Wimbledon 2012

[Maryusdemetry]

Murray is undoubtedly the best player of the Open era never to have won a Slam.

Ok, Im with you

I think his first Grand Slam will probably be one of the next two USOs.

I dont think so, This was Murray's best chance to win a GS.

 

[Flameboy]

Your argument is so ridiculous. Roger didnt have to go through Nadal cos Nadal was shit and lost before the pointy end of the tournament. BY your reckoning, not major win by any tennis player ever doesnt count unless they beat Nadal on the way to the title. It's just stupid bro. Federer beat the world number 1 and 4 on the way to the Wimbledon crown. Has now got 17 majors and has regained the world number 1. He is ridic.

Nadal's H2H record is nice for him but some guys just match up better on other guys. Simple as that.

Dumbest argument I've ever seen or read. Its not Federer's fault that Nadal couldn't beat some no name player in the 2nd round or whatever round it was. Deadset rediculous argument.

I love how so many people are making it look like Nadal played poorly to lose that match. No one, and I mean no one would've beaten Rosol the way he played that night - particularly in the 5th set. Watch it if you haven't, the guy was just slapping winners all over the joint (20 winners and 2 unforced errors in that set). The only poor set he played was the 4th, the other 4 he was on a different planet. Some of the most amazing shot-making you'll ever see.

Winning a grand slam only counts if you beat Nadal en route. As soon as Rosol was knocked out by Kohlschreiber, the tournament became illegitimate. I thought this was common knowledge?

You're missing my point. It would mean a hell of a lot more to Federer - and, well, every observer of the sport if he was able to overcome Nadal on his way to a GS victory. You can't deny that.

Currently their head to head in Grand Slams sits at 9-2. Nadal owns him - it's Federer's major flaw on his resume.

That's why this tournament hasn't changed a whole lot for me, in terms of the GOAT argument.

I can't wait for the US Open.

 

[Caesar]

You're missing my point. It would mean a hell of a lot more to Federer - and, well, every observer of the sport if he was able to overcome Nadal on his way to a GS victory. You can't deny that.

In the wider context of history I don't think so. A Slam is a Slam.

I mean, nobody really remembers or cares that Sampras cruised to the Wimbledon title in 2000 by beating a a solitary seed - Rafter (12) - in the final. All they remember is that Sampras won 14 slams and 7 Wimbledons. If they remember anything about the tournament, it's that the final was a great dogfight.

Without looking it up, can you tell me off the top of your head how many of Sampras's Slams involved him beating Agassi on his way to the title? Of course not. Because although on a micro level these things may be perceived as relevant to the difficulty of the tournament, on a macro level all that matters is the strength of the field and who finished on top.

It'll be the same in 10 years with Nadal and Federer. All people will note about this year's tournament is that Federer won and Nadal didn't.

 

[Flameboy]

In the wider context of history I don't think so. A Slam is a Slam.

I mean, nobody really remembers or cares that Sampras cruised to the Wimbledon title in 2000 by beating a a solitary seed - Rafter (12) - in the final. All they remember is that Sampras won 14 slams and 7 Wimbledons. If they remember anything about the tournament, it's that the final was a great dogfight.

Without looking it up, can you tell me off the top of your head how many of Sampras's Slams involved him beating Agassi on his way to the title? Of course not. Because although on a micro level these things may be perceived as relevant to the difficulty of the tournament, on a macro level all that matters is the strength of the field and who finished on top.

Fair points and to the general populous of Tennis fans who don't follow the sport as closely as you or I, yes, the fact Federer won is all they really care/hear about. But when the two careers are looked back on and analysed by the experts as to where they stand in the GOAT debate, their GS head to head record will be brought up. And this tournament has done nothing to change that.

As for your Sampras comparisons, being 19yo I'm too young to remember any of his reign haha. So I couldn't tell you.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

You're missing my point. It would mean a hell of a lot more to Federer - and, well, every observer of the sport if he was able to overcome Nadal on his way to a GS victory. You can't deny that.

If Nadal couldn't take part in the tournament for some reason, then you may have a point. Nadal was there and was beaten fair and square. Federer went one better and took out the defending champion in the semi-final anyway. You know, the guy that trounced Nadal on the same court last year?

But yes, I completely agree with what you're implying. It's a hollow victory for Federer because he didn't beat Nadal. I mean, he only beat the #1 and #4 players in the world... shouldn't it count as half a GS or something?

