Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Not in dispute any more. 20 Grand Slams and oldest ever men's number #1.
Anything more is just icing on the cake.
Anything more is just icing on the cake.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Xtreme yes we get your point. You raise it constantly. How about come up with some valid points and arguments as to why Serena or court are better tennis players?
Yet you also try to manufacturer arguments for other male players being better than Federer despite winning fewer Grand Slams. You can't have your cake and eat it too.Simple really because they have more grand slams than Fedex
It's a valid argument because it's the truth!
Yet you also try to manufacturer arguments for other male players being better than Federer despite winning fewer Grand Slams. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Your twisted bitterness and jealously of the great Roger Federer has blinded you of being objective.
Imagine if two of the Slams were played on clay instead of one.Take out nadals French open titles he only has 6 grand slams
Do you concede he is the GOAT of the men's game. Yes or No?Not bitter or jealous
The simple fact is he's not the tennis goat because he isn't leading the grand slam count
Do you concede he is the GOAT of the men's game. Yes or No?
It is illogical to use one argument for the GOAT (# of slams), then in the next breath use h2h records to base your argument. Completely illogical.If he had a dominant record against Djokovic and Rafa I'd have to say yes
He would win every slam he entered. No woman could beat Federer. Not even Serena. They wouldnt even get close.If Federer was allowed to play in the woman's game as Rogena from the beginning, he would have over 40 GS titles right now.
So Davydenko is better than Nadal then?If he had a dominant record against Djokovic and Rafa I'd have to say yes
And Krygios better than Djokovic?So Davydenko is better than Nadal then?
Why would you ignore one Grand Slam?Take out nadals French open titles he only has 6 grand slams
Why do we have to start "imagining" anything?Imagine if two of the Slams were played on clay instead of one.
Is it magical?97 career singles titles, just 3 away from the magical 100 mark.
Don't be silly.The guy is a freak but tbh he isnt playing at peak fed level atm yet most of the opposition just have no answers and no real idea how to beat him. Mentally there also pygmies, go behind and fly the white flag. Your never beating the greatest front runner ever with those attributes.
He went four-and-a-half years without winning a major.I get a tad board with his winning everything but I admire his overall achievement.. but seriously can't someone else win
without him..
ok I am feeling very silly about this but the point is that time goes so quickly that it appears that he has done it all..He went four-and-a-half years without winning a major.
That was the whole point of my post ya bellend. It's pointless to say things like 'taking out the French Open...' etc.Why would you ignore one Grand Slam?
Why do we have to start "imagining" anything?
Imaging we only played on clay. Imagine we only played on grass. Imagine you got extra points for hitting it between your legs. What are you talking about?
Why not simply look at players' records as they stand? That's the reality of what's happened and that's what counts.