Telegrapgh article - Federer’s aura dimmed by indestructible nemesis that is Nadal [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Telegrapgh article - Federer’s aura dimmed by indestructible nemesis that is Nadal

laurie-1
06-06-2011, 12:39 PM
First time I've seen a journalist question Federer like this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/8558464/French-Open-2011-Roger-Federers-aura-dimmed-by-an-indestructible-nemesis-that-is-Rafa-Nadal.html


For Roger Federer, this mercy after the killing by his gentleman strangler produced no tears this time, just a resigned smile and a half-rueful admission that it had been the same old story about Rafa’s feats on clay.

And it is a story which keeps nagging away at those of us who ardently believe Federer to be the finest tennis player in history. Time to question ourselves once more.

For there were spells during yet another beautiful edition of one of sport’s grandest rivalries when Federer could surely have played no better than he did on Court Philippe Chatrier, wonderful starburst periods when, actually, you could convince yourself that nobody has ever played better. And yet it was still not enough to fell l’Ogre.

We swooned at genius, at moments when it seemed Federer could consign his nemesis to death by drop shot, when Nadal was so comprehensively dismantled by almost

dismissively contemptuous shot-making that you could not have conceived of anybody downing Federer.

This is the Rafael Nadal age, his ninth victory in their last 11 contests.

Federer has not beaten him in a Grand Slam since 2007 and did not enjoy being asked afterwards whether he could see the Spaniard, who has now reached double figures in Grand Slam wins quicker than he ever did, catching up uncomfortably swiftly on his landmark of 16.

“Who cares?” was Federer’s response. “Who cares where you stand?”

Well, you can bet that, inside, he does. After all, how difficult is it to call himself the best even of this era, never mind of all-time, when Nadal has now beaten him 17 out of 25 times and just keeps chipping away at the legend bit by bit?

Nadal, in his absolute pomp now, just stands there like Federer’s impassable mental roadblock, retrieving every ball with unreal agility, approaching every point as if it is for his life, exhausting and crushing his opponent’s psyche with those in-to-out forehand monsters which persuade you it is a nonsense that the game’s greatest shot is Federer’s own liquid forehand whip.

After this defeat, there seemed an almost strangely blasé lack of concern from Federer. Outwardly, at least.

“I think he’s happy to be Rafa; I’m happy to be Roger,” he shrugged, talking about their comparative styles where he works to “smaller margins”, going on the attack, mixing up his game and thus occasionally having uneven patches while Rafa “is content to do the one thing for the entire time.” Talk about faint praise.

“It’s always me who’s going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be,” said Federer. “If I play well, I will most likely win; if I’m not playing so well, that’s when he wins.”

He is kidding himself. There is, of course, a touch of arrogance in this public pronouncement which suggests a man who cannot quite work out how his divine gifts so often count for nothing against, physically and mentally, the strongest, most bloody-minded athlete the game may have yet witnessed.

After three sets, Federer had won more points but was two-one down. Enough said.

Yes, how aesthetically satisfying it would have been had Federer, after his sublime opening to the match, offered the perfect, embroidered finish to the first set with that exquisite backhand drop shot, but when did aesthetics win a tennis match? It missed. Fractionally but enough.

Yet in the following game, after rescuing his serve, Nadal broke Federer by digging out and flashing a forehand return at full stretch which forced the Swiss to net. You would have called it unbelievable if it was not commonplace from Nadal.

Federer reckoned he liked seeing Nadal sprinting from corner to corner like a boxer, countering madly, just “to see how long he can sustain it”.

Well, here is the bad news, Roger. He can sustain it as long as you want to keep slugging and eventually, the evidence keeps piling up, he will jab you to a standstill.

Oh yes, and he’s looking forward to the bell going on Centre Court.

Har-Tru
06-06-2011, 12:45 PM
What a Rafatard...

Zagor
06-06-2011, 12:50 PM
First time I've seen a journalist question Federer like this

Really? Journalists/commentators/media in general have been questioning Fed's greatness as a player for years because of his H2H against Nadal,this is hardly anything new.I still can't understand the argument that Fed would have somehow been a better player if he was losing before every FO final in order to not face Nadal.For me even before his 2009 FO win the fact that Fed reached so many FO finals was admirable as even on his weakest surface he was a contender.

careergrandslam
06-06-2011, 12:51 PM
nadal's sheer will and determination coupled with his talent beats federer's extraordinary talent.

u can see on federer's eyes that he doesnt believe he can beat rafa.
everytime he gets close, his doubts comes back an he freezes.

he puffs out his chest and has his strut against every other player, but against rafa he just becomes another player.

rafa is one amazing human being. nothing rattles this guy. he can reset his mind after every point.

MacTheKnife
06-06-2011, 12:52 PM
Federer just got to the FO final while only dropping one set. Then lost a match that everyone expected him to lose.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 12:53 PM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

Zagor
06-06-2011, 12:55 PM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

Laver I guess? Other greats have holes in their resumee as well and achieved less than Fed.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 12:58 PM
Laver I guess? Other greats have holes in their resumee as well and achieved less than Fed.

Basically, yes. Rosewall & Gonzales also have arguments, although I guess Gonzales was relatively weak on clay & Rosewall never won Wimbledon (though not being allowed to play for 13 years didn't help).

laurie-1
06-06-2011, 12:59 PM
Really? Journalists/commentators/media in general have been questioning Fed's greatness as a player for years because of his H2H against Nadal,this is hardly anything new.I still can't understand the argument that Fed would have somehow been a better player if he was losing before every FO final in order to not face Nadal.For me even before his 2009 FO win the fact that Fed reached so many FO finals was admirable as even on his weakest surface he was a contender.

I must say I haven't really seen it in the British press much.

Fujee
06-06-2011, 01:02 PM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

Exactly, the argument is so redundant because no one side can conclusively decide who is better as hatred/rivalry/distaste for players cloud genuine judgement. I say everyone have their own GOAT and be done with it, Laver is a GOAT because he was so dominant in a time of poor professional management, Borg is a GOAT because he was supremely talented and ahead of his time, McEnroe for being other worldly talented, Lendl for determination to improve and dominate, Sampras for modern supremity, Connors for tenacity, Agassi for fighting his demons and suceeding stupendously in a sport he struggled to love, Federer for the great talents blessed to him and the domination he displayed, Nadal for the never say die mindset - willingness to improve and suceed on surfaces which aren't his preferred etc

There will never be an exclusive GOAT as every player will have some form of hole in their CV, its inevitable in a sport which commands fields of simultaneous greats. Find your own GOAT and love that player for what they individually contributed to a great sport.

Langers
06-06-2011, 01:11 PM
What a Rafatard...
Are you serious man? He gave a TON of praise to Federer.

Time Violation
06-06-2011, 01:12 PM
Could be,time will tell.

Yup, if Nadal can get 6 more slams, there will be little doubt :)

yesh222
06-06-2011, 01:15 PM
We get it, tennis is all about matchups. Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed and a great enough player to take advantage of that fact. We also get that for some of Fe'd Slams the competition was not as strong as during some other eras. It still takes nothing away from his 16 Slam titles and 285 weeks at #1.

laurie-1
06-06-2011, 01:18 PM
Exactly, the argument is so redundant because no one side can conclusively decide who is better as hatred/rivalry/distate for players cloud genuine judgement. I say everyone have their own GOAT and be done with it, Laver is a GOAT because he was so dominant in a time of poor proffessional management, Borg is a GOAT because he was supremely talented and ahead of his time, McEnroe for being other wordly talented, Lendl for determination to improve and dominate, Sampras for modern supremity, Connors for tenacity, Agassi for fighting his demons and suceeding stupendously in a sport he struggled to love, Federer for the great talents bless to him and the domination he displayed, Nadal for the never say die mindset - willingness to improve and suceed on surfaces which aren't his preferred etc

There will never be an exclusive GOAT as every player will have some form of hole in their CV, its inevitable in a sport which commands fields of simultaneous greats. Find your own GOAT and love that player for what they individually contributed to a great sport.

nice post

Stefwhit
06-06-2011, 01:29 PM
Fair balanced and well stated!

JolánGagó
06-06-2011, 02:25 PM
Word of wisdom. Excellent, balanced, spot on article.

Commander Data
06-06-2011, 02:56 PM
Word of wisdom. Excellent, balanced, spot on article.

Says one of the most die-hard Rafatards out there. :worship:


whatever... okay, Fed is only the 2nd best ever, still not too shabby. ;)

star
06-06-2011, 02:57 PM
Word of wisdom. Excellent, balanced, spot on article.

Maybe. :rolleyes:

Personally, I thought the writer spent too much time praising Federer and not enough on praising Nadal. :ras:

But, each to his own. :angel:

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 02:59 PM
They paid somebody to write this?

SheepleBuster
06-06-2011, 02:59 PM
This is what you call manu're.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 02:59 PM
Maybe. :rolleyes:

Personally, I thought the writer spent too much time praising Federer and not enough on praising Nadal. :ras:

But, each to his own. :angel:

He wrote it.

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 03:02 PM
Yes, Federer is a sore loser. I never quite understood why people think of him as such a gentleman. Maybe he is better than his competitors because he does not fake injuries to destroy the other player's momentum or take time between serves. I think Nadal's and Djokovic's conduct faking injuries, taking time between serve is absolutely disgusting. Faking injury in the first set in a final?