 

[Flameboy]

If Nadal couldn't take part in the tournament for some reason, then you may have a point. Nadal was there and was beaten fair and square. Federer went one better and took out the defending champion in the semi-final anyway. You know, the guy that trounced Nadal on the same court last year?

But yes, I completely agree with what you're implying. It's a hollow victory for Federer because he didn't beat Nadal. I mean, he only beat the #1 and #4 players in the world... shouldn't it count as half a GS or something?

You're taking this far too personally. My original statement was:

But in terms of where he stands in the GOAT debate, this tournament hasn't changed much for me. Of course he still sits right up there, and this win merely confirms that - but he didn't have to get through Nadal. And IF Rafa keeps this ridiculous GS H2H record he has over Roger, I'll always be hesitant in referring to him as the best, even though he has the most number of majors.

Where did I say it's a hollow victory and should only count as half a Grand Slam?

 

[Caesar]

I think H2H is a bit overrated by people as to how much it will affect Federer's legacy. Until Wimbledon 2008, Nadal had only beaten him twice off clay - neither of which was at a Grand Slam. Nadal has only really amassed a good record off clay against Federer since he was 27 or so.

I don't think that reflects poorly on Nadal, as he was still maturing as an all-round player in Federer's best years and most of the time never made it deep enough into non-clay tournaments to even bother Federer. But I think the fact that neither player's peak really overlapped will probably mean that the off-clay H2H is more seen as a consequence the changing of the guard than a perfect comparison of the two players.

Nadal will always be recognised as a far better claycourter than Federer who comprehensively dominated him on that surface, but then he is quite probably the best claycourter of all time and clay is Federer's worst surface so that isn't exactly a slight.

Worth noting that when Borg retired, the younger McEnroe was starting to win most of their matches. If he'd not retired then it's probable that H2H would look a lot less favourable, but it's not looked on too harshly in Borg's assessment. Most of the time players' H2Hs are affected by age differentials - Agassi/Sampras situations are pretty rare.

The record with Nadal obviously isn't a positive, but I don't think it'll be seen as the complete dealbreaker some regard it to be.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Where did I say it's a hollow victory and should only count as half a Grand Slam?

Bringing up Nadal when discussing the final says enough. How is a guy that simply wasn't good enough to make it that far relevant? Seems a clear attempt to discredit Federer's achievement to me.

 

[Mint Condition]

The thing is, Federer beat Nadal in the tournament. Not directly, but he beat the guy who beat the guy who beat the guy who beat Rafa.

It would be more significant if Rafa wasn't there. I think you can put a bigger asterix against Federer's Wimbledon 2009 victory then you can against this one. As Caesar said it's the strength of the field that matters because if you win a tournament you've beaten everyone else that entered.

This is why Margaret Court is pretty much always ranked below Graf and Navratilova. Court won more slams, but 11 were AO's, which had weaker fields at the time than the other slams.

 

[Flameboy]

Bringing up Nadal when discussing the final says enough. How is a guy that simply wasn't good enough to make it that far relevant? Seems a clear attempt to discredit Federer's achievement to me.

So you interpret this as me discrediting his win?

Well done Roger Federer. The best player when it mattered. Deserved the title.

All I've said which seems to have ruffled some of your feathers, is this win doesn't change a whole lot in terms of where he stands amongst the best players in the game. Is that not a fair call? I'd almost say the same thing about Nadal's FO win this year ...but because he had to overcome Djokovic - a guy he'd struggled against for the past 16 months, it meant more than just the W for him. But it in the grand scheme of things, it was just "another" Roland Garros title for the KoC. It doesn't add much to his GOAT claims, it definitely doesn't take anything away - same deal with Federer and Wimbledon. That's all I'm saying.

You're being a bit precious here...

 

[Mint Condition]

I'd almost say the same thing about Nadal's FO win this year ...but because he had to overcome Djokovic - a guy he'd struggled against for the past 16 months, it meant more than just the W for him. But it in the grand scheme of things, it was just "another" Roland Garros title for the KoC. It doesn't add much to his GOAT claims, it definitely doesn't take anything away - same deal with Federer and Wimbledon. That's all I'm saying.

I think you're wrong here.

Nadal won a record 7th FO. When he won his 5th you might say, sure just another FO...but he now has the all time record to himself. If he wins more FO's from here it just goes into incredible territory. It's a big addition to his list of achievements (in any greatness argument).

