Roger Federer is not the GOAT

[blackcat]

I sit firmly in the Nadal camp and if his body was healthy he would certainly have won many more GS. However you cannot but praise Roger for reaching the SF of a GS at the age of 38

body injured cos he has done too much roids with fuentes. my position, they all dope, but nadal is ridculous, look at his 15 Euro champs on Youtube v humanbackhandRichardGasuqet. Gasquet a far more talented ow player. Now Rafa is like the The New England Pats GOATslantreceiver Julian Edelman. And one of his partners was Barzilian Victorias Secret Sports Illustrated model Adriana Lima

 

[Socrates2]

Bjorn Borg has to be top 3 for me. He retired at 26yo ,played the Australian Open only twice and won 5 Wimbledon's in a row.
I think it will end up 1/Djokovic 2/Federer 3/Borg 4/ Nadal

Between 1974 and 1981 he became the first man in the Open Era to win 11 Grand Slam singles titles (six at the French Open and five consecutive at Wimbledon). He also won three year-end championships and 16 Grand Prix Super Series titles. Overall, he set numerous records that still stand. Borg is the first player to win six French Open singles titles and was undefeated in French Open finals.

 

[blackcat]

Bjorn Borg has to be top 3 for me. He retired at 26yo ,played the Australian Open only twice and won 5 Wimbledon's in a row.
I think it will end up 1/Djokovic 2/Federer 3/Borg 4/ Nadal

Between 1974 and 1981 he became the first man in the Open Era to win 11 Grand Slam singles titles (six at the French Open and five consecutive at Wimbledon). He also won three year-end championships and 16 Grand Prix Super Series titles. Overall, he set numerous records that still stand. Borg is the first player to win six French Open singles titles and was undefeated in French Open finals.

Good post, only #devilsadvocate would be, world was a much smaller place, JuanAntonioSamaranch yet to usher Barca92 influx of Spaniards, few Central European and smattering of Argentinians, Guillermo "Ragin Bull" of Pampas Vilas, Vitas Gerulaitis, Ilie Nastase. No Safin(s) et al. This makes Fed's efforts all the more special. No one can defend like Nole. He covers ground like Gaël Monfils without the damage to his ligaments.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

I sit firmly in the Nadal camp and if his body was healthy he would certainly have won many more GS. However you cannot but praise Roger for reaching the SF of a GS at the age of 38

Its a tradeoff. Nadal trains harder, more likely to get injured. Roger does SFA in training, just make sure hes conditioned.

 

[maryjames]

Nadal when he wins tonight be only two grand slams behind Federer..

I believe Djokovic will end up with the most Titles once his career ends.

 

[Socrates2]

Nadal when he wins tonight be only two grand slams behind Federer..

I believe Djokovic will end up with the most Titles once his career ends.

It's not all about Grand Slams Mary, players of yesteryear didn't even come to Australia to play the Australian Open .
If Borg had of bothered to come here he would have ended on maybe 14 Slams at 26 years of age.Nadal is a one surface specialist so I can't see how he can be the GOAT. The Joker is the all round player IMO.

 

[Xtreme]

I believe Djokovic will end up with the most Titles once his career ends.

 

[maryjames]

He is 6 off. He will easily do it.

 

[Xtreme]

He is 6 off. He will easily do it.

The gif wasn't because it was an outlandish comment, the dear god is because I don't want him to have the most slams ever

He still has work to do to beat Queen Serena's grand slam title count!

 

[blackcat]

It's not all about Grand Slams Mary, players of yesteryear didn't even come to Australia to play the Australian Open .
If Borg had of bothered to come here he would have ended on maybe 14 Slams at 26 years of age.Nadal is a one surface specialist so I can't see how he can be the GOAT. The Joker is the all round player IMO.

Another #devilsadvocate : the game as it has evolved, has become more specialised for the surfaces qua surface. I can hear those with reports, oh Kevin Chang, the Spaniards, Thomas Muster, and Becker/Stitch and Cash, "it was pretty specialised as of then" and good points they would be. My point stands. Though I think the biggest point not yet made is the Greg Rusedski-Petr Korda element, but I won't ruin the thread with term that dare not be mentioned.

 

[Socrates2]

Another #devilsadvocate : the game as it has evolved, has become more specialised for the surfaces qua surface. I can hear those with reports, oh Kevin Chang, the Spaniards, Thomas Muster, and Becker/Stitch and Cash, "it was pretty specialised as of then" and good points they would be. My point stands. Though I think the biggest point not yet made is the Greg Rusedski-Petr Korda element, but I won't ruin the thread with term that dare not be mentioned.

I reckon Borg would have had Johan Kriek and Mark Edmondson covered if he came to Australia.

 

[FreoRicci]

It's not all about Grand Slams Mary, players of yesteryear didn't even come to Australia to play the Australian Open .
If Borg had of bothered to come here he would have ended on maybe 14 Slams at 26 years of age.Nadal is a one surface specialist so I can't see how he can be the GOAT. The Joker is the all round player IMO.

This couldn’t be more from untrue.
Nadal not only trained his game to clay, but took it the next step and what did he do?
Win Wimbledon.. against Federer. In 5 sets. So please, he has proved he isn’t a one court wonder

If you’re going to apply that logic, then Federer himself is a one court wonder. 8 at Wimbledon.
Nadal could’ve had 5 at Australian Open. But unfortunately runs into Djokovic. Djoker and Nadal best all rounder players. Hopefully Nadal matches Federer and Joker catches up later. They deserve to be there, ahead of Federer tbh.

 

[Socrates2]

This couldn’t be more from untrue.
Nadal not only trained his game to clay, but took it the next step and what did he do?
Win Wimbledon.. against Federer. In 5 sets. So please, he has proved he isn’t a one court wonder

If you’re going to apply that logic, then Federer himself is a one court wonder. 8 at Wimbledon.
Nadal could’ve had 5 at Australian Open. But unfortunately runs into Djokovic. Djoker and Nadal best all rounder players. Hopefully Nadal matches Federer and Joker catches up later. They deserve to be there, ahead of Federer tbh.

Wimbledon is the premier tournament to win, Nadal has won only twice.Clay is an anomaly in a way imo.

 

[blackcat]

I reckon Borg would have had Johan Kriek and Mark Edmondson covered if he came to Australia.

...no doubt about that. If he did not smoke dope and do a Mark Occhilupo, he could have picked up +/-20 titles, like McEnroe if they adapted to this 2020 era ethic. Not entirely sure what makes Lebron and Fed go on. It can't be, under yoke of Nike, Uniqlo, Michael Falk, Rich Paul, Maverick Carter, and to be a billionaire, because money does not drive Bradman athlete, even though he was cutthroat successful stockbroker in Adelaide when Adelaide was still relevant on a national stage. The professional sport' sphere morphed when it became less about sportsman/women, and they developed entire businesses begin them, like Feds' RF TM logo that Nike took him to trademark court to protect. Fed, Serena, Nole, even Rafa, they aren't promising to slow down. I put it to you, the champion is now all encompassing in modern sport, and Tomic and Kyrgios could have carved out significant careers in the 70s and 80s when Newcombe and GeorgeWBush crashing Chevrons in Big TX Austin, even tho Texans seek to secede with 2020 Austin as it is more New England Beltway than TX post Karl Rove. Even with 70s normalised for the international competition from this decade. Bernard Tomic win an adult Orange bowl in Florida of any decade. A round-about compliment to Borg and Johnny Mac tho some no doubt will see it as a backhanded[sic]. Those guys had a rich life/lives of which sport was mere component, NOT their life.

