Roger Federer is not the GOAT

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
11,155
11,363
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd, Atlanta Hawks
Did Fed get a free 9-12 months off to get his body right at 32?
Federer made the semi finals of Wimbledon in July 2016 and won the aus open in 2017. Less than 6 months out of the game. He would have resumed training late 2016.

With every chance that 2021 will be the resumption of the Tour and Djokovic turning 34 next year, it is going to be very difficult for him to surpass Federer.

I had djokovic winning wimbledon this year and possibly the US, with next year being his shot at the slam record. Was certainly hoping this would be the case at least. I can't see it happening with 2020 scrapped.
 

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
45,791
48,635
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
Federer made the semi finals of Wimbledon in July 2016 and won the aus open in 2017. Less than 6 months out of the game. He would have resumed training late 2016.

With every chance that 2021 will be the resumption of the Tour and Djokovic turning 34 next year, it is going to be very difficult for him to surpass Federer.

I had djokovic winning wimbledon this year and possibly the US, with next year being his shot at the slam record. Was certainly hoping this would be the case at least. I can't see it happening with 2020 scrapped.
So with 9-12 months rest he'll deteriorate from being number 1 and winning slams to no chance.

Makes sense.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
45,791
48,635
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
Makes no difference, you can’t be is the GOAT conversation if you didn’t win 2 of the 4 majors.
Of course it does.

I don't think he's the GOAT but you can't point to a tournament he played once and claim him not winning it is a problem.

He clearly never won it because he almost never played it. Not because he didn't have the talent.
 

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
11,155
11,363
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd, Atlanta Hawks
So with 9-12 months rest he'll deteriorate from being number 1 and winning slams to no chance.

Makes sense.
Where did I say he has no chance at winning a slam after 2020? Please refer to the post.

He has to win 4 to pass Federer. I've said he won't do it if 2020 is lost.
 

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
11,155
11,363
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd, Atlanta Hawks
Of course it does.

I don't think he's the GOAT but you can't point to a tournament he played once and claim him not winning it is a problem.

He clearly never won it because he almost never played it. Not because he didn't have the talent.
Borg played the US Open 9 times and never won it. No claim at being the GOAT if you haven't won 2 of the 4 slams.
 

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
45,791
48,635
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
Where did I say he has no chance at winning a slam after 2020? Please refer to the post.

He has to win 4 to pass Federer. I've said he won't do it if 2020 is lost.
Where did I say you said he couldn't win a slam? Please refer to the post.

So after 9-12 months off he'll go from being number 1 in the world and winning slams to no chance.

Makes sense.
Borg played the US Open 9 times and never won it. No claim at being the GOAT if you haven't won 2 of the 4 slams.
If you're gonna troll make it at least half intelligent.
 

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
11,155
11,363
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd, Atlanta Hawks
If you're gonna troll make it at least half intelligent.
The poster made a valid point, how could borg be referred to as a goat if he hasn't won the aus and us open. Ok, he only played 1 aus open. However he played 9 US opens and never won it. The poster makes a very valid point, you dismiss them.

Djokovic is disadvantaged to get to 21 slams due to the 2020 season most likely being canned. That's quite obvious. He was looking like the best player in the world in January. How will that look in 2021, when he'll be turning 34 and still requiring 4 slams to pass Federer? My point yesterday was that djokovic won't pass Federer if 2020 is cancelled.

Why do you think that he still will be able to do it?
 
Last edited:

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
45,791
48,635
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
The poster made a valid point, how could borg be referred to as a goat if he hasn't won the aus and us open. Ok, he only played 1 aus open. However he played 9 US opens and never won it. The poster makes a very valid point, you dismiss them.

Djokovic is disadvantaged to get to 21 slams due to the 2020 season most likely being canned. That's quite obvious. He was looking like the best player in the world in January. How will that look in 2021, when he'll be turning 34 and still requiring 4 slams to pass Federer? My point yesterday was that djokovic won't pass Federer if 2020 is cancelled.

Why do you think that he still will be able to do it?
I never said Bjorg was the GOAT or should be in the conversation. But pointing to a tournament he never won due to not playing it isn't a good reason. As I explained. Before you tried to troll.

I got no idea how he'll look at 33 at the Australian open. I'm not the one making assurances one way or the other.
 

Vdubs

Hall of Famer
Jan 1, 2008
30,672
28,738
MYOB
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Patriots
These discussions are bizarre.
Clearly Federer IS, by definition of SLAMS, the GOAT right now. Until he is surpassed by Nadal or Djokovic.
If we are basing it on other factors, like class, style, contribution to the sport, world wide acclaim and recognition, then Federer wins hands down possibly for perpetuity.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
11,155
11,363
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd, Atlanta Hawks
Possibly. He won't get as rattled as he looked during the final this year I guess.
Sometimes I think the crowd against him motivates Djokovic during a match. Not to say he wouldn't win otherwise. I think of this year's final against Thiem and back to the Wimbledon final against Federer last year. They were hard matches to watch as a Djokovic fan, with the crowd so strongly against him.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
10,786
10,262
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Of course it does.

I don't think he's the GOAT but you can't point to a tournament he played once and claim him not winning it is a problem.

He clearly never won it because he almost never played it. Not because he didn't have the talent.
what about the US open?
 

BobbyMorri

Community Leader
May 4, 2009
7,412
5,674
Tasmania
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Scunny, Furth
I think no crowd helps the underdog tennis player. Not that it matters as it is a moot point. I can't see the tour restarting until this thing finishes and by then, the crowds will be back.