And Federer just won a GS at almost 31, his first in 2.5 years and as a result has now broken Sampras's record of most weeks at number 1. Also tied the Wimbledon record at 7. It's one of the biggest wins of his career and a sign of his longevity. A huge addition to his list of achievements. Beating Nadal in the final wouldn't have really added much to it. He's going to have a losing h2h record against Rafa anyway. It's not a huge deal given their age difference and the number of matches on clay...but it is definitely the one thing that will count against him in the GOAT debate (all the contenders have something). Beating him 1 more time at Wimbledon won't really change anything.

 

[jod23]

The GOAT debate is amusing when you try to factor in Nadal. Nadal fan boys say ... Nadal's H2H is better. Erm... 17-11. Just saying.

 

[jod23]

Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest male tennis player of all time.He is currently ranked World No. 1, having previously held the ATP No. 1 position for a record 237 consecutive weeks from 2 February 2004 to 18 August 2008.[10] Federer has occupied the No. 1 ranking for 286 overall weeks, equaling the record held by Pete Sampras (who will be overtaken on July 16, 2012).[11]

Federer has won a men's record 17 Grand Slam singles titles. He is one of seven male players to capture the career Grand Slam (one of four in the Open Era) and one of three (with Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal) to do so on three different surfaces (clay, grass, and hard courts). He is the only male player in tennis history to have reached the title match of each Grand Slam tournament at least five times, and is also the only male tennis player in the Open Era to have reached the Wimbledon final eight times. Federer also holds the Open Era record for most Grand Slam titles at the Australian Open (4 titles, shared with Andre Agassi), at Wimbledon (7 titles, shared with Pete Sampras) and at the US Open (5 titles, shared with Jimmy Connors and Sampras). He has been in the final at each of the nine ATP Masters 1000 tournaments, a record amongst male tennis players, and by having won 7 out of 9, he places himself also the top place of winning muti-Masters 1000 trophies(shared with Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal).

Federer has appeared in an unprecedented 24 career Grand Slam tournament finals, including a men's record ten in a row, and appeared in 18 of 19 finals from the 2005 Wimbledon Championships through to the 2010 Australian Open, the lone exception being the 2008 Australian Open. He holds the record of reaching the semifinals or better of 23 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments over five and a half years, from the 2004 Wimbledon Championships through the 2010 Australian Open.[12] At the 2012 Wimbledon Championships, he equalled the male record of seven Wimbledon finals won, reached a record 32nd Grand Slam semi-final, and reached a record 33rd consecutive Grand Slam quarter-final. He also holds the record for most match wins in Grand Slam tournaments (244).

Federer has won a record six ATP World Tour Finals and 20 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments. He also won the Olympic gold medal in doubles with his compatriot Stanislas Wawrinka at the 2008 Summer Olympic Games.

Really, can you argue the GOAT for anyone else? Really?? REALLY???

 

[jod23]

Nadal will always be recognised as a far better claycourter than Federer who comprehensively dominated him on that surface, but then he is quite probably the best claycourter of all time and clay is Federer's worst surface so that isn't exactly a slight.

You make it sound like he sucks on Clay. From 05-12 ... Semi Final, Final, Final, Final, Won, Quarter Final, Final, Semi Final. The guy is a freak. Worst surface and he has made the FO Final 5 times only to be denied by the greatest clay court player ever 4 times. Federer is insane. In fact I dont even think clay is Fed's worst surface. I dont think Federer has one. He dominates on all surfaces.

 

[pepsi]

When reading through those stats it is difficult to argue against him. I think one of the stats that indicates his dominance across all surfaces is the fact he has made the final of each slam at least 5 times. That is simply amazing. Add to that 33 straight grand slam quarter finals which indicates longevity at the top.

 

[jod23]

When reading through those stats it is difficult to argue against him. I think one of the stats that indicates his dominance across all surfaces is the fact he has made the final of each slam at least 5 times. That is simply amazing. Add to that 33 straight grand slam quarter finals which indicates longevity at the top.

Very difficult indeed. GOAT IMO.

 

[Flameboy]

The GOAT debate is amusing when you try to factor in Nadal. Nadal fan boys say ... Nadal's H2H is better. Erm... 17-11. Just saying.

Erm... Federer's participated in 53 GS tournaments...Rafa 33.

Just saying.

 

[Andronicus]

Erm... Federer's participated in 53 GS tournaments...Rafa 33.

Just saying.

So there is potential there for him to overtake Fed later on as the greatest if he is good enough?

Just saying.

 

[Flameboy]

So there is potential there for him to overtake Fed later on as the greatest if he is good enough?

Just saying.