Absolutely terrible, but Federer is not really up there with Edberg in sportmanlike behaviour himself. This final made me respect both players less, both were choking in important moments, Nadal played the most boring one dimensional final he has ever played, Federer with his sore loser conduct and Nadal with his terrible unsportmanlike faking and taking time between serves. I wanted to vomit, it could have been a classic but it was terrible to watch.

Kworb
06-06-2011, 03:03 PM
:lol: Ridiculous stuff. I think Federer's H2H with Murray is more damaging to his aura than all those clay matches against Nadal.

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 03:08 PM
:lol: Ridiculous stuff. I think Federer's H2H with Murray is more damaging to his aura than all those clay matches against Nadal.

It is not his H2H with Rafa that troubles his GOAT status, it is the way he mentally collapses in important moments against his greatest challenge. Maybe I could forgive him for doing so on clay, but did you watch the Australian Open 2009?

Horrible stuff. Ofcourse, he only got one rival for the GOAT status and that is Laver. Laver wins that battle without any doubt in my mind.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 03:11 PM
It is not his H2H with Rafa that troubles his GOAT status, it is the way he mentally collapses in important moments against his greatest challenge. Maybe I could forgive him for doing so on clay, but did you watch the Australian Open 2009?

Horrible stuff. Ofcourse, he only got one rival for the GOAT status and that is Laver. Laver wins that battle without any doubt in my mind.

Indeed. I mean I know he's been losing to Nadal everywhere only after his peak, but he has always been mentally suspect against him, & other greats past their peak have won slam matches against their toughest younger opponents.

Clay Death
06-06-2011, 03:20 PM
superb read. fair and balanced. he gives them both plenty of praise.

truth eats away at the clueless federereeeeeesians blown away with their blind worship.

smart federereeeeeeesians of course know better.

ballbasher101
06-06-2011, 03:20 PM
It is a good article. Federer is no GOAT. Nadal has seen to that. The guy is spineless. He can't even beat Rafa on grass now. Don't like Nadal but he will be GOAT and deserves it. Nadal does not even have a huge serve to call upon in a time of crisis but look at what he has achieved.

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Federer's mentality has always been suspect, I think he often was too good and too confident to show his mental fragility. Still even in his prime whenever he was truly challenged and taken to 5 sets he would lose that 5th set more often than not.

Safin, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Nadal....

The list is long of players who have taken advantage of Federer's nerves in the 5th set. Only great 5th set I have seen Federer play against a great opponent was against Nadal 2007....

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 03:24 PM
It is a good article. Federer is no GOAT. Nadal has seen to that. The guy is spineless. He can't even beat Rafa on grass now. Don't like Nadal but he will be GOAT and deserves it. Nadal does not even have a huge serve to call upon in a time of crisis but look at what he has achieved.

Nadal wont be goat, dont be silly. Federer only saved this beeing the start of his decline by defeating Djokovic and choking in the final where he really dominated for the first time in roland garros.

The fact that a 30 year old who was always been dominated by Nadal on clay started to push Nadal around in this final and dominate rallies must be worrying signs for Nadal's longevity. Nadal at 25 might be declining faster than Federer at 30.

I can see Nadal win 12 slams maximum. Federer is going to win more slams aswell, he is slightly favorite for Wimbledon.

ibreak4coffee
06-06-2011, 03:25 PM
Rafa can end the GOAT debate by proving that his one win at the Aussie and last year's US Open weren't flukes. If he continues to play well at Wimbledon (he'll definitely win another) but can get at least 2 or 3 of the Aussie and/or US Open, then there is a more than just strong case he's a GOAT. He'll probably take another 2-3 French Open's and maybe one more Wimbledon, so its at those two slams where he will write his place in history - no one can be considered a GOAT if they end up with 12 French Open's and only 4 other slams. But make no mistake - if he doesnt pass Roger's 16 slams the head to head match up statistics won't matter either in the historical debate.

And lets face it - the vast majority of head to head matches from the two have happened in tournaments where Rafa plays his best, because he doesn't come as close as Roger does to the final of those (on hardcourts) where he's not as strong - you'll never see Rafa make 5-6 finals in either the Australian or the US Open as Roger has in the last 8 years at Roland Garros. Ironically, if Roger lost in the QF or SF often at the French and didnt have to play Rafa almost every year in the final, their head to head would look much more reasonable and we'd probably look more favorably at Roger's place in history.

star
06-06-2011, 03:26 PM
I think Federer played quite well in the 2008 fifth set. It just went the other way that time. It's not as if he had anything like a mental break down there. There have been fifth sets where he just seemed to go away.

Clay Death
06-06-2011, 03:31 PM
fed should just let the history be the judge and at least wait until his career is over.

nadal gives the best answer. he says only when the reporters keep pressing him over and over and over again. he says he is "among the best" and that is enough for him.

fed, on the other hand, as if he was pedaling his wares, will tell anybody and has actually done it a few times that he would like to be known as "the greatest ever to play the game".

that is not a sound position: how can you be the greatest of ALL TIME when you are not even the greatest of RIGHT NOW?

it also disrespects immensely the true greats of the game. they all dominated the field before them and carved out their immortality.

fed did the same thing. he dominated the field that he was presented with and then came along a stronger field. and now the stronger field wants a piece of that tennis immortality also.

let the history be the judge when their careers are over.

the most agreed upon position: both nadal and fed have become all time greats of the sport.

if you try to compare the two too hard, fed comes out on the losing end. he is just not good enough to beat a guy with 1/2 the tools he has.

and quite honestly all the tools in the world dont matter at the highest level of sports. mental discipline, testicular fortitude, relentless will, and the like count for a lot.

Kworb
06-06-2011, 03:33 PM
It is not his H2H with Rafa that troubles his GOAT status, it is the way he mentally collapses in important moments against his greatest challenge. Maybe I could forgive him for doing so on clay, but did you watch the Australian Open 2009?

Horrible stuff. Ofcourse, he only got one rival for the GOAT status and that is Laver. Laver wins that battle without any doubt in my mind.
So any Roger loss is a mental collapse? He plays extremely aggressive tennis. When he loses it's always due to hitting unforced errors. You can't always call this a mental collapse. It just comes with his game.

Indeed. I mean I know he's been losing to Nadal everywhere only after his peak, but he has always been mentally suspect against him, & other greats past their peak have won slam matches against their toughest younger opponents.
Nadal isn't just some tough young opponent. He is also one of the greats of the game. And the greatest ever on clay.

Clay Death
06-06-2011, 03:36 PM
nadal does not need to be in the superficial GOAT debate cooked up by the reporters and sports writers looking to make their stories more dramatic for the masses.

it is totally subjective and also based on a flawed premise.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2011, 03:40 PM
nadal does not need to be in the superficial GOAT debate cooked up by the reporters and sports writers looking to make their stories more dramatic for the masses.

it is totally subjective and also based on a flawed premise.

I agree. There are better discussions to have on Nadal. Like why he does not get tired. :p

hipolymer
06-06-2011, 03:40 PM
Rafatards that think their dear Rafa is a shoe in for GOAT are really in for a rude surprise in less than two years' time.

You have been warned.

Fujee
06-06-2011, 03:42 PM
Nadals career will follow a similar trajectory to Roger's - its the same for any elite tennis player - Rafa has his time in the sun, only to be eclipsed by a new upcoming star. It's simply fact, seen throughout hundreds of tennis players to varying degrees. Exceptions being players like Agassi and Connors. It's a shame people can't just appreciate a special moment, history and confrontation are siblings i guess.. once all is said and done the reverie of players careers is generally, completely positive. Federer's aura will not be dimmed by anyone, as neither will Nadal's or any other great.. achievements are placed in bold throughout the history books not short comings..

SheepleBuster
06-06-2011, 03:43 PM
Nadals career will follow a similar trajectory to Roger's - its the same for any elite tennis player - Rafa has his time in the sun, only to be eclipsed by a new upcoming star. It's simply fact, seen throughout hundreds of tennis players to varying degrees. Exceptions being players like Agassi and Connors. It's a shame people can't just appreciate a special moment, history and confrontation are siblings i guess.. once all is said and done the reverie of players careers is generally, completely positive. Federer's aura will not be dimmed by anyone, as neither will Nadal's or any other great.. achievements are placed in bold throughout the history books not short comings..

It does not. Rafa is already slowing down. His body will start falling apart soon. I guarantee it. I don't wish it. I hope he plays at a high level so others continue to improve. But his style is so taxing on his body.

Clay Death
06-06-2011, 03:43 PM
Rafatards that think their dear Rafa is a shoe in for GOAT are really in for a rude surprise in less than two years' time.

You have been warned.

he is no GOAT. nobody is.

he is just a clay warrior king.

and he will eat anybody`s lunch in a slam final.

he is happy with that.

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 03:44 PM
It needs to still be reminded that it is mightly impressive for Federer at 30 to end Djokovic's streak and play toe to toe with the greatest claycourter in history on what is according to most his worst surface (I really think slow hardcourt is his worst..).

There are 2 sides to Federer's final swansong 2011 on clay, at one point he one again shows his inabilty to handle the mental challenge of Rafael Nadal. On the other hand he shows he has the game to challenge the greatest claycourter of alltime at the age of 30 and beat the greatest claycourter today with maybe the greatest streak in history in the SF. This both damages and improves his GOAT status, depending on your point of view.

hipolymer
06-06-2011, 03:47 PM
he is no GOAT. nobody is.

he is just a clay warrior king.

and he will eat anybody`s lunch in a slam final.

he is happy with that.

It's a good thing that you feel this way, but the majority of tennis fans do not. There will always be an innate desire to know who is the best, and you cannot stop that.

Fujee
06-06-2011, 03:49 PM
It does not. Rafa is already slowing down. His body will start falling apart soon. I guarantee it. I don't wish it. I hope he plays at a high level so others continue to improve. But his style is so taxing on his body.

I don't think you fully understand my post, i said they follow a similar trajectory of varying degrees - all tennis players rise, peak and trough - some sooner than others.

Clay Death
06-06-2011, 03:54 PM
It's a good thing that you feel this way, but the majority of tennis fans do not. There will always be an innate desire to know who is the best, and you cannot stop that.



i guess the clueless among the masses need a god to worship.

Kworb
06-06-2011, 03:56 PM
It does not. Rafa is already slowing down. His body will start falling apart soon. I guarantee it. I don't wish it. I hope he plays at a high level so others continue to improve. But his style is so taxing on his body.
People have been saying this about Rafa for a couple of years now. But he's still in excellent physical condition. His speed and defense in the final were as amazing as they have ever been. I'm not sure his decline will come as quickly as people expect.

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 03:57 PM
I don't think you fully understand my post, i said they follow a similar trajectory of varying degrees - all tennis players rise, peak and trough - some sooner than others.

Federer is going to win slams at 30+, I am absolutely certain of this. In fact I belive there will come a time in 1-2 years when Federer will look younger than Nadal out there. So I dont really belive in a similar trajectory for Federer and Nadal, Nadal is a red star and we are witnessing the last explosion until he disappears and become a nebolusa among the stars in the tennis sky. Federer's fuel seems almost endless, his aging has started long ago but at a very slow rate and without any big problems with injuries.

Maybe Federer is the kind of player who can win slams at even his mid 30s, but that is ofcourse yet to be seen.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2011, 03:58 PM
People have been saying this about Rafa for a couple of years now. But he's still in excellent physical condition. His speed and defense in the final were as amazing as they have ever been. I'm not sure his decline will come as quickly as people expect.

he was slow in that final... i expected a less competitive match

star
06-06-2011, 03:59 PM
It's a good thing that you feel this way, but the majority of tennis fans do not. There will always be an innate desire to know who is the best, and you cannot stop that.

Why is that an "innate desire?" :confused:

And why do you say "know?" How do you "know?" People simply select criteria and usually those suit their a priori conclusion.

It's who you think is the best, or who you prefer to be the best.

For me, I'm fine to say that Federer is the GOATiest GOAT of them all.

I'm also fine in saying that Nadal has a stellar h2h against this GOATiest GOAT. :) :) :)

ibreak4coffee
06-06-2011, 03:59 PM
Federer is going to win slams at 30+, I am absolutely certain of this. In fact I belive there will come a time in 1-2 years when Federer will look younger than Nadal out there. So I dont really belive in a similar trajectory for Federer and Nadal, Nadal is a red star and we are witnessing the last explosion until he disappears and become a nebolusa among the stars in the tennis sky. Federer's fuel seems almost endless, his aging has started long ago but at a very slow rate and without any big problems with injuries.

Maybe Federer is the kind of player who can win slams at even his mid 30s, but that is ofcourse yet to be seen.

If Federer is going to win another slam, I think he'll need to start by winning either Wimbledon or the US Open this year. If he goes slam-less this year, I think more than enough self-doubt will creep in that won't bode well for the future.

But if he can play at the same level at Wimbledon in the next 2-3 years that he played at in Paris these last two weeks, its hard to believe he won't win another title there.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 03:59 PM
It needs to still be reminded that it is mightly impressive for Federer at 30 to end Djokovic's streak and play toe to toe with the greatest claycourter in history on what is according to most his worst surface (I really think slow hardcourt is his worst..).

There are 2 sides to Federer's final swansong 2011 on clay, at one point he one again shows his inabilty to handle the mental challenge of Rafael Nadal. On the other hand he shows he has the game to challenge the greatest claycourter of alltime at the age of 30 and beat the greatest claycourter today with maybe the greatest streak in history in the SF. This both damages and improves his GOAT status, depending on your point of view.

Well said.

On the Federer 5-set point, yes he played well in the Wimbledon 2008 final set. He also played well in the A.O. 2005 final set. And both those sets could have gone either way. But they didn't. That's the point. Fed's record in 5th sets is particularly bad when they get really close. It's all right knocking off Haas or Simon or okay Nadal 6-2, but the only really close 5th sets I remember him winning were against Sampras (that was an impressive one), Tipsarevic, & TurkeyRod. So I agree his frailty against Nadal isn't something out of the blue.

Fujee
06-06-2011, 04:03 PM
Federer is going to win slams at 30+, I am absolutely certain of this. In fact I belive there will come a time in 1-2 years when Federer will look younger than Nadal out there. So I dont really belive in a similar trajectory for Federer and Nadal, Nadal is a red star and we are witnessing the last explosion until he disappears and become a nebolusa among the stars in the tennis sky. Federer's fuel seems almost endless, his aging has started long ago but at a very slow rate and without any big problems with injuries.

Maybe Federer is the kind of player who can win slams at even his mid 30s, but that is ofcourse yet to be seen.

So you're saying Federer is perpetually in his main sequence, while rafa is on a hyper giant/supernova to black dwarf trajectory? :D (I love the space analogy)

While I do agree with certain elements of your post (Roger winning a slam 30+ and seemingly only slowing very slightly) I do think nearly all tennis players experience a line of best fit on the prime graph with certain anomalies, the only variable being the timescale which affects the curve.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2011, 04:06 PM
Basically, yes. Rosewall & Gonzales also have arguments, although I guess Gonzales was relatively weak on clay & Rosewall never won Wimbledon (though not being allowed to play for 13 years didn't help).

I personally see the GOAT debate in pairs. Up top you have Federer and Laver as the top 2. Whether someone wants to debate who was better can debate on and on until the apocalypse.

Then, you have guys like Sampras and Gonzales. Big, strong servers who never really excelled on clay.

Then you have Borg and Nadal. Clay kings who also excelled in other surfaces.

Those, to me, are the top 6 of all time. Rosewall at 7th, due to his never winning Wimbledon and being owned by Laver, Don Budge around 8th, Bill Tilden around 9th. Now, one could argue Budge and Tilden higher, but in the 20's and 30's when those guys played, the level of competition was nowhere near as high now, but those guys were still all-timers. Then you've got guys like Connors, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe in the next tier of players. In my opinion, at least.

So:

1- Laver
2- Federer
3- Sampras
4- Gonzales
5- Borg

These 5 in Tier 1

6- Nadal
7- Rosewall
8- Budge
9- Tilden

These 4 in Tier 2

10- Connors
11- Agassi
12- Lendl
13- Johnny Mac

These 4 in Tier 3

My top 13 of all time.

However, both Nadal and Federer have time to add to their greatness. Should Nadal approach 16 slams and a few years at #1, he'd pass Borg, get close to Sampras/Gonzales and perhaps end up at #3 all time when it is all said and done. We shall see.

Kworb
06-06-2011, 04:07 PM
he was slow in that final... i expected a less competitive match

It was competitive because Federer's backhand held up a little better than it usually does, not because Nadal was slow.

juan27
06-06-2011, 04:08 PM
maybe federer always felt nerves in 5 sets even in his peak because he always be so dominant with his perfect tennis always beat his rival fast and and to reach such instances not being well used he felt more nerveous....

but roger with 30 years old still beating the youngs stars like the invictus nole even in his wors surface.

with nadal was very influential the defeats in clay in his peak years and hasn`y possibility to take revenge because rafa in hard cours never reach finals in grand slams if roger had defeat rafa in many hc slams and grass in his peak maybe the history would be different or if roger should play with rafa in more hc and grass matches before the clay , sure roger would have the moral advantage and not rafa and other importan and determinate factor is the age too.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2011, 04:12 PM
Well said.

On the Federer 5-set point, yes he played well in the Wimbledon 2008 final set. He also played well in the A.O. 2005 final set. And both those sets could have gone either way. But they didn't. That's the point. Fed's record in 5th sets is particularly bad when they get really close. It's all right knocking off Haas or Simon or okay Nadal 6-2, but the only really close 5th sets I remember him winning were against Sampras (that was an impressive one), Tipsarevic, & TurkeyRod. So I agree his frailty against Nadal isn't something out of the blue.

Don't forget the AO 2009 final, when Federer mentally simply could not handle the 5th set moment.

Let's not even talk about the trophy ceremony :tape:

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 04:16 PM
Don't forget the AO 2009 final, when Federer mentally simply could not handle the 5th set moment.

Let's not even talk about the trophy ceremony :tape:

No, let's not. He also completely crumpled against Del Po at the U.S.O.

By the way, your rankings are very much along the right lines, but you're a bit unfair to Rosewall in my opinion.

RagingLamb
06-06-2011, 04:16 PM
I don't think this loss diminishes his aura. In fact the tournament as a whole, adds to it. The guy's playing unbelievably well for a player who's been on the decline for, what, 4 years now?

As far as I'm concerned, Federer already beat the best player on clay this season. The same guy who nadal got a crack at 4 times but couldn't figure out. People seem to have forgotten that little fact.

And he played Nadal very close. After the first set I wondered if he had enough heart to try to come back and he did. There is no shame in this loss.

During some of the points he was hitting what would be 5 winners against anyone else but still losing the point. Nothing you can do against a guy who plays you like that.

Sure, Roger has had enough time to figure Rafa out, but has failed to do so on clay. Still, to me this doesn't take away from his spectacular career.

I don't believe in a "goat" (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=6010893&postcount=39), but Roger is easily one of the greatest tennis players in history, and his record against any single player does not detract from that.

luie
06-06-2011, 04:16 PM
It was competitive because Federer's backhand held up a little better than it usually does, not because Nadal was slow.
Yes feds put in some hard work on his bh & it held up well against Novak n' nadull,,but alas it all boils down to "big points" & nadull is better than fed is this department,,due to greater focus.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 04:18 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Federer already beat the best player on clay this season. The same guy who nadal got a crack at 4 times but couldn't figure out. People seem to have forgotten that little fact.

Very true. Excellent post.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2011, 04:22 PM
No, let's not. He also completely crumpled against Del Po at the U.S.O.

By the way, your rankings are very much along the right lines, but you're a bit unfair to Rosewall in my opinion.

I still think Federer has the most complete resume of anyone. If the only thing we can pick from it was that he never beat the greatest claycourter ever in RG or never won the Holy Grail CYGS, well, the rest of his career must have been pretty damn good.

As for Rosewall, it is difficult to compare from the 60's. You had the separate pro and amateur tour and the best guys were either on one or the other side of it. Also funny how we never mention Emerson in these debates despite the fact he got himself 12 slams.

Rosewall to me is similar to Federer in that he dominated from '59 to '63 until Laver (Nadal) came along to wrest that mantle from him. Laver was then #1 from '64 to '69. And Laver also led the H2H.

Would you put Rosewall in Tier 1?

.-Federers_Mate-.
06-06-2011, 04:24 PM
You cant call yourself the best when there's a guy playing in the same day and age as you...who owns you. Who humiliates you every time you play. Who made you cry infront of millions. You just cant.

asmaridis
06-06-2011, 04:27 PM
Tennis is all about matchups as many have already said. Djokovic had always struggled against Federer because they normally are evenly matched. That is, Federer could and did grasp a win when he's on top form and when Djokovic is having a bad day (and vice versa). However, Djokovic has always showed potential to give Nadal lots of trouble and we all knew (or at least, myself) that it was only a matter of time before Djokovic matured and started giving Nadal a hard time, which he is doing right now. We'll have to wait for the grass season to start and see how well Djokovic will perform, though my expectations are not that high. I'm expecting a semi-final appearance at Wimbledon and maybe a final if he gets Murray on his side of the draw (only because Murray is a choker, not because he is unable to match up).

Roger the Dodger
06-06-2011, 04:27 PM
They paid somebody to write this?

Clearly a writer who spends too much time lurking on MTF and reacts to the popular trend. Not surprising. The net is a web of oppurtunities.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 04:30 PM
I still think Federer has the most complete resume of anyone. If the only thing we can pick from it was that he never beat the greatest claycourter ever in RG or never won the Holy Grail CYGS, well, the rest of his career must have been pretty damn good.

As for Rosewall, it is difficult to compare from the 60's. You had the separate pro and amateur tour and the best guys were either on one or the other side of it. Also funny how we never mention Emerson in these debates despite the fact he got himself 12 slams.

Rosewall to me is similar to Federer in that he dominated from '59 to '63 until Laver (Nadal) came along to wrest that mantle from him. Laver was then #1 from '64 to '69. And Laver also led the H2H.

Would you put Rosewall in Tier 1?

I think so. Laver led the H2H but it wasn't ownage & he was 5 years younger. Much of what you say against Rosewall you can also say against Fed. Rosewall won more major titles than anybody and his longevity at the highest level was astonishing. I agree though that the points against Fed are relatively minor.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2011, 04:50 PM
I think so. Laver led the H2H but it wasn't ownage & he was 5 years younger. Much of what you say against Rosewall you can also say against Fed. Rosewall won more major titles than anybody and his longevity at the highest level was astonishing. I agree though that the points against Fed are relatively minor.

Hmmm, maybe I was a bit hasty in my GOAT list making. Maybe it should be more like this:

Top 10 all time:

1- Rod Laver
2- Roger Federer
3- Pancho Gonzales
4- Pete Sampras
5- Ken Rosewall
6- Bill Tilden
7- Bjorn Borg
8- Rafael Nadal
9- Don Budge
10- Fred Perry

Though Tilden dominated only the 20's and Budge's career was cut short with a shoulder injury from his WW2 service.

Then 11-15 would be something like:

11- Jimmy Connors
12- Ivan Lendl
13- John Mcenroe
14- Henri Cochet
15- Roy Emerson

After that, you can get dicey from 16-25 or so, with a mix of Pre-Open Era guys like Sears, Renshaw, Lacoste, Larned, Crawford, Kramer, and Open Era guys like Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Newcombe, etc.

only laver is more talented.

Perhaps. Laver was a beast.

star
06-06-2011, 04:59 PM
I personally see the GOAT debate in pairs. Up top you have Federer and Laver as the top 2. Whether someone wants to debate who was better can debate on and on until the apocalypse.

Then, you have guys like Sampras and Gonzales. Big, strong servers who never really excelled on clay.

Then you have Borg and Nadal. Clay kings who also excelled in other surfaces.

Those, to me, are the top 6 of all time. Rosewall at 7th, due to his never winning Wimbledon and being owned by Laver, Don Budge around 8th, Bill Tilden around 9th. Now, one could argue Budge and Tilden higher, but in the 20's and 30's when those guys played, the level of competition was nowhere near as high now, but those guys were still all-timers. Then you've got guys like Connors, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe in the next tier of players. In my opinion, at least.

So:

1- Laver
2- Federer
3- Sampras
4- Gonzales
5- Borg

These 5 in Tier 1

6- Nadal
7- Rosewall
8- Budge
9- Tilden

These 4 in Tier 2

10- Connors
11- Agassi
12- Lendl
13- Johnny Mac

These 4 in Tier 3

My top 13 of all time.

However, both Nadal and Federer have time to add to their greatness. Should Nadal approach 16 slams and a few years at #1, he'd pass Borg, get close to Sampras/Gonzales and perhaps end up at #3 all time when it is all said and done. We shall see.

Don't you think Nadal would pass Borg long before he approached 16 GS titles? I'd say he'd pass Borg for sure with 12. If he reached 16 and Fed didn't acquire any more, then the GOAT argument with Fed would heat up significantly. Probably even if he reached 15.

Sapeod
06-06-2011, 05:00 PM
1- Rod Laver
2- Roger Federer
3- Pancho Gonzales
4- Pete Sampras
What? You've got to be kidding, right? Federer no.2 behind Laver?? And Sampras no.4?????? Behind Gonzales??? What are you on about??? Federer and Sampras are the top 2.

There are 5 things wrong with this.

1. Federer isn't no.1
2. Sampras isn't no.2
3. Gonzales is ahead of Sampras.
4. Laver is ahead of Federer.
5. Laver is ahead of Sampras.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 05:02 PM
Hmmm, maybe I was a bit hasty in my GOAT list making. Maybe it should be more like this:

Top 10 all time:

1- Rod Laver
2- Roger Federer
3- Pancho Gonzales
4- Pete Sampras
5- Ken Rosewall
6- Bill Tilden
7- Bjorn Borg
8- Rafeal Nadal
9- Don Budge
10- Fred Perry

Very close.

JolánGagó
06-06-2011, 05:04 PM
I don't think Nadal must reach 16 majors to dispute Federina's alleged GOATness. 17-8 goes bery bery far.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2011, 05:08 PM
Why is Laver mentioned? How many slams does he have and how many slams does Roger have? :wavey:

If you count Pro and Amateur slams, Laver has 19, including 2 CYGS.

Don't you think Nadal would pass Borg long before he approached 16 GS titles? I'd say he'd pass Borg for sure with 12. If he reached 16 and Fed didn't acquire any more, then the GOAT argument with Fed would heat up significantly. Probably even if he reached 15.

Hmmm, perhaps. But he needs more on grass and hard I think. He'd be very close to Borg if he won 11, perhaps passing if he won 12. If Nadal retires with 15 and Fed with 16, well, the debate would then go to total titles, weeks at #1, diversity of surface success, head to head, etc.

What? You've got to be kidding, right? Federer no.2 behind Laver?? And Sampras no.4?????? Behind Gonzales??? What are you on about??? Federer and Sampras are the top 2.

There are 5 things wrong with this.

1. Federer isn't no.1
2. Sampras isn't no.2
3. Gonzales is ahead of Sampras.
4. Laver is ahead of Federer.
5. Laver is ahead of Sampras.

PLEASE read a history book. Sweet Jesus. Tennis did not start in 1990.

luie
06-06-2011, 05:11 PM
Don't you think Nadal would pass Borg long before he approached 16 GS titles? I'd say he'd pass Borg for sure with 12. If he reached 16 and Fed didn't acquire any more, then the GOAT argument with Fed would heat up significantly. Probably even if he reached 15.
If nadull gets to 16 slams,,with a couple more HC slams without being owned by any-one else he could edge federer.
Via the h2h overall.

Sapeod
06-06-2011, 05:16 PM
If you count Pro and Amateur slams, Laver has 19, including 2 CYGS.

PLEASE read a history book. Sweet Jesus. Tennis did not start in 1990.
You can't possibly say that Laver is the GOAT because he has more slams in a weak era. Sure, he has a lot of slams. That puts him up there in the list, but that era cannot be compared to todays. Tennis is harder today, was harder in the 90s also. It is and was harder to win slams than in the 50s/60s. Therefore, Sampras and Federer are the top 2. You are kidding yourself if you put Laver at no.1 and Gonzales at no.3.

careergrandslam
06-06-2011, 05:20 PM
1. federer
2. laver
3. sampras
4. borg
5. nadal

Johnny Groove
06-06-2011, 05:23 PM
You can't possibly say that Laver is the GOAT because he has more slams in a weak era. Sure, he has a lot of slams. That puts him up there in the list, but that era cannot be compared to todays. Tennis is harder today, was harder in the 90s also. It is and was harder to win slams than in the 50s/60s. Therefore, Sampras and Federer are the top 2. You are kidding yourself if you put Laver at no.1 and Gonzales at no.3.

Laver and Gonzales were also #1 in the world for 6 and 8 years, respectively.

I'm not saying that Laver and Gonzales blow Federer and Sampras out of the water. I'm saying they edge them by small margins. I'm sure Sampras and Federer themselves will say that Laver and Gonzales were better. Shit, what was Sampras but a modern incarnation of Gonzales?

Fujee
06-06-2011, 05:24 PM
I think the idea of a GOAT subtracts from the achievements of all players concerned, including the player hailed as the greatest. The huge amount of variables invovled in the history of tennis creates inconsistencies in any argument for the greatest of all time.

Records are there to rank particular achievements in singular fields, the only way you can logically file tennis greats is through defined rankings, such as slam totals, surface victories, streaks, weeks/years at no.1, consistency etc; yet even these are terrible cursors for ranking greatness as the open era divide, changing and removal of surfaces and policy of amatuerism has stunted particular greats from achieving greater heights in their eras - you have to even take into account players who retired far too early such as Borg. You must too consider the era divides, you cannot compare them, they are subject to technological impact and rules which the game was/is governed by.

Which again brings me to my personal belief that "GOAT" is a worthless tag and poor indicator of sucess which subtracts from the achievements of contemporaries and legends passed.

Clay Death
06-06-2011, 05:25 PM
fed has said that on a few occasions:

the most notable one is just before the 2007 french open campaigns. he told a senior sports illustrated writer---in an interview and on the television--- in no uncertain terms that if he was to win the french open, he would be considered the "greatest ever to play the game".

he was being asked why it was so important for him to capture RG. anybody can dig this interview up.

.-Federers_Mate-.
06-06-2011, 05:29 PM
fed has said that on a few occasions:

the most notable one is just before the 2007 french open campaigns. he told a senior sports illustrated writer---in an interview and on the television--- in no uncertain terms that if he was to win the french open, he would be considered the "greatest ever to play the game".

he was being asked why it was so important for him to capture RG. anybody can dig this interview up.

Don't let the kid get to ya, bud. Everybody knows he's wrong and you're right.

Commander Data
06-06-2011, 05:29 PM
I don't think Nadal must reach 16 majors to dispute Federer's alleged GOATness. 17-8 goes bery bery far.

Only for Rafatards it does the trick and they are a minority ;)

If the 17-8 would be evenly spread over all surfaces it would at least have some credibility, but only once Nadal would get to 14 Slams.
Unless Nadal is below 14. I see no reason why Nadal > Sampras. Sampras was just as clutch as Nadal, won more overall, bigger records and has 7 titles on his fav surface.

so Rafa < Sampras and Fed > Sampras ergo. Fed > Sampras > Rafa => Fed >>> Rafa

peribsen
06-06-2011, 05:31 PM
This is the unavoidable problem with the ridiculous concept of goathood, there will always be some reason to harbour doubts about whether a player deserves it fully. Fed's bad luck is that this reason in his case is a guy from his own active lifetime.

Of course Fed's H2H with Nadal is not really important (it is, and a lot, for Rafa, since it's an honour for him to have won so many of his slams against such a huge opponent as Fed, but it shouldn't be relevant when appraising Roger's career). Fed's accomplishments are huge by any standard. Even if one acknowledges the complexity in comparing players from different ages, it's very difficult to find any other player who's achievements can be described as better than Fed's. Laver is the most likely alternative, and yet he played on only two surfaces, meaning he was never forced to face threats as varied as Fed has succesfully handled.

So there's some tragedy tinged by poetic justice at play here: Fed's fans have crafted a concept (the 'one and only goat') that is just too big for any mortal, even for their heroe, to fill unquestionably. So people will argue forever whether Fed deserves that impossible, absurd, superhuman title, while in the process running the risk of losing sight of just how mind boggling his achievements were and just how magnificient his game was. His fans addiction for hyperbole has fathered Federer's Nemesis.

For me, there has never been and will never be a goat, that is anybody so godlike that none of his facets may be compared unfavorably with somebody else.

But behind that empty throne, I have no doubt whatsoever that Fed is by far the best of the rest.

ballbasher101
06-06-2011, 05:44 PM
The GOAT problem is the real game of thrones. We all know that whoever wins the most majors becomes the GOAT or is regarded as the GOAT. People will say oh weak era this or weak era that, they will bring up surfaces but none of that will count against the number of majors a player has won. Right now Federer is the best ever. The question is will Nadal catch up? If Nadal catches up he will become the greatest simple as that. Yes the likes of Laver played only on grass and clay, it is not their fault. Some players did not play the OZ open in the past, screw them.

Greatness
06-06-2011, 05:51 PM
Hard to call yourself the GOAT when your main rival has beaten you in slam finals on
every surface and you have lost most of those finals.

sexybeast
06-06-2011, 06:05 PM
Well said.

On the Federer 5-set point, yes he played well in the Wimbledon 2008 final set. He also played well in the A.O. 2005 final set. And both those sets could have gone either way. But they didn't. That's the point. Fed's record in 5th sets is particularly bad when they get really close. It's all right knocking off Haas or Simon or okay Nadal 6-2, but the only really close 5th sets I remember him winning were against Sampras (that was an impressive one), Tipsarevic, & TurkeyRod. So I agree his frailty against Nadal isn't something out of the blue.

Federer's 5 set record is less than 50-50 against great players, I think a player with truly great mentality should be greater than 50-50 when he obviously is the greatest player in his generation. Why is Federer something like 70-30 to win a best of 5 set match against Djokovic, Safin, Del Potro, Nalbandian but less than 50-50 to win the 5th set?

Why does Federer never look like the greater player in that 5th set? Not even against Roddick he looked great, while Nadal looks almost unbeatable when the match goes to the 5th set.

I wont talk about those matches against Simon, Tipsarevic and Berdych. Federer got these important 5 setters against great player ever since he started dominated:

Safin Australian 2005
Nalbandian Master cup 2005
Nadal Wimbledon 2007
Nadal Wimbledon 2008
Nadal Australian Open 2009
Roddick Wimbledon 2009
Del Potro Roland Garros 2009
Del Potro Usopen 2009
Djokovic Usopen 2010

He is 3-6 in 5 setters against what I consider great tennis players. I decided not to count Rome 2008 or Miami 2005 as they are not really as important. He won the most important 5 setter against a very unexperienced Del Potro 2009 in Roland Garros. I think he played good in Wimbledon 2008 but still I dont know why he cant build on the momentum against Nadal, he had turned 0-2 in sets and had saved match points should have mental advantage. He saved 4,5 break points in the 5th set but still Nadal looked mentally stronger all the time. He showed fighting spirit in most of those 5 setters but couldnt play his best tennis at that 5th set, something I have seen from both Sampras and Nadal many times.

star
06-06-2011, 06:10 PM
He showed fighting spirit in most of those 5 setters but couldnt play his best tennis at that 5th set, something I have seen from both Sampras and Nadal many times.

He played quite well in the fifth sets in both 07 and 08. Playing well, doesn't mean you are always going to win. The margins are small in those close matches.

The question is whether one wilts in a fifth set, imo.

I think you should be a bit kinder to your fave.

luie
06-06-2011, 06:13 PM
Hard to call yourself the GOAT when your main rival has beaten you in slam finals on
every surface and you have lost most of those finals.
By all surfaces you mean 2 of 4 surfaces right.
Never played @ the USO,,fed has a 2-1 advantage @ Wimby....Not sure 1 slam final @ AO tells much...
However I understand your point nadull only owns fed @ RG clay,,but you stated all to look cool.:cool:

Myrre
06-06-2011, 06:39 PM
superb read. fair and balanced. he gives them both plenty of praise.

truth eats away at the clueless federereeeeeesians blown away with their blind worship.

smart federereeeeeeesians of course know better.

This is just a sports journalists opinion. Is he an expert on tennis? I don't think so. He writes mostly about football (i.e. soccer) and rugby.

Saberq
06-06-2011, 06:42 PM
Federer is better than Nadal in every aspect of the game...FH,BH,Serve,volleys,movement,aura,talent... .Prime VS Prime on grass Federer wins ,Prime VS Prime on Clay Nadal wins,Prime VS Prime on hard,indoor ect Federer wins.....

