is more talented. He is the best player.

Even on Sunday he hit more clean winners than Novak....as he almost always does. As so often he was undone by his unforced error count. He walks a high wire. He takes chances. Even now no one can trade winners with him. Even now he best - and Djokovic is the best in the world - need Fed's mistakes to aid them because winner for winner he will beat them in a shoot out.

Statistically winners aren't the primary factor that determines the outcome of tennis matches, even at the pro level. Its forced errors. Then unforced errors. And then winners.

Djokovic is superior in the first two factors - and he demonstrated this on Sunday.

 

[Collingwoodity]

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.

This has to be the dumbest thing you have said.

X player in their prime would definitely beat Y player in their prime.

Lining up everyone at their primes then Arthur Ashe would slightly beat Pete Sampras who would slightly beat Laver who would slightly beat Federer etc.

Who says? You? How the * would you know if that is true or not? Were you there when Nadal was in his prime when he played Federer who was in his prime in this 7th dimension?

That is quite simplistic.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Remember that while Fed is 33 rising 34 both Nadal and Djokovic are about 5 years younger......an eternity at the top of pro tennis.

No one successfully competes in slams after 30/31 years of age. Nadal won't. Djokovic won't. Almost certainly neither will final in a slam aged a month from 34. Why? Fantasic as they both are they rely more on athleticism. Fed is more talented. He is the best player.

Even on Sunday he hit more clean winners than Novak....as he almost always does. As so often he was undone by his unforced error count. He walks a high wire. He takes chances. Even now no one can trade winners with him. Even now he best - and Djokovic is the best in the world - need Fed's mistakes to aid them because winner for winner he will beat them in a shoot out.

Agassi won 5 of his 8 grand slams post 29 years of age.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Agassi won 5 of his 8 grand slams post 29 years of age.

Agass1 won 2 slams in his 30s. One while over 31....the Aussie Open when he was 32.

Rather than disprove my point Agassi makes it. Even a player who was hugely successful in later career simply was not a slam winner at the age Fed is now and any slams which have been won or will be won by a man over 31 will be outlying events. Sampras won a US Open aged 31 and that was it for him. No one successfully competes in open era slams at Fed's age.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Agass1 won 2 slams in his 30s. One while over 31....the Aussie Open when he was 32.

Rather than disprove my point Agassi makes it. Even a player who was hugely successful in later career simply was not a slam winner at the age Fed is now and any slams which have been won or will be won by a man over 31 will be outlying events. Sampras won a US Open aged 31 and that was it for him. No one successfully competes in open era slams at Fed's age.

You did say compete. Agassi competed in SFs and Fs from 31-34.

My aim was not to disprove your point. Each player "peaks" at different ages.

 

[gaelictiogar]

You did say compete. Agassi competed in SFs and Fs from 31-34.

My aim was not to disprove your point. Each player "peaks" at different ages.

I said "successfully competes" meaning "wins".

However it could be argued that "successfully competing2 encompasses finalling and semi finalling as you say.

It is true that people peak at different ages but it is also demonstrably true that no tennis player peaks or indeed wins at slam level at Fed's current age. If a 33/34/35 yea old were to win it would be a massive outlier.

 

[Collingwoodity]

I said "successfully competes" meaning "wins".

However it could be argued that "successfully competing2 encompasses finalling and semi finalling as you say.

It is true that people peak at different ages but it is also demonstrably true that no tennis player peaks or indeed wins at slam level at Fed's current age. If a 33/34/35 yea old were to win it would be a massive outlier.

It is true though, in tennis it is not common for players to consistently win tournies in their mid 30s.

 

[gaelictiogar]

It is true though, in tennis it is not common for players to consistently win tournies in their mid 30s.

Reactive speed is vital in tnnis that is why youth is so very impartant.

It is actually remarkable how the number of slam wins post 1972 simple falls off a cliff when players hit 31. 4 slams have been won by 31 yr. olds and only 1 by a 32 year old.

The fact that a month short of his 34th birthday Fed was 1-1in the final is quite remarkable in itself. That he will enter his 35th year ranked 2nd in the world is also remarkable and unprecedented.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Reactive speed is vital in tnnis that is why youth is so very impartant.

It is actually remarkable how the number of slam wins post 1972 simple falls off a cliff when players hit 31. 4 slams have been won by 31 yr. olds and only 1 by a 32 year old.

The fact that a month short of his 34th birthday Fed was 1-1in the final is quite remarkable in itself. That he will enter his 35th year ranked 2nd in the world is also remarkable and unprecedented.

Laver was 31 when he won his second career Slam? No?

 

[gaelictiogar]

Laver was 31 when he won his second career Slam? No?

You are right and 1t was a great achievement but again look at what happened after that slam....nothing !!! he never came close to another slam and that despite the fact that he was probably the GOAT.

Almost all the stat evidence points to the reality that 31 is a watershed.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Fed would win easily

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.

 

[vast]

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.

Ah read what was being discussed.

 

[rodney hoo]

Laver was 31 when he won his second career Slam? No?

Laver was banned as we're all the professional players between I think 61&69 or there about, so laver more than likely could've been goat, and won a lot more slams but it's a toss up between Laver and Federer , I've watched both play but to be honest the game, equipment etc has all changed so much like all sports. Ivan Lendl also played in 20 GSF for a 10/10result.