Absolutely.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

It's possible the gap in slams played will never close (at least not significantly). Federer and Nadal retiring around the same time wouldn't be that unlikely. Hey, not being a defensive grinder can pay off sometimes

 

[Caesar]

Nadal's an incredible athlete, and people have been predicting him to break down for years and been wrong. That said, he plays the type of game that goes south very quickly once you pass your physical peak. You only have to look at a guy like Hewitt to see how losing a step of speed can take you from unbeatable to irrelevant in a very small space of time.

Players who continue to compete at a high level late in their career tend to be able to make up for reduced mobility by dominating on either their serve (e.g. Federer) or return (e.g. Agassi). It gives them the ability to get a lot of cheap points, or failing that seize control of a point early and minimise the amount of running they have to do.

For that reason I kind of think that of the current top 3 Djokovic has the most potential for longevity. Although he plays a very defensive game, he has an excellent return and a good serve that (given his height) could be a lot better. If he adjusts his game as he gets older I can definitely see him having some longevity.

Nadal on the other hand does things the hard way. He serves and returns well - he's a great player after all - but the thing that really raises him above the pack is his athleticism and counterpunching. How long he can keep it up I have no idea, but I'm pretty confident he will not be winning slams in his 30s.

 

[jod23]

Not many blokes win slams in their 30's.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

I) Federer's win at Wimbledon is as legitimate as any other slam ever won. He beat the field to the trophy and that's all that matters. If Nadal could not make it to the second week, tough for him, can't begrudge Fed for that.

2) People are underestimating the 9-2 H2H record that Nadal has over Federer. It is an issue for Fed now which surely must eat at him. In 50 years time it may not be an issue, but in 50 years time there may be another player who overtakes Federer on the slam count. The fact there is debate about this means it is an issue. In years to come, at tennis functions, Fed and Nadal will meet, Fed will look at Nadal as if to say I won more slams, but Nadal will look at Fed as if to say you were my bitch, I owned you. Get it? It's an issue for Fed, maybe not for anyone else, but for Fed it is. He's a perfectionist and no one can convince me that his 2-9 record sits comfortably with him. The fact this has crept into the all the main GOAT discussions around the world means it is an issue. If it were not an issue, there would be no debate.

3) No one will remember that Sampras only beat one seed to claim one of his trophies at W because Sampras was no one's bunny at the height of his career. Yes, he lost to Krajicek at W when he should not have, a one off match, but he was 2-9 in slams against no one. So it didn't matter who he played. Sampras was so dominant at W at his best, that he could play seeds number 8 down to number 2, from round 1 to final, and still win it. This, in an era which may have lacked the big 4 monopoly of today, but was as difficult if not more difficult because of the grasscourt specialists that would appear for one month of the year before going back into hybernation. Players who weren't generally top 32 material on an around the year basis, but were top 20 material if you just counted grass results. And, on fast grass. The saying used to be "survive the first week". We don't hear that any more, because of homogenisation of courts, there's no mine fields to avoid in the first week anymore because the game no longer has grass or clay court ("dirt rat") specialists. All we have now is a generic style which most of the players play, which means that the cream always rises to the top, being the big 4 in Fed, Nadal, Djok and Murray. So in saying that, Sampras may have played only one seed, but how many grass court specialists, a player who is not ranked in the top 32 in the world, but on grass is, did Sampras have to overcome? That's what you need to ask yourself. Remember, W is the only tournament that does not blindly follow the rankings when it seeds the players. It will use the rankings as the base, but it has been known to adjust the seedings in accordance with the players' results on grass. Doesn't make much difference today because of the green clay, but back then when each tournament had its own unique surface, and hence these surface specialists, it mattered. This is why Sampras' achievements at W were phenomenal, around every corner there was a potential floater. This also explains why we see less upsets these days. Basically, the FO is as good a warm up for W as Queens is.

 

[Macca19]

You're missing my point. It would mean a hell of a lot more to Federer - and, well, every observer of the sport if he was able to overcome Nadal on his way to a GS victory. You can't deny that.

Currently their head to head in Grand Slams sits at 9-2. Nadal owns him - it's Federer's major flaw on his resume.

Almost solely due to their records on Clay, where Nadal is the undisputed greatest of all time on that surface. Outside of Clay, Federer has Nadal.

 

[Flameboy]

Almost solely due to their records on Clay, where Nadal is the undisputed greatest of all time on that surface. Outside of Clay, Federer has Nadal.

In GS's, outside of the French, Nadal leads 3-2.

Might want to check your facts next time.