He may or may not have been on 'the gear' but honestly that is not his reason for decline. Where do you find your information to make a statement like that?
Roger Federer is not the GOAT
- Thread starter Butcher32
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 7, 2011
- 9,393
- 11,505
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Denver Nuggets, Novak Djokovic
It's not about winning slams anymore, as you said, that's just a bonus. It's about consistently making finals of big tournaments and winning the odd one or two - that's what you expect from a 30 year old. He's still doing that.
- Oct 7, 2011
- 9,393
- 11,505
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Denver Nuggets, Novak Djokovic
I think the mods could set a good example by banning you tbh.
- Oct 3, 2013
- 12,294
- 28,562
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chelsea
Your evidence for this statement of yours?
Though I am a confessed Nadal fan, it would be amazing if there was one last Federer-Nadal final.
Interesting thread, I'm not going to read through the whole thing. And I'll preface this by saying I'm an unabashed Rafa fan.
But for him to win the slams he did, with his career overlapped at either end by two fellow Greatest contenders is an amazing effort. To come along when Federer was set to be unbeatable for a decade, dominate him head to head and win 14 slams, and to be able to dominate Djokovic for as long as he did before Djokovic finally began to reach the sort of levels he has over the last 5 years, is a big endorsement for his credentials.
But for him to win the slams he did, with his career overlapped at either end by two fellow Greatest contenders is an amazing effort. To come along when Federer was set to be unbeatable for a decade, dominate him head to head and win 14 slams, and to be able to dominate Djokovic for as long as he did before Djokovic finally began to reach the sort of levels he has over the last 5 years, is a big endorsement for his credentials.
- Banned
- #482
On the other hand, a disproportionate chunk of Nadal's success came on one surface.
His overall career record is inflated by his unmatched dominance on clay.
Perhaps. Most people would take 5 slams on their non preferred surfaces too though. To win 14 when only one suits your game when the other 3 suit all 3 of your main rivals is a pretty big achievement. And he has a winning record against Federer on the other surfaces anyway bar grass where it's 2-1.
- Banned
- #484
Most people would take one slam on any surface.
I thought we were comparing all-time greats. Not "most people".
Yeah, but he won 9 of those on one surface. That's my point.
I get that. So what of the players who win most of theirs on the 3 surfaces that, while different to each other, are a lot closer to one another in behaviour than clay? Federer did win a French, granted, but it was only 1, and he didn't even have to beat Nadal to do it.
- Dec 2, 2014
- 18,588
- 31,330
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Making the game slower suited Novak and Rafa and directly hurt Roger.
The biggest point in these talks IMO.
But let's all agree we are the luckiest for seeing 3 of the greatest players of all time go head to head in the golden era of tennis. The game will never be better than this era.
The biggest point in these talks IMO.
But let's all agree we are the luckiest for seeing 3 of the greatest players of all time go head to head in the golden era of tennis. The game will never be better than this era.
- Banned
- #487
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.
I guess I always just leaned towards Rafa a bit because a guy came, well not from nowhere, but back in the pack a little and suddenly looked like he simply would ever be beaten. Within a few years a kid who everyone thought was just another Spanish clay court drone was beating the very same guy in just about every meaningful match they played. I find that remarkable. Like if someone came along while Woods was winning everything and started beating him every Sunday afternoon.
Well one of the points of your argument is that Nadals majors are dominated by the amount he won on his preferred surface compared to his non preferred. He still managed to beat Federer on his non preferred. Federer only won once (and as I've observed there's only one of them per year admittedly) on his non preferred, and didn't manage to beat Rafa to do it. That has to be a slight win for Rafa.
- Banned
- #490
Nadal came from the back of the pack?
He was a standout junior who won the French Open on his first four attempts.
See above.
- Banned
- #492
That's right.
His dominance on clay, which is unquestionable and freakish in its own right, inflates his overall record.
Why?
It merely reinforces Nadal's dominance on clay, which is unquestioned.
Federer has a win-loss record at the French Open which is basically the same as Nadal's in Melbourne, London and New York. Federer made the final at Roland Garros five times, winning once but losing to Nadal the other four times. So the only thing that stopped him from winning a swag of French Open titles was the greatest clay courter of all time. And, as I said, Nadal's greatness on that surface is unquestioned. But it's not like Federer was a battler on clay, as his aforementioned record indicates. He was basically as good at the French Open as Nadal was away from it, but had the misfortune of running into Nadal in the final four times, when Nadal was almost unbeatable.
- Banned
- #493
OK. I see. It was ambiguous who "the guy" was.
What a s**t argument. If you remove Djokovic's hard court slams he has 4. If you remove Federer's grass slams he has the same as Roy Emerson.
Garbage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can't say "oh but if you do this, he doesn't win it" That's BS
They won it. You can't change how or why they won. But they did win it. Fed on Clay, Rafa on hardcourts
Their records are their records. Currently Fed has him eclipsed for GS victories. Rafa can either close the gap tomorrow or Fed can open what should be an unassailable lead.... Gonna be a great match IMO
They won it. You can't change how or why they won. But they did win it. Fed on Clay, Rafa on hardcourts
Their records are their records. Currently Fed has him eclipsed for GS victories. Rafa can either close the gap tomorrow or Fed can open what should be an unassailable lead.... Gonna be a great match IMO
The only day the argument changes is when someone passes Federer record for most Grand Slams, until that day I am comfortable that he is the greatest player of all time.
Head to heads is again of no relevance to the conversation.
It will be either 17-15 tomorrow or 18-14. But no matter what Federer will still be the GOAT in my opinion.
Head to heads is again of no relevance to the conversation.
It will be either 17-15 tomorrow or 18-14. But no matter what Federer will still be the GOAT in my opinion.
Demosthenes
Premiership Player
- Jun 9, 2015
- 3,364
- 3,074
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
El Humblito himself has said he regards Federer as the greatest, I think.
- Dec 2, 2014
- 18,588
- 31,330
- AFL Club
- Essendon
We have witnessed the 3 best tennis players ever IMO in Roger, Rafa and Novak.
The finesse and class of Roger...
The power and determination of Rafa...
The defense and mental fortitude of Novak...
They all pushed each other to new levels, This is the greatest era of tennis, It will never be beaten, We should stop the petty arguments and just be grateful we have another world class final to watch tomorrow.
The finesse and class of Roger...
The power and determination of Rafa...
The defense and mental fortitude of Novak...
They all pushed each other to new levels, This is the greatest era of tennis, It will never be beaten, We should stop the petty arguments and just be grateful we have another world class final to watch tomorrow.
It's a terrible point. Federer has also won 9 of his slams on one surface, hard court.
If Nadal wins tomorrow, he will be the only player in the open era to have won 2 of each slam. His achievement cannot rationally be diminished because he's won a lot of French Opens.
Tomorrow is a battle for GOAT status. While Nadal would still be 2 slams shy if he wins, he has won all of his slams during the toughest era in tennis history with Federer and then Djokovic/Murray. Federer banked several during a very weak era where his nearest rivals were Roddick, Hewitt and Safin and played the likes of Gonzalez and Phillipoussis in finals.
The suggestion that more slams = greater doesn't wash. It's like arguing a cricketer who plays inferior opponents is better than another because he has a higher average.
Plus Nadal has that 23-11 head-to-head record.
Whoever wins tomorrow takes the GOAT title...for now.
