Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

william_renshaw
06-12-2012, 10:55 PM
Year after year, tennis writers and commentators go on about Federer and his 16 majors. At tournaments around the world, Federer gets automatic centre court/prime time billing, sometimes ahead of Djokovic and Nadal, and he has an army of loyal fans who won't hear a word spoken against him, and insist that he is the greatest player of all time without question.

But does the number 16 really have as much relevance when you consider how he got there?

Look at the era in which Federer won most of his majors: a poor era where he was beating reasonably good (but not great) or distinctly average players in semis and finals: Philippoussis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Haas. For goodness sake, he even had Jonas Bjorkman (no disrespect-a great doubles player-but come on) as a semi-final opponent at Wimbledon one year.
Many refer to the AO match against Roddick in 2007 as one of Federer’s finest. But that sums it up really – watch that match again (it’s on youtube). Roddick charging into the net like a nutcase off a terrible approach shot all the time, and Federer made to look very good by pulling off straightforward passing shots. The era 2003-2007 was pretty average, all things considered.

When he finally came up against serious opposition, (Nadal on clay since 2005, Nadal & Djokovic on other surfaces from 2008 onwards) he hasn’t been able to live with it, and has consistently fallen short. How on earth can people be so ignorant to call Roger the GOAT when his record in majors against Nadal is an appalling 2-8 (and it should really be 1-9, as Rafa was denied the 2007 Wimbledon Crown thanks to some appalling scheduling, with Nadal made to play Soderling across five days while Fed got a walkover into the SF and had a nice little rest).

If you trail one of your main rivals 8-2 in majors, you are not the GOAT, period.

But it’s not just Nadal. Since Djokovic got his game together in 2008, he leads Federer 5-3 in slam encounters, plus the Serb had big chances to win the USO final 2007, sadly choking at crucial moments in every set.

Oh, and when Fed has fallen short since 2008, there’s always been an excuse. Against Djokovic in AO 2008 he was ill, Against Nadal in Wimbledon that year, it was the bad light. Against Nadal in AO 2009 he wept like a baby. Against Soderling in RG 2010 he blamed the weather and heavy conditions. Against Berdych a few weeks later at Wimbledon, he said “I’ve been nursing a back and leg injury for a couple of weeks” despite saying after the Falla five setter :lol: that he had absolutely no injury problems at all. Against Tsonga the following year he said his opponent just took a few swings and got lucky. It’s really sad, but predictable, that he seems to have believed his own hype and couldn’t accept that he is simply nowhere near the best of his generation.

Look at who Djokovic and Nadal have beaten in the latter stages en route to their majors – each other, Federer and Murray – outstanding players compared with the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Haas, Davydenko. Since 2008 Nadal hasn’t been hit off the court by Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling etc except RG2009 when he was clearly injured and suffering personal issues.

Look at it this way – the great William Renshaw won seven Wimbledon titles, William Larned and Richard Sears each won seven US Open titles. Do tennis historians rank them as up there with Sampras and Laver in all-time great discussions? Why not?

Because it’s about quality not quantity.

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 11:02 PM
William Renshaw won a bunch of CLOWN slams. Great my arse.

Ben.
06-12-2012, 11:06 PM
The quantity is objective though. Everything else is subjective, as you will see from the responses this thread gets.

What we've seen with Nadal and Djokovic is consistent pressure on Federer and one another, and how it culminated in shifting momentum and changes in dominance. The only person consistently putting pressure on Federer, during the period you mention, was Roddick. The other great talents of that time failed to find consistency, for various reasons.

Freak3yman84
06-12-2012, 11:07 PM
I voted no, mostly because your point was more hating than actually making a logical point :shrug:

Looner
06-12-2012, 11:26 PM
Even if it does, you'd need people to live for years and years for quality to be judged and even then most fans won't agree.

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 11:29 PM
:lol:

This is some pretty ridiculous bollocks. I actually agree that quality means more than numbers, but your reasoning is some of most fanboyish stuff I've ever come across.

May I ask what you're trying to prove with this?

Quadruple Tree
06-12-2012, 11:54 PM
Oh, cool, this thread again.

ossie
06-13-2012, 12:01 AM
as good as federer is, he won most of his slams in a pathetic era. delpo, nadal and djokovic have shown us his true colours.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 12:12 AM
Must have been nice to win most of your slams facing gutless clowns and talentless mugs like Hewitt and Roddick. Nadal didn't have that luxury for sure.