International travel will be a no-no for a long time and we can't restart a tour when travel is banned into so many places.
 

Dipper

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 28, 2000
7,509
2,274
London,England
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Allies FCC
How is Borg in the discussion? Never won an Aussie or US open.
Well I suppose firstly it's about how good and dominant players were taking into account the top players in their era.

When Borg played the top players didn't bother with the Australian Open so that's not really a point. It wasn't considered anywhere near the same status as the other 3 back then.

In an 8 year period he won 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, who else has come close to that? and then retired at 26.

It is interesting that he never won the US Open but would it help your point if he snagged a couple of those and 1 less each of the others?

Back then courts were very different so he won on grass and clay and strangely the one in the middle, the hard courts, he couldn't win.

Who knows why.

But he was a deadset champ and in the conversation for greatest ever with only a couple of others more.

I wouldn't argue if people put Sampras and Federer in the conversation, I just think logically you can knock them out. But I guess it's not a logical thing, so I wouldn't argue but whatever...Borg is in there. He was something else.

He really was.

Superstar status.

Just watch him play;it's something else.

For the most part he beat McEnroe and Connors.

Connors was a champ and a hardarse.

But McEnroe at is best was genius himself. His year in '84 was epic, and Djokovic had a similar at some point, both only lost 3 matches all year. McEnroe was 2 sets up at #French which wasn't his go but lost his nerve against Lendl who was a champ himself, still won Wimbledon and US; but the point is that Borg dominated an absolute alltime great. Well 2 of them.

Federer didn't do that. He didn't dominate his direct contemporaries. He won most of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic were on the scene. Samparas dominated his contemporaries but I would say didn't have the allround game of Federer.


Trying to guage the best ever is to judge them at their best, accross all courts and how they dealt with the their main rivals.

Laver possibly didn't haven't the strength of opposition but he beat them all more often than they beat him and won on an array of surfaces. Surely that's the bar?

Personally at their absolute best across all surfaces and relative to their rivals I had have Djokovic as the best , I'm not a fan, I like Nadal but he's who I'd choose but if someone said bollocks Laver is peerless I couldn't argue. But then Borg had something indefinable.
 

Vdubs

Hall of Famer
Jan 1, 2008
30,672
28,738
MYOB
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Patriots
Well I suppose firstly it's about how good and dominant players were taking into account the top players in their era.

When Borg played the top players didn't bother with the Australian Open so that's not really a point. It wasn't considered anywhere near the same status as the other 3 back then.

In an 8 year period he won 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, who else has come close to that? and then retired at 26.

It is interesting that he never won the US Open but would it help your point if he snagged a couple of those and 1 less each of the others?

Back then courts were very different so he won on grass and clay and strangely the one in the middle, the hard courts, he couldn't win.

Who knows why.

But he was a deadset champ and in the conversation for greatest ever with only a couple of others more.

I wouldn't argue if people put Sampras and Federer in the conversation, I just think logically you can knock them out. But I guess it's not a logical thing, so I wouldn't argue but whatever...Borg is in there. He was something else.

He really was.

Superstar status.

Just watch him play;it's something else.

For the most part he beat McEnroe and Connors.

Connors was a champ and a hardarse.

But McEnroe at is best was genius himself. His year in '84 was epic, and Djokovic had a similar at some point, both only lost 3 matches all year. McEnroe was 2 sets up at #French which wasn't his go but lost his nerve against Lendl who was a champ himself, still won Wimbledon and US; but the point is that Borg dominated an absolute alltime great. Well 2 of them.

Federer didn't do that. He didn't dominate his direct contemporaries. He won most of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic were on the scene. Samparas dominated his contemporaries but I would say didn't have the allround game of Federer.


Trying to guage the best ever is to judge them at their best, accross all courts and how they dealt with the their main rivals.

Laver possibly didn't haven't the strength of opposition but he beat them all more often than they beat him and won on an array of surfaces. Surely that's the bar?

Personally at their absolute best across all surfaces and relative to their rivals I had have Djokovic as the best , I'm not a fan, I like Nadal but he's who I'd choose but if someone said bollocks Laver is peerless I couldn't argue. But then Borg had something indefinable.
Having watched and played tennis since 1963, this is how I see the ranking situation:-
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Laver
5. Sampras
6. Borg
Federer's game, when at his peerless best, was sublime. He often had his opponents applauding his strokes. His all-court, all-round game was so good to watch.
He lacks the brute power of Nadal and Djokovic, and those 2 certainly have the capacity to take over #1 and 2 in the near future. These spots must be determined by Slam wins, and impact on the game.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,581
12,536
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Federer's game, when at his peerless best, was sublime. He often had his opponents applauding his strokes. His all-court, all-round game was so good to watch.
He lacks the brute power of Nadal and Djokovic
I'm not sure that's strictly true. Federer had a top-shelf power game in his own right. For example, who has the biggest serve of those three?
 

Vdubs

Hall of Famer
Jan 1, 2008
30,672
28,738
MYOB
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Patriots
I'm not sure that's strictly true. Federer had a top-shelf power game in his own right. For example, who has the biggest serve of those three?
Ok, I agree. Fed lacks nothing. His DH BH is a thing of beauty, and against the brutal incessant power of that duo, it can go astray. But I love that he has done it all his career
 

Top Bottom