- Jan 15, 2012
- 48,673
- 49,484
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Nadal v Federer H2H - 23 v 15
definitely needs to win a few more.
definitely needs to win a few more.
Roger Federer is not the GOAT
- Thread starter Butcher32
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Dec 18, 2005
- 21,666
- 14,402
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
Has time to catch up a few
- Banned
- #878
For what?
Yeah, you said that. But never explained how you'd quantify talent. So it's basically a throwaway line, isn't it?
You also said a bunch of other s**t that didn't make any sense.
Also, who is Feds? You're really saving a lot of time with that nickname.
Jack Gun Cyril Stun
Club Legend
- Oct 5, 2012
- 1,237
- 1,504
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Fed, Rafa and Novak all at their BEST, if you played a head to head across the 4 slam surfaces across 2 weeks, (so 8 matches each) who would everyone pick to come out on top?
It might sound illogical, but I wouldn’t pick the GOAT, all at their best Id go Novak.
It might sound illogical, but I wouldn’t pick the GOAT, all at their best Id go Novak.
Good question. If you gave 3-2-1 votes on the 3 surfaces grass, hard and clay, IMO it would look:
Grass: Federer 3, Djokovic 2, Nadal 1
Clay: Nadal 3, Federer 2, Djokovic 1
Hard: Djokovic 3, Federer 2, Nadal 1
Federer: 7
Djokovic: 6
Nadal: 5
An argument could be made that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer. 4-4 H2H, 1 French Open each. Could go either way.
The toughest part of this question is that you could probably dig up statistics that would completely contradict some of these rankings. However Federer and Djokovic at their best would most likely beat Nadal on all surfaces but clay. Therefore a match between Federer and Djokovic on clay could be the decisive match.
Grass: Federer 3, Djokovic 2, Nadal 1
Clay: Nadal 3, Federer 2, Djokovic 1
Hard: Djokovic 3, Federer 2, Nadal 1
Federer: 7
Djokovic: 6
Nadal: 5
An argument could be made that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer. 4-4 H2H, 1 French Open each. Could go either way.
The toughest part of this question is that you could probably dig up statistics that would completely contradict some of these rankings. However Federer and Djokovic at their best would most likely beat Nadal on all surfaces but clay. Therefore a match between Federer and Djokovic on clay could be the decisive match.
- Dec 18, 2005
- 21,666
- 14,402
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
Nadal relies on grunt, djokovic on power and defence, Federer on class. Feds is the most talented with what he can do with the racquet. 95% will agree but you have to be difficult don’t you
- Banned
- #882
That's rubbish. The reality is that along with all of Federer's gifts - timing, balance, reflexes, variety, temperament, court coverage - he is also a kick-arse power player with an all-court game. But sure, he relies on "class", whatever that means. What a woefully simplistic explanation.
This is dated, but it is still a wonderful account of what makes Federer great, particularly at his best. To suggest it boils down to "class", like that clarifies anything at all, is absurd. You may as well say "Federer relies on magic". It would be just as illuminating.
What does that even mean? Do you speak entirely in platitudes?
Last edited:
- Banned
- #883
Nadal unbeaten on clay, Federer unbeaten on grass, results on hardcourts divided pretty evenly between Federer and Djokovic with Nadal a touch behind them on that surface.
Federer's best tennis was of higher quality, in my opinion.
So she's not the best player in the world.... There's probably about 200 people on this planet that would beat her in a match, maybe more.
There's maybe 1 or 2 that could trouble Federer consistently.
One of the best pieces of sports writing I've ever read.
Jack Gun Cyril Stun
Club Legend
- Oct 5, 2012
- 1,237
- 1,504
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Yeh maybe those 2 losses to Novak in 14/15 finals at Wimbledon are too prominent in my mind when it could be argued Fed wasn’t at his peak. And maybe deep down the 08 loss to Rafa still grates on me!
The big tick for Novak is that he held all 4 GS titles at once which the other 2 couldn’t do. I still have never seen a player consistently hit with so much force and depth off both sides beyond the service box in rallies. He was / is just so hard to attack.
He has also dominated Nadal from about 2011 onwards (14-10 overall in finals after Nadal was leading 5-0) and head to head where he leads 26-24 after trailing 4-10 early.
This is true.
Federer though has won 3 out 4 slams in the calendar year 3 times. Djokovic has done it twice. Nadal once.
This is what makes this debate so fascinating. You can have one view supported by statistics, but then have it completely contradicted by another set of statistics that throws shade on your original view.
Extremely lucky to witness it.
- Dec 18, 2005
- 21,666
- 14,402
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- May 20, 2011
- 12,015
- 10,664
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Federer is the best of all time.
- Banned
- #890
Is that a big tick? Who gives a s**t? I reckon "the big tick" is winning 20 grand slams.
Sure, great rallier. But at his peak, Federer hit more clean winners and had an unmatched ability to put a ball on a line, in my recollection.
Yeah, everyone knows Djokovic was the best player in the world for a few years. Is that the debate?
- Banned
- #891
Your struggle continues. Go educate yourself.Yeah ok man you think that
Last edited:
- May 20, 2011
- 12,015
- 10,664
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I do agree that Federer's power off both wings is underrated. He hits the ball damn hard.
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Sweet Jesus you make some good points, but could do with dropping the arrogant know it all undertone.
Jack Gun Cyril Stun
Club Legend
- Oct 5, 2012
- 1,237
- 1,504
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Well part of it is relevant for the debate imho. Happy for Fed to be considered GOAT, but it’s just odd that 2 other all time greats and his 2 biggest rivals have the edge over him head to head, esp at Grand Slams (even after taking out Rafas French Open dominance)
For instance, when Novak won his 1st GS at the Aus Open, Fed already had 12. Since and including then I think it’s 9-4 Novak’s way at all GSs, including 3-0 in GS finals with Novak winning a total of 12 to Feds 8.
Fed looked untouchable until Novak and Rafa came along. An argument could be be made that Fed cashed in before these guys hit their peaks , and whilst he could hit every other player off the court and seem nearly invincible once these 2 established themselves they had his measure in the big ones.
Still it’s Feds longevity, the number 20 and (summarising the rest of the package) as his class or magic that makes him GOAT.
- Dec 18, 2005
- 21,666
- 14,402
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
You're the one with the countless lines of argument. It's your struggle man. Feds is the GOAT until someone overtakes him. You're wasting your time and ours
- Banned
- #896
Who made you the "tone police"?
Last edited:
- Banned
- #897
Is that odd?
It's a timeframe that more closely coincides with Djokovic's peak than Federer's.
Is it surprising that a guy in his late 20s was tested and often beaten by two great players 5-6 years younger?
That's generally been the norm.
- Banned
- #898
I don't disagree that Federer is the greatest of all time. That doesn't make your explanation or supporting arguments any less inane.You're the one with the countless lines of argument. It's your struggle man. Feds is the GOAT until someone overtakes him. You're wasting your time and ours
Tell me again how he's the best because of his "class" or because of "what he can do with a racquet". Utterly meaningless. I'd get more sense by asking Siri to talk about tennis.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #899
Is it? Maybe by people who can't even identify what they're watching.
- Dec 18, 2005
- 21,666
- 14,402
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
Tennis is played with a racquet. If you’re the classiest with the racquet then you are the most talented. How can’t you be? Being faster or more powerful isn’t