 

[blackcat]

This couldn’t be more from untrue.
Nadal not only trained his game to clay, but took it the next step and what did he do?
Win Wimbledon.. against Federer. In 5 sets. So please, he has proved he isn’t a one court wonder

If you’re going to apply that logic, then Federer himself is a one court wonder. 8 at Wimbledon.
Nadal could’ve had 5 at Australian Open. But unfortunately runs into Djokovic. Djoker and Nadal best all rounder players. Hopefully Nadal matches Federer and Joker catches up later. They deserve to be there, ahead of Federer tbh.

Nadal's-purple-green-strawberries-cream-Serena-white win may be exception that PROVES this nonrule rule. He was good enough that year, court was slow enuff, dry enuff, grass short enuff, balls fluffy enuff, balls slow enuff(see:LleytonH at Flinders Park lobbying) Rafa, he was good enough to win when some of elements did conspire in his favour yet all reason suggest he wins/wonpasttense with all the cards in the deck stacked against him.
#reductioadabsurdum

also FreoRicci

This couldn’t be more from untrue

this may not be mere pleonasm, it may be a double negative which has an ambiguous digit or decimal within that zero0 versus one1 spectrum. However, the post clarified the pleonasm.

 

[Thrawn]

I believe Djokovic will end up with the most Titles once his career ends.

From where? Once his movement stutters, say goodbye to his defensive game.

 

[blackcat]

From where? Once his movement stutters, say goodbye to his defensive game.

yeah, and the ages >28, the Rusedski/Korda androgens have postponed the aging descent, but like Thrawn implies, it is a cliff, precipitous. And there is a #linearfallacy here, it may not be discernable to the viewer, even with a 40yard combine timing, but if someone loses 1%, that affects many things, timing, decision-making, finding the centre of one's racquet when you are swinging 3 centimetres behind the perfect position you made to recover from, what would have been. Then you add one-percent deteriorating sight... etc etc. The androgens can only solve one thing.

This is why I love Denis Shapovalov and his backhand, he needs no RichardGasquetesque preparation time and the dimameter of RG's lassoo. Shapovalov can do that, but it brings RG out for a fraction of a second, and +/- one feet, when he needs to recover perfect footing from his own shot. Well, Shapovalov's shot has the flexibility of a two-hander, whilst agility and the stretch length of a one-hander, it is the best of both worlds. But he needs to go deep in not win a slam this year to meet my highest expectations of DS.

 

[maryjames]

From where? Once his movement stutters, say goodbye to his defensive game.

He just turned 32. He potentially can win Aussie Open 3 more times. Already won 7 times. Wimbledon 2 more times. And US open 2 more times over the next 4 years at least. His body is holding up since he was injured and back to some serious tennis. Maybe the best I’ve ever seen when he is on. Would take him to 21 championships. Nadal is the only one who could have more. Federer days are almost numbered with these players now taking over.

 

[blackcat]

. His body is holding up since he was injured

the cliff is precipitous, even with the adrogens. It really holds to know formula, >28 (in the 80s pre PED adrogen era) and you go quickly, no pro forma formula heuristic. Mebbe a longterm coach and physical trainer may have a suspicion (but not 20/20 hindsight suspicion)

 

[Thrawn]

He just turned 32. He potentially can win Aussie Open 3 more times. Already won 7 times. Wimbledon 2 more times. And US open 2 more times over the next 4 years at least. His body is holding up since he was injured and back to some serious tennis. Maybe the best I’ve ever seen when he is on. Would take him to 21 championships. Nadal is the only one who could have more. Federer days are almost numbered with these players now taking over.

He will slow down with every year, he's not going to be sliding effortlessly all over the court over five sets. You forget that there's still Federer on the other side of the net as far as Wimby goes, the chance of an early exit and the Greek Jesus.

I watched the entire semi-final where he played Thiem, he was mentally crumbling and hit off the court, choking, etc. He won't be beating Federer at Wimbledon if he plays like that. Nadal would've crushed him in the final.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

This couldn’t be more from untrue.
Nadal not only trained his game to clay, but took it the next step and what did he do?
Win Wimbledon.. against Federer. In 5 sets. So please, he has proved he isn’t a one court wonder

If you’re going to apply that logic, then Federer himself is a one court wonder. 8 at Wimbledon.
Nadal could’ve had 5 at Australian Open. But unfortunately runs into Djokovic. Djoker and Nadal best all rounder players. Hopefully Nadal matches Federer and Joker catches up later. They deserve to be there, ahead of Federer tbh.

