I would have thought that was obvious. Federer started slowing down over the 2009-10 period as Nadal began to hit his straps and dominate when his prime window opened. Between 2011-2016 Federer only won a single slam as Nadal and Djokovic took full advantage of their prime windows and won 16 slams between them over that 6 year period. Roger has managed to experience a renaissance over the last 24 months (likely has a lot to do with Nadal and Djokovic's prime windows closing) which is impressive but Federer certainly isn't the dominant player he once was.
Why don't you understand winning slams doesn't necessarily mean you possess your peak abilities as a tennis player? Just because a championship/premiership window is open, doesn't mean you/your team will win. Hewitt made a slam final and two slam semifinals in 2005 so I certainly wouldn't say his window closed in 2003 like you've suggested. He ran into GOAT Federer in two of those semifinals and was outplayed by a hot Marat Safin in the Aussie Open final. To say his window was closed at that point in time is just wrong.
Like I said before, tennis players are judged on the amount of slams they won over their career.
So Federer is not the GOAT because Nadal AND Djokovic will likely overtake him in slams won... but you also think Bjorn Borg is the GOAT? That doesn't make sense. There are many reasons Bjorn Borg isn't the GOAT but a lack of slam titles is the most obvious. I don't care if he retired early. If retiring early meant you were guaranteed achievements had you played on then John Coleman would have kicked 2000 goals.
Borg and Laver didn't win 11 Slams each because that's all they could muster. Borg didn't even bother coming to Australia and still equalled Laver, and only played in 27 Grand Slam tournaments with an 89.81% winning record 141-16. He was only beaten at Wimbledon 4 times, mostly when he was a teenager. His contemporaries were McEnroe,
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
This is where it becomes difficult to compare eras, particularly when you talk about result prior to the Open Era but I'm going to attempt while still giving full context. You're right - Borg didn't bother coming to Australia and that was common back then for players to skip the Australian Open but he also never captured a US Open title so that must go against him in terms of his legacy. 'Only losing 4 times at Wimbledon' sounds impressive until someone explains he only played there 9 times in his career. 5 Wimbledon titles is impressive but Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles.
This is where the pre-Open Era arguments start coming in and it can be difficult to fully understand what was going on. Laver was not "banned" from competing in Grand Slams or Davis Cup, he turned professional knowing full well the slams and Davis Cup were only open to 'amateur' tennis players at the time. It was Rod's decision and he knew exactly what he was doing when he turned professional in 1963 to make money because amateur players were not paid back then. Having said that, Rod even admits himself that he wasn't playing against the best players in the world when he won his first 6 grand slams in the amateur era because many of the best players had already turned professional. This was evident in 1963 when Laver competed in the professional equivalent of grand slams (professional majors) and lost two finals to Ken Rosewall while also getting knocked out in the second round of the '63 Wembley Pro. So Laver went from winning every major as an amateur in 1962 to winning no majors as a professional in 1963.
As you can see above, comparing eras in problematic but I still believe Federer is the GOAT.
Lions have come out strongly today saying the whole Beams situation is BS.
Beams should sue Barrett for defamation.
The rule regarding runners is interesting. There might be 15 minutes between goals and the runner might have 6 messages to deliver in 30 seconds!
i reckon they're going to have to rely more on certain players to be able to deliver the messages to other players. i think it's about 30 seconds between a goal and the bounce of the ball, so yeah they definitely could be a bit rushed for time in getting messages out. i like it though.
the way i understand it, there is no foot on the line rule anymore. if they step outside the goalsquare when they kick in, they deem it as play on. haven't actually seen anywhere that says that's the case though, so not 100% sure. that's how i assume it might work.
I’m not entirely sure the relevance of the goal square at all.
I guess now it just determines whether a player has played on or not. they can still kick out from inside the square
The 2013 super draft was good for us.
Couldn't pick his own nose that ****er Clayton
The line isn't a factor anymore....i think...correct me if im wrong...players are going to take off, run and carry...i
To ensure one from each team starts inside? a guide for 10 metres back from it after a behind?