Mountaindewslave
06-13-2012, 12:12 AM
as good as federer is, he won most of his slams in a pathetic era. delpo, nadal and djokovic have shown us his true colours.

you're an idiot. they showed his true colors when he was 30 years old? you're a fool if you believe that, the reality is that players decline with age. Federer in his mid 20's was a far more complete and better play than Nadal or Djokovic will ever be in their careers or ever have been, except for maybe Nadal on clay. only a clown would say that "Federer was unmasked" when he he got older and started losing, what a joke and so disrespectful.

quality is an extremely subjective thing but what you can be certain of for decades and practically the entire open era, is that there is extremely tough opposition and competition in the field consistantly. there aren't years and seasons when a large amount of players don't have the desire to win, they're always there.

the quantity is what is significant because it means that a player kept winning big tournaments over possibly multiple generations of great players. no grand slam in the open era has been that EASY to win, regardless of the OP's insinuations.

quantity > quality, because you can't really prove that a tournament was of extremely poor quality with the huge number of matches and variables involved.

you can be certain that winning just one Grand Slam in the last 4 decades or more has been an extremely tough task and that every player who accomplished the feat had other very talented players across the net giving it their talent and heart and soul to win.

silly thread, and the remarkable thing is I seriously doubt the OP could come up with any case where a player with a few slams seemed more impressive than a player with many. totally unbased discussion

BauerAlmeida
06-13-2012, 12:13 AM
Must have been nice to win most of your slams facing gutless clowns and talentless mugs like Hewitt and Roddick. Nadal didn't have that luxury for sure.

He had the luxury of playing in the same surface all year:D

Mountaindewslave
06-13-2012, 12:14 AM
Must have been nice to win most of your slams facing gutless clowns and talentless mugs like Hewitt and Roddick. Nadal didn't have that luxury for sure.

Federer in his prime would and could beat any opposition, do not be silly Topspindocter, and make no mistake, Hewitt at his best played very similarly to Nadal and Roddick at his best was insane at the baseline. I can show you some youtube clips if you would like, but I'm sure you already aware of the talents the two possessed at times.

Federer's prime is unparralled, and this is coming from a die hard Nadal fan. Just watch how he played from 2004-2007, it is absolutely insane, never seen anything like that in decades in tennis

abraxas21
06-13-2012, 12:14 AM
nadal's 11 GS exactly equal to 1 GS QF once you apply the MEC (mug era coefficient).

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 12:17 AM
Federer in his prime would and could beat any opposition, do not be silly Topspindocter, and make no mistake, Hewitt at his best played very similarly to Nadal and Roddick at his best was insane at the baseline. I can show you some youtube clips if you would like, but I'm sure you already aware of the talents the two possessed at times.

Federer's prime is unparralled, and this is coming from a die hard Nadal fan. Just watch how he played from 2004-2007, it is absolutely insane, never seen anything like that in decades in tennis

Wrong. Nadal is the greatest baseliner the sport has ever seen. Hewitt was a flat hitting grinder with no serve and girlie forehand. Roddick was always an all serve mug, which explains his failure to win more than 1 slam.

Mountaindewslave
06-13-2012, 12:19 AM
Wrong. Nadal is the greatest baseliner the sport has ever seen. Hewitt was a flat hitting grinder with no serve.

he's not a better baseliner than Djokovic or Federer and like I said at moments players have paralleled Nadal on the baseline, even the likes of Hewitt at their best. Nadal excel's more than anyone else on the clay because of his spin and speed, not because he is the most complete baseline player ever. he's great, sure, but it would be hard to argue that he is the best ever from the back of the court

BauerAlmeida
06-13-2012, 12:19 AM
Wrong. Nadal is the greatest baseliner the sport has ever seen. Hewitt was a flat hitting grinder with no serve and girlie forehand. Roddick was always an all serve mug, which explains his failure to win more than 1 slam.

Federer and Agassi are the greatest baseliners.

Hewitt was a grinder, yes, but Nadal isn't one?? What is he?? Serve and volley?? Although Nadal is much better, Hewitt was a great player at that time, Federer was the one that made him look ridiculous.

Johnny Groove
06-13-2012, 12:20 AM
Federer has almost all the records, not just the 16 slams.