Nup, Nadal comes in at 3 in that trio as great as he is. He’s the Bradman of tennis on clay, prob even better, but on other surfaces just not the same level as the other 2.

Take away their best major each and its
Fed 12
Novak 8
Rafa 6

And if you start that list from when Novak really hit his top (in 2011) and won his 2nd major it’s been:
Novak 8 (1Fr, 4w,3 US)
Fed 4 (2 Oz, 2 W)
Rafa 2 (2 US)

Rafa also never won a year end final and spent the least amount of time of no 1.

Outside of clay, both players lead him head to head. It’s a fascinating triangular rivalry, but all at their top it’s Novak or Fed as the best. What maybe hurt Fed too was his age differance as he put Novak out of Wimbledon in the semis of 2012 ...but those 2 losses to Novak in the final at Wimbledon (2014 and 15 i think) really helped put the ledger back in Novak’s favour with him only 5 behind instead of 7.

Anyway, it won’t change anyone’s view, but for mine only Novak could ever be considered the greater player than Fed unless Nadal can pull off something extraordinary outside of clay in the next 2 years (wouldn’t think he goes much longer than that)

 

[maryjames]

He will slow down with every year, he's not going to be sliding effortlessly all over the court over five sets. You forget that there's still Federer on the other side of the net as far as Wimby goes, the chance of an early exit and the Greek Jesus.

I watched the entire semi-final where he played Thiem, he was mentally crumbling and hit off the court, choking, etc. He won't be beating Federer at Wimbledon if he plays like that. Nadal would've crushed him in the final.

Federer is too old now. Not Djokovic. He now has the fed covered.

 

[blackcat]

Federer is too old now. Not Djokovic. He now has the fed covered.

And he will need to beat Thiem Tsitsipas and Shapovalov. They are improving, and his arc is plateau*[sic] or descent. We don't know how those curves* will intersect and the results that scaffold that abstract.

*shitty torturous G-bay metaphors

 

[blackcat]

Federer is too old now. Not Djokovic. He now has the fed covered.

128 players.
You have to get thru 8 rounds for the title

Their opposing player needs to get thru the same rounds

The imperious run the Big 3 have had thru the preliminary rounds in their careers, is but exception. Harkens back to Graf Seles. When Clijsters and Henin were her contemporaries, Serena did not have her run of the tournaments, even through preliminary rounds.

This has been made possible by RusedskiKorda which has created a barrier to entry for most of the athletes. They still play phenomenal games and competition, but the sport morphed from sport to a major business with many proliferating varying motives which are escalating.

 

[Catters 070911]

I wondering how many here view Pete Sampras's legacy?

I get the feeling that him never winning a French Open tarnishes his record, so he is not talked about as a great as much as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Bjorg etc.

Yet he won his first Grand Slam at 19, and won his last in his last match, so he was winning Grand Slams his entire career.

He has gone to fourth on the Grand Slam records, but beat a record which stood for forty years previously.

I always remember at the Australian Open, where he played Jim Courier. Courier was two sets up, and during the change of ends, Sampras sat in his chair and starting bawling. People wondered why. He had found out that his coach, who had been like a father to him, was dying from cancer, and Sampras wept. Everyone was shocked with the usually stoic Sampras showing such raw emotion. He continued to play the match, wiping away tears as he served, and came from behind to win the next three sets and the match.

I think that Sampras isn't at the front of everyone's thoughts because he didn't put himself out there publicly like Agassi did, he was seen as being a bit robotic and boring, and he didn't win at Roland Garros (Yet Lendl gets a lot of accolades, and he never won Wimbledon).


So, where do you rate Pete Sampras in this conversation?