Saberq
06-06-2011, 06:44 PM
What? You've got to be kidding, right? Federer no.2 behind Laver?? And Sampras no.4?????? Behind Gonzales??? What are you on about??? Federer and Sampras are the top 2.

There are 5 things wrong with this.

1. Federer isn't no.1
2. Sampras isn't no.2
3. Gonzales is ahead of Sampras.
4. Laver is ahead of Federer.
5. Laver is ahead of Sampras.

This...................What Laver played was not even tennis if you look at last 20 years ...Screw Laver and Perry and those dinosaurs that serve and volley shit

bokehlicious
06-06-2011, 06:45 PM
So "praising" articles are dumped into the player forums in a flash instant but bashing articles can stay here since it's good fuel for the haters... and people cry that this damn site is pro federer :rolleyes:

homogenius
06-06-2011, 06:48 PM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

More like "who are they ?".I don't think there is only one GOAT.

Mountaindewslave
06-06-2011, 07:01 PM
Rafatards that think their dear Rafa is a shoe in for GOAT are really in for a rude surprise in less than two years' time.

You have been warned.

sounds like you are more trying to convince yourself than anyone else, if so confident then why the need to point it out so often? could it be that you are so fragile after Nadal winning another Grand Slam only days ago? Probably <3

Mountaindewslave
06-06-2011, 07:13 PM
I personally see the GOAT debate in pairs. Up top you have Federer and Laver as the top 2. Whether someone wants to debate who was better can debate on and on until the apocalypse.

Then, you have guys like Sampras and Gonzales. Big, strong servers who never really excelled on clay.

Then you have Borg and Nadal. Clay kings who also excelled in other surfaces.

Those, to me, are the top 6 of all time. Rosewall at 7th, due to his never winning Wimbledon and being owned by Laver, Don Budge around 8th, Bill Tilden around 9th. Now, one could argue Budge and Tilden higher, but in the 20's and 30's when those guys played, the level of competition was nowhere near as high now, but those guys were still all-timers. Then you've got guys like Connors, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe in the next tier of players. In my opinion, at least.

So:

1- Laver
2- Federer
3- Sampras
4- Gonzales
5- Borg

These 5 in Tier 1

6- Nadal
7- Rosewall
8- Budge
9- Tilden

These 4 in Tier 2

10- Connors
11- Agassi
12- Lendl
13- Johnny Mac

These 4 in Tier 3

My top 13 of all time.

However, both Nadal and Federer have time to add to their greatness. Should Nadal approach 16 slams and a few years at #1, he'd pass Borg, get close to Sampras/Gonzales and perhaps end up at #3 all time when it is all said and done. We shall see.

some of this seems about right, but it is absurd to say that if Nadal reaches 16 slams or more that he will only be getting 'close' to Sampras/Gonzales, he will surpass Gonzales easily and SAMPRAS??? whom didn't even have the career grand slam?? I know this is all hypothetical, but I just cannot see Sampras winning GOAT comparisons against Nadal if Nadal were to get past 16 slams

Johnny Groove
06-07-2011, 12:59 AM
some of this seems about right, but it is absurd to say that if Nadal reaches 16 slams or more that he will only be getting 'close' to Sampras/Gonzales, he will surpass Gonzales easily and SAMPRAS??? whom didn't even have the career grand slam?? I know this is all hypothetical, but I just cannot see Sampras winning GOAT comparisons against Nadal if Nadal were to get past 16 slams

If Nadal were to get 16 slams, of course he'd be in there with Federer and Laver. If he ended up at 13-14, then the conversation for Sampras and Gonzales becomes more valid.

BK123
06-07-2011, 01:31 AM
The fact Federer can hardly defeat and is at a lost to counter Nadal shows that he definitely isn't the GOAT. So, what if the others have not won all the GS or won as many, they at least had real rivalries.

Federer gets fucked by Nadal hard every single time it counts.

Mjau!
06-07-2011, 02:31 AM
For all the talk about Rafa beating Feddy on all surfaces, the fact is Nadal only has the lead H2H on one surface - clay. Off dirt, they are pretty much tied, but Roger has the slight advantage. Rafa has wins on HC and grass as well, but he certainly isn't ahead by any means.

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. What is 12-2 supposed to tell us that 6-1 doesn't? :shrug:

luie
06-07-2011, 02:43 AM
The fact Federer can hardly defeat and is at a lost to counter Nadal shows that he definitely isn't the GOAT. So, what if the others have not won all the GS or won as many, they at least had real rivalries.

Federer gets fucked by Nadal hard every single time it counts.
Normally you are right but,,
The problem is history left a loop hole & fed is enjoying the benefits.
For eg lets take some-open era greats.
Sampras-he has 14 OK, none on clay OK, but owned by none one especially his Main rival agassi.
He is 5-3 advantage @ slams but here is the deal breaker,,he is 3-0 against agassi @ the FO & AO. So he never defeated his main rival on his weaker surfaces.
Borg has 11 slams owned by no one 7-7 against Mc enroe but here is the deal breaker left the game @ 26.
If fed had left the game @ 26,,he wouldn't have lost to nadull @ FO 08, Wimby 08,AO 09,FO 11..
So past prime federer would have avioded 4 GS defeats,,if he decided to leave the game after his PRIME etc.
lendl is another case but you get the picture.

stewietennis
06-07-2011, 02:56 AM
If fed had left the game @ 26,,he wouldn't have lost to nadull @ FO 08, Wimby 08,AO 09,FO 11..
So past prime federer would have avioded 4 GS defeats,,if he decided to leave the game after his PRIME etc.
lendl is another case but you get the picture.

Federer wouldn't have the losses to Nadal but he wouldn't have his French Open title either, and would fall short of 14 slams and weeks at number 1, so he would be Sampras-Lite.

luie
06-07-2011, 03:07 AM
Federer wouldn't have the losses to Nadal but he wouldn't have his French Open title either, and would fall short of 14 slams and weeks at number 1, so he would be Sampras-Lite.


Yeah,,good point but it was a bi-lateral comparison with borg,,as the younger Mc enroe was gaining the ascendency in the rivalry..
If we are refering to Sampras it would have to be more age appropriate,,since won his last slam @31 years & his 13 @ 28/29,, so age related fed is ahead of him.Fed finals @ FO would help make a case but not full proof.

Net Cord
06-07-2011, 03:08 AM
Whether you are a fan of Nadal, Federer, or neither, I think you'll enjoy it.

Posnanski Article (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/06/06/the-unbeatable-rafa/?sct=tn_t11_a1)

juan27
06-07-2011, 03:28 AM
The fact Federer can hardly defeat and is at a lost to counter Nadal shows that he definitely isn't the GOAT. So, what if the others have not won all the GS or won as many, they at least had real rivalries.

Federer gets fucked by Nadal hard every single time it counts.

nobody of the great had a rival so hard like nadal!!!

agassi can`t compare with rafa in any point, andre was a greates palyer but was very irregular and he is dissapeared of tennis 1 year or more!!

and pete lost with andre ao or fo.

federer can destroy the rivals of the other gratest because the problem is the style of tennis of nadal that is unique in the all history.

if federer has a agassi, he hasn`t any problem

NadalPhan
06-07-2011, 03:39 AM
Federer would eat guys like Laver for breakfast, and I mean it too. Laver would not stand a chance against the likes of Federer, Sampras, etc on any surface.

finishingmove
06-07-2011, 03:53 AM
he said nadal is the goat

SheepleBuster
06-07-2011, 04:08 AM
Mods. Please ban the poster and remove this post. And then burn all the evidence that this post ever existed

Topspindoctor
06-07-2011, 04:12 AM
Mods. Please ban the poster and remove this post. And then burn all the evidence that this post ever existed

Haters gonna hate.

stewietennis
06-07-2011, 04:42 AM
Federer would eat guys like Laver for breakfast, and I mean it too. Laver would not stand a chance against the likes of Federer, Sampras, etc on any surface.

That's not really a fair comparison because of the evolution of the athlete – better equipment, better diet, better exercise and learning from the past. That's like taking tennis players from the 1920s who wore pants and pitting them against Roy Emerson – they would get curbstomped.

bokehlicious
06-07-2011, 06:36 AM
Does every bullshit article need a separate thread? :stupid:

moderation............ :rolleyes:

2003
06-07-2011, 06:50 AM
Why do people always bring up Feds h2h with Nadal, but never the number of pigeons he has?

For example, Nadal doesnt have this negative h2h thing, but he doesnt have anyone else hes truely dominated.

Look at Federer,

He has CRUSHED Roddick and countless others leading h2hs by massive margins.

The same cant be said about Capsical.

In my opinion, to be GOAT, DOMINANCE is one of the most important things.

On all surfaces, Nadal has only really DOMINATED one person.

FEDERER has DOMINATED heaps.

2003
06-07-2011, 06:55 AM
Not to mention the one player Nadal did dominate, Federer, Fed often looked the better player in the matches, but choked horribly.

Look at what Federer did to Roddick.

Nadal could never do that to one person. He doesnt possess the game.

Pirata.
06-07-2011, 07:03 AM
You cant call yourself the best when there's a guy playing in the same day and age as you...who owns you. Who humiliates you every time you play. Who made you cry infront of millions. You just cant.

Your sig is out of date you gloryhunting tard.

For example, Nadal doesnt have this negative h2h thing, but he doesnt have anyone else hes truely dominated.

He has Verdasco :haha:

Probably Hrbaty is the real GOAT. Isn't he the only guy with a positive H2H with both Roger and Rafa?

Pirata.
06-07-2011, 07:15 AM
Anyway, here are your modern GOATs. Rafa cannot be considered GOAT until he poses for a picture with these all-time greats :shrug:

http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Federer_Borg_Laver_Sampras.jpg

Jaz
06-07-2011, 10:53 AM
Anyway, here are your modern GOATs. Rafa cannot be considered GOAT until he poses for a picture with these all-time greats :shrug:

http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Federer_Borg_Laver_Sampras.jpg

Does this mean Federer has to stand with Nadal when he surpasses 16?

FlameOn
06-07-2011, 11:02 AM
Of course it dims it. GOAT's shouldn't be anyone's bitch and they shouldn't be a distant second on any surface.

thrust
06-07-2011, 11:05 AM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

LAVER!

Commander Data
06-07-2011, 11:09 AM
On all surfaces, Nadal has only really DOMINATED one person.

FEDERER has DOMINATED heaps.

Nadal has not dominated Fed, he only dominated Fed on his best surface, clay. outside clay, Fed has shown that he is better then Nadal

You think that if they played all these RG matches at the US Open, Rafa would have a good H2H with Fed? Fed would have crushed Nadal mutiple times and the mental ownage for this matchup would be reversed. Likely resulting in Fed owning Nadal in the H2H.

Nadal owning Fed on clay is not enough to destroy Feds legend nor is it enough to make Nadal the Greatest ever.

IF Nadal matches Feds GS count it will give him the GOAT title, until then it is just a footnote in the history books of tennis.

Commander Data
06-07-2011, 11:17 AM
Of course it dims it. GOAT's shouldn't be anyone's bitch and they shouldn't be a distant second on any surface.

why not? Sampras was nowhere on clay and still in the GOAT-debate. Laver did not win any slams on HC as it was all grass and clay back then.

There is no single GOAT canditate that dominated on all surfaces present today.

Corey Feldman
06-07-2011, 11:25 AM
how can any career be dimmed when you have 16 GS's and your major rival is still 6 behind you

not to mention 6 Wimbledon titles, Nadal's RG record might be cool but thats RG... its not Wimbledon which is universally seen as the greatest and most famous championship in the world - remembering Roger won 5 years on the spin as well.. a feat Nadal couldnt do at the French

MariaV
06-07-2011, 11:34 AM
Nadal owning Fed on clay is not enough to destroy Feds legend nor is it enough to make Nadal the Greatest ever.


Of course it's not. :hug:

how can any career be dimmed when you have 16 GS's and your major rival is still 6 behind you

not to mention 6 Wimbledon titles, Nadal's RG record might be cool but thats RG... its not Wimbledon which is universally seen as the greatest and most famous championship in the world - remembering Roger won 5 years on the spin as well.. a feat Nadal couldnt do at the French

:kiss:
Rafa himself considers Wimbledon the most important (generally, even if RG may be more important for him every year), the most prestigious tournament and his Wimbledon titles the most valuable. (I think he said smth like that again in one of the Q&As in The Telegraph).

Commander Data
06-07-2011, 11:52 AM
Who the hell care of GOATness?

everybody cares for what he can get I guess :hug:

I rather see my player losing a couple RG finals while having the most successful tennis career ever, then owning his rival on his best surface but overall getting owned more then not by his opponents.

JolánGagó
06-07-2011, 12:00 PM
everybody cares for what he can get I guess :hug:

I rather see my player losing a couple RG finals while having the most successful tennis career ever, then owning his rival on his best surface but overall getting owned more then not by his opponents.

"A couple of RG finals" :haha:

Everyone cares for what he can get, yep :hug:

17-8, sukit.

Mjau!
06-07-2011, 12:56 PM
why not? Sampras was nowhere on clay and still in the GOAT-debate. Laver did not win any slams on HC as it was all grass and clay back then.

There is no single GOAT canditate that dominated on all surfaces present today.

Surely that cannot be held against him? :unsure:

Commander Data
06-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Surely that cannot be held against him? :unsure:

No surley not, but one may contemplete if the era's are even comparable.

I for one think that the time of Laver can not be compared with the sport today and that therefore people who say Laver ist the GOAT simply bitch out of the real question.

Nole fan
06-07-2011, 02:51 PM
Exactly, the argument is so redundant because no one side can conclusively decide who is better as hatred/rivalry/distaste for players cloud genuine judgement. I say everyone have their own GOAT and be done with it, Laver is a GOAT because he was so dominant in a time of poor professional management, Borg is a GOAT because he was supremely talented and ahead of his time, McEnroe for being other worldly talented, Lendl for determination to improve and dominate, Sampras for modern supremity, Connors for tenacity, Agassi for fighting his demons and suceeding stupendously in a sport he struggled to love, Federer for the great talents blessed to him and the domination he displayed, Nadal for the never say die mindset - willingness to improve and suceed on surfaces which aren't his preferred etc

There will never be an exclusive GOAT as every player will have some form of hole in their CV, its inevitable in a sport which commands fields of simultaneous greats. Find your own GOAT and love that player for what they individually contributed to a great sport.

Best quote this year, I give you the trophy. People should learn from this. :)

Nole fan
06-07-2011, 02:54 PM
fed should just let the history be the judge and at least wait until his career is over.

nadal gives the best answer. he says only when the reporters keep pressing him over and over and over again. he says he is "among the best" and that is enough for him.

fed, on the other hand, as if he was pedaling his wares, will tell anybody and has actually done it a few times that he would like to be known as "the greatest ever to play the game".

that is not a sound position: how can you be the greatest of ALL TIME when you are not even the greatest of RIGHT NOW?

it also disrespects immensely the true greats of the game. they all dominated the field before them and carved out their immortality.

fed did the same thing. he dominated the field that he was presented with and then came along a stronger field. and now the stronger field wants a piece of that tennis immortality also.

let the history be the judge when their careers are over.

the most agreed upon position: both nadal and fed have become all time greats of the sport.

if you try to compare the two too hard, fed comes out on the losing end. he is just not good enough to beat a guy with 1/2 the tools he has.

and quite honestly all the tools in the world dont matter at the highest level of sports. mental discipline, testicular fortitude, relentless will, and the like count for a lot.

Excellent post, general.

Manequin75
06-07-2011, 02:59 PM
nadal's sheer will and determination coupled with his talent beats federer's extraordinary talent.

u can see on federer's eyes that he doesnt believe he can beat rafa.
everytime he gets close, his doubts comes back an he freezes.

he puffs out his chest and has his strut against every other player, but against rafa he just becomes another player.

rafa is one amazing human being. nothing rattles this guy. he can reset his mind after every point.

so now u are back to saying good things about Rafa :)

Manequin75
06-07-2011, 03:02 PM
so are some of you guys saying that if this Federer that we saw in RG will meet Rafa in Wimbledon then Fed will lose for sure? Is that what I am reading? You know that Fed leads Rafa 2-1 on grass and even the win that rafa had was a very very very close match. I think Fed is in super form and should be the favorite for Wimbledon. Sure it would be great if Rafa can pull it off but lets see how he switches from clay to grass in queens.

Corey Feldman
06-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Best quote this year, I give you the trophy. People should learn from this. :)maybe people are right that you can never say who is the real GOAT

but there is a stat in black & white thats gives cold hard facts and thats numbers (which are colder than death itself - clay death 2009)

and on that list it says: No.1 Roger Federer 16

Nadal is somewhere down on that list at 10

its really that simple and cant be disputed :wavey:

Nole fan
06-07-2011, 04:08 PM
maybe people are right that you can never say who is the real GOAT

but there is a stat in black & white thats gives cold hard facts and thats numbers (which are colder than death itself - clay death 2009)

and on that list it says: No.1 Roger Federer 16

Nadal is somewhere down on that list at 10

its really that simple and cant be disputed :wavey:

It can be disputed because Federer is in the final stage of his career while Rafa is at his peak and has a good four or five years ahead of him. So no, the debate is not settled yet. Let's wait when both palyers end their careers, allright? That would be more fair. As for now, yes, Roger is the Goat. happy? :)

Corey Feldman
06-07-2011, 04:13 PM
It can be disputed because Federer is in the final stage of his career while Rafa is at his peak and has a good four or five years ahead of him. So no, the debate is not settled yet. Let's wait when both palyers end their careers, allright? That would be more fair. As for now, yes, Roger is the Goat. happy? :)no coz i dont need to hear Fed is the GOAT from anyone other than my own opinion

i told you, i dont go by opinions... i go by the numbers, and Fed is #1, its simple and there in black & white until someone passes him

and my other view is this: you keep talking about how Nadal is 5 years younger, so in that case i tell you and his tards... let him achieve his glory in those next years and see if you can call him GOAT then, dont do it now when he hasnt done it yet - this isnt when you order something and enjoy it before you have paid for it

at least Roger has done his business well from 25 till 29.5 years old, so we can talk about it proudly

Hensafmurrafter
06-07-2011, 04:16 PM
Fabrice Santoro had Marat Safin's number... excellent record against him... but would anyone say he was a better player?

BULLZ1LLA
06-07-2011, 04:46 PM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

(You've got to ask yourself..... Would Nalbandian, Roddick and Hewitt beat Laver or Borg? Even once? Nope. So is it fair to call Federer greatest who ever lived based on him beating those guys?)

Corey Feldman
06-07-2011, 04:49 PM
(You've got to ask yourself..... Would Nalbandian, Roddick and Hewitt beat Laver or Borg? Even once? Nope. So is it fair to call Federer greatest who ever lived based on him beating those guys?)what %age of your brain even knows the kind of players Laver and Borg lost to? i'm guessing less than 1%

Chair Umpire
06-07-2011, 04:51 PM
Excellent article. It speaks out loud and clear what is surrounding over everybody's mind and many doesn't want to admit.

BULLZ1LLA
06-07-2011, 04:58 PM
Excellent article. It speaks out loud and clear what is surrounding over everybody's mind and many doesn't want to admit.

(It also calls out Federer for his latest remarks. He's never really grown up, still too undignified to face facts :o )

ZakMcCrack
06-07-2011, 05:22 PM
fed should just let the history be the judge and at least wait until his career is over.

nadal gives the best answer. he says only when the reporters keep pressing him over and over and over again. he says he is "among the best" and that is enough for him.

fed, on the other hand, as if he was pedaling his wares, will tell anybody and has actually done it a few times that he would like to be known as "the greatest ever to play the game".

that is not a sound position: how can you be the greatest of ALL TIME when you are not even the greatest of RIGHT NOW?

it also disrespects immensely the true greats of the game. they all dominated the field before them and carved out their immortality.


You ought to know better, esteemed CD. I assume one of those countless gusts of wind breezing in and out "Court Philippe Chatrier" carried some of the "arena" into your eyes, now clouding your sight as you seem to misjudge Federer. I'm pretty sure he's more than content only to take part in that august coterie amongst the greats, sitting at the Round Table and finding delight in their company. Or have you forgotten how deeply touched he once was by Rod Laver's presence?

careergrandslam
06-07-2011, 05:32 PM
http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Federer_Borg_Laver_Sampras.jpg

my top 5 GOAT:

1. federer
2. laver
3. sampras
4. borg
5. nadal

only rafa is missing from this picture. but rafa needs 2 more wimbledons.

FormerRafaFan
06-07-2011, 05:41 PM
This is complete :bs: And this is coming from a fan of Rafa. Yeah, Rafa is leading the H2H, but does it really matter? Fed is still the greatest player in the history of the sport, and he will continue to be the greatest for years to come. Neither Rafa or Nole can win more slams than him.

Poirot123
06-07-2011, 05:51 PM
This debate is insane. To say Federer's aura has dimmed because he over achieved last week against public expectations is crazy. Before the FO this year, nobody thought Federer had a chance of winning it. It's his worst surface for starters. Second he hasn't done anything on clay this year. And thirdly Rafa (king of clay) and Djokovic had been much better in the first 6 months of this year. Thus Federer was hardly mentioned when discussing winners of the tournament. Had he quietly gone out of the tournment in the SF to Djokovic, as people expected, then nobody would be having this debate. Hell, I saw people on MTF predicting Tipsarevic to take Federer out in the 3rd round, a reflection on how some see his level these days. Had Federer fallen early, Federer would still have his 16 grand slams, Rafa would have his 10 (although arguably Djokovic could've beaten him in the final like he has done 4 times this year already) and we'd all be saying, "Rafa is the king of clay" and no one would be questioning Federer's GOAT ranking as everyone would be just like "oh he's in decline in his old age, he's done, he's not expected to win anymore but he's got 16 slams, so he's the master" and his aura wouldn't have dimmed, just because he lost to a guy, in a final he should never have made, in the closest ever RG final they've had, on a surface where Rafa is virtually unbeatable (1 loss in 7 years). I mean. Come on guys.

Lets see what happens at Wimbledon this year and the US Open and then return to this debate, Federer's better surfaces (where he has 11 Grand Slams to Rafa's 3).

CyBorg
06-07-2011, 05:54 PM
The question is, if Federer isn't the GOAT who is? Most journalists are too ignorant to have any plausible alternative.

I can think of at least four guys.

CyBorg
06-07-2011, 05:55 PM
There will never be an exclusive GOAT as every player will have some form of hole in their CV, its inevitable in a sport which commands fields of simultaneous greats. Find your own GOAT and love that player for what they individually contributed to a great sport.

Laver has no holes in his resume.

superslam77
06-07-2011, 05:58 PM
1.Fed 2.Sampras 3.Borg 4.Laver

Nadal is disqualified and will have to give back trophies eventually.
Toni better pray he doesn't get a heart attack soon.

superslam77
06-07-2011, 06:00 PM
Laver has no holes in his resume.

:rolleyes: 60's weak compo and GS's only grass. Sampras would have 40 slams back then.

CyBorg
06-07-2011, 06:02 PM
why not? Sampras was nowhere on clay and still in the GOAT-debate. Laver did not win any slams on HC as it was all grass and clay back then.

There is no single GOAT canditate that dominated on all surfaces present today.

Laver did. Rosewall did.

You're mistaken about the grand slam. Laver did not even play it for most of his career. The man won tons of events on hard/carpet surfaces.

CyBorg
06-07-2011, 06:03 PM
:rolleyes: 60's weak compo and GS's only grass. Sampras would have 40 slams back then.

Yeah, sure sure. 40 seems a bit low though. Try 60, 70, 120.

CyBorg
06-07-2011, 06:06 PM
If Nadal were to get 16 slams, of course he'd be in there with Federer and Laver. If he ended up at 13-14, then the conversation for Sampras and Gonzales becomes more valid.

What is the logic here? By what criteria are you even judging Gonzales?

I'm curious because the man only played grand slam events as an amateur. How is it that you manage to adjust his results to 13-14 grand slam events?

It seems to me that most people here don't really know what they're talking about.

Pirata.
06-07-2011, 06:53 PM
Fabrice Santoro had Marat Safin's number... excellent record against him... but would anyone say he was a better player?

Two time Grand Slam champion and former #1 with a losing record against a guy, amazing and entertaining as he is, with more matches lost than won on the ATP :haha:

Chair Umpire
06-07-2011, 08:12 PM
Nadal has not dominated Fed, he only dominated Fed on his best surface, clay. outside clay, Fed has shown that he is better then Nadal

You think that if they played all these RG matches at the US Open, Rafa would have a good H2H with Fed? Fed would have crushed Nadal mutiple times and the mental ownage for this matchup would be reversed. Likely resulting in Fed owning Nadal in the H2H.

:bs:


Nadal has beaten Roger on ALL surfaces in a GS final already (first it was RG, then Wimbledon, and finally AO.)

We are still waiting for Roger to do the same. :shrug: Specially on clay where he has gotten enough chances to figure out how to beat Rafa.

Rafa didn't need too many chances to beat Roger on hard in a 5-sets final (AO) and we all remember how Roger reacted that day, right? Something tells me that Roger wouldn't share your assumptions.

H2H: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

Hard: 4-4
Grass: 2-1
Clay: 2-12

(PS- I'm not trying to point out Rafa to be the GOAT btw, just arguing against your arrogant assumptions about Fed owning Rafa in other surfaces).

PandoraPandora
06-07-2011, 08:21 PM
Some advice:

Don't read the Telegraph. It is for the over 60s and is pompous and a dirge. If you want a broadsheet read The Times or The Guardian.

Kiedis
06-07-2011, 09:04 PM
The whole GOAT issue is only suitable for hysterical fangurls. Nobody minimally intelligent would never use that concept in a serious context.

chammer44
06-07-2011, 09:19 PM
“Who cares?” was Federer’s response. “Who cares where you stand?”



http://www.daleisphere.com/wp-content/uploads/wimbledon2009federers15slamdesignercardiganroddick atthenetinthebackground.jpg
ya who cares Roger. Who cares.

Pirata.
06-07-2011, 09:25 PM
Nice job using a screencap of him showing it to Sue Barker, not flaunting it himself. In fact, I'm pretty sure had Sue not mentioned it, probably no one would've said anything. You can barely see it and it's not like they don't already have pre-printed shirts and hats for championship teams in most sports.

Time for everyone to get over the 16. Both Roger and Rafa (and iirc, Serena) have the slam numbers on their shoes, but I guess that's not a big deal :shrug:

Nole fan
06-07-2011, 09:33 PM
http://www.daleisphere.com/wp-content/uploads/wimbledon2009federers15slamdesignercardiganroddick atthenetinthebackground.jpg
ya who cares Roger. Who cares.

That's :haha:

bokehlicious
06-07-2011, 09:35 PM
That's :haha:

If Nole was good enough to own the slam record you can bet he would have it tattooed on his forehead :hug:

Pirata.
06-07-2011, 09:50 PM
If Nole was good enough to own the slam record you can bet he would have it tattooed on his forehead :hug:

She would have it tattooed on her own forehead :rolls:

BULLZ1LLA
06-08-2011, 02:43 AM
Lets see what happens at Wimbledon this year and the US Open and then return to this debate, Federer's better surfaces (where he has 11 Grand Slams to Rafa's 3).

(I wouldn't read too much into that stat. Rafa is only 25, and has only just reached his hardcourt prime, making Indian Wells and Miami Finals, first time he's ever made both finals in the same year. Equaled the US Open record for fewest service breaks. And at Wimbledon, hasn't missed a final since 2005. The problem for Federer is, he finds it almost impossible to break Rafa's serve on grass. That slice serve is a killer)