Mountaindewslave
06-13-2012, 12:20 AM
Wrong. Nadal is the greatest baseliner the sport has ever seen. Hewitt was a flat hitting grinder with no serve and girlie forehand. Roddick was always an all serve mug, which explains his failure to win more than 1 slam.

and FYI, you either don't really follow tennis closely or are just lying to yourself, Roddick was insane at the baseline in the early 2000's, maybe you never watched any of his matches with Federer..... extremely potent groundstrokes, good volleying, an attack game, and of course the serve. young Roddick would have troubled Nadal greatly

Mountaindewslave
06-13-2012, 12:21 AM
Federer and Agassi are the greatest baseliners.

Hewitt was a grinder, yes, but Nadal isn't one?? What is he?? Serve and volley?? Although Nadal is much better, Hewitt was a great player at that time, Federer was the one that made him look ridiculous.

yes, it is a bit absurd to say Nadal is the best baseliner ever, its his physicality and heavy topspin that makes him so hard to beat at the baseline, not so much his shot selection from that part of the court

Matt01
06-13-2012, 12:23 AM
you're an idiot. they showed his true colors when he was 30 years old?


He was 30 years old when he lost the USO final to Delpo?

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 12:24 AM
and FYI, you either don't really follow tennis closely or are just lying to yourself, Roddick was insane at the baseline in the early 2000's, maybe you never watched any of his matches with Federer..... extremely potent groundstrokes, good volleying, an attack game, and of course the serve. young Roddick would have troubled Nadal greatly

Putting away forehand winners after 220+km/h serve isn't good baseline tennis :rolleyes:

Roddick's game ALWAYS revolved around his serve, even in his absolute prime. Take that away and he's useless.

Olderer is living proof as he mastered the art of blocking huge serves back into play and forcing duck into neutral rallies where he was helpless.

BauerAlmeida
06-13-2012, 12:29 AM
Putting away forehand winners after 220+km/h serve isn't good baseline tennis :rolleyes:

Roddick's game ALWAYS revolved around his serve, even in his absolute prime. Take that away and he's useless.

Olderer is living proof as he mastered the art of blocking huge serves back into play and forcing duck into neutral rallies where he was helpless.

If it wasn't for Federer, Roddick would've like 5 or 6 slams. He always stopped him in SF or F.

If he only had serve he would have Karlovic results, not the ones he had. Of course he didn't have Safin's groundstrokes and Nadal's or Djokovic's movement, but he was pretty solid from the baseline. His big flaw were his approaches to the net.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 12:30 AM
It's always about Federer, right? If Roddick was more talented he'd find a way to win, like Nadal did, not bend down nice and low in every meeting :rolleyes: 2009 Wimbledon final basically underlines this whole "rivalry". Mistress spanks her slave.

DustMan
06-13-2012, 12:33 AM
Federer is a clown who only beat mugs, making his slam victories less meaningful.
Now since Nadal won many of his titles against a clownish Federer, it means Nadal's victories are also cheapened.
And finally, since Nole beat a clownish Nadal in many of his slam victories, his achievements are further cheapened.

Conclusion: everyone is a clown, playing in a neverending clown era.

mystic ice cube
06-13-2012, 12:43 AM
I assume Federer's record against Nadal would be better considering A; He never met prime Federer in the US Open in all those years, & B; 5 of those meetings came at the French Open. Your post is a hating one anyway, you could have a same argument for Djokovic over Nadal pre French Open 2012, or prime Federer over Nole.

william_renshaw
06-13-2012, 12:49 AM
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's

Fedex
06-13-2012, 12:50 AM
(and it should really be 1-9, as Rafa was denied the 2007 Wimbledon Crown thanks to some appalling scheduling, with Nadal made to play Soderling across five days while Fed got a walkover into the SF and had a nice little rest).


Laughably pathetic excuse. Federer was literally ONE point from beating Nadal in the 2008 finals (up 4-3 and a break point in the 5th) and being the first Wimbledon champ to come back from down 2-0 in sets since 1927.

But it’s not just Nadal. Since Djokovic got his game together in 2008, he leads Federer 5-3 in slam encounters, plus the Serb had big chances to win the USO final 2007, sadly choking at crucial moments in every set.
Djokovic lost the 2007 Finals in straight sets. And most of those set points Federer either served a service winner or hit a good shot. I really don't think he blew that. And if you are going to excuse that, Federer SHOULD have won the last two US Open meetings seeing as he held TWO MATCH POINTS in both matches. Djokovic ought to consider himself lucky that he's not 0-5 against Federer at the US Open.

rocketassist
06-13-2012, 12:52 AM
New Balls >> Nadal's generation. More slams, more different players winning them and generally higher level of tennis (yes tennis- shotmaking, ball striking, point constructing NOT athleticism, fitness and physical endurance)

ossiemug mentions delpo as usual (whose career CV doesn't touch any of the best of the New Balls)

Fedex
06-13-2012, 12:52 AM
he's not a better baseliner than Djokovic or Federer and like I said at moments players have paralleled Nadal on the baseline, even the likes of Hewitt at their best. Nadal excel's more than anyone else on the clay because of his spin and speed, not because he is the most complete baseline player ever. he's great, sure, but it would be hard to argue that he is the best ever from the back of the court

Agassi would have also dominated Nadal on every surface except clay. His offensive baseline game blows Nadal away.

rocketassist
06-13-2012, 12:53 AM
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's

The WHOLE lot.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 12:53 AM
Agassi would have also dominated Nadal on every surface except clay. His offensive baseline game blows Nadal away.

Nadal's best would beat Agassi's best on grass.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 12:55 AM
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's

lol How is Delpo even in the conversation compared to the likes of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and even Davydenko? Murray can't be put above any of those three either till he wins a slam.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 12:56 AM
Nadal's best would beat Agassi's best on grass.

No. Agassi on today's grass would beat Nadal in 5 sets.

Agassi on 90's grass would spank Nadal in three sets.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 12:56 AM
Agassi would have also dominated Nadal on every surface except clay. His offensive baseline game blows Nadal away.



that is total bullshit.

step away from the crack pipe.

agassi is not 1/2 the player clay warrior is. and that goes for any surface.

rocketassist
06-13-2012, 12:58 AM
Hewitt was so shit, he is JMDP's favourite player/idol. Del Pony himself would be the last man to rate himself above Lleyton.

BigJohn
06-13-2012, 01:01 AM
This is a quality thread. I would rename it Douchey twaddle.

I'm also impressed by the inclusion of del Potro in the discussion. So random...

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:01 AM
No. Agassi on today's grass would beat Nadal in 5 sets.

Agassi on 90's grass would spank Nadal in three sets.

That is so wrong.

Agassi would have more chances against Nadal on modern grass. On 90's grass he'd struggle to break Nadal's serve. Agassi wasn't a natural grass courter, he moved worse there than on HC. I give him huge credit for winning Wimby in an era of serve bots, but he NEVER had to encounter someone with ground game like Nadal's.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:03 AM
That is so wrong.

Agassi would have more chances against Nadal on modern grass. On 90's grass he'd struggle to break Nadal's serve. Agassi wasn't a natural grass courter, he moved worse there than on HC. I give him huge credit for winning Wimby in an era of serve bots, but he NEVER had to encounter someone with ground game like Nadal's.

Why would you assume that Nadal's serve game would be any better on 90s grass?

Nadal's serve return would be even worse on 90s grass. His topspin would have no effect on the surface. Agassi's flat hitting would honestly crush Nadal on that surface.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:05 AM
that is total bullshit.

step away from the crack pipe.

agassi is not 1/2 the player clay warrior is. and that goes for any surface.

lmfao

So Agassi is not half the player Nadal is on hard courts?

And you're telling ME to step away from the crack pipe? :lol: :spit::superlol:

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:08 AM
Why would you assume that Nadal's serve game would be any better on 90s grass?

Nadal's serve return would be even worse on 90s grass. His topspin would have no effect on the surface. Agassi's flat hitting would honestly crush Nadal on that surface.

His lefty slider out wide on low bouncing grass would be devastating. There is a good reason Nadal holds serve 90%+ of the time even on slow grass. On 90's grass that serve will be unreturnable.


Agassi's flat striking would not bother him because his defense is enough to compensate. And once he started dicatating with forehand it would be all over.\

Agassi's serve wasn't good enough to guarantee constant holds. Nadal would get a break then hold to finish the set.

Looner
06-13-2012, 01:11 AM
CD, I fear the crack pipe may have to step away from you - that's how ridiculous that sentence is. Until RN wins a few more HC slams on these homogenised courts, he's not even close to Agassi. Both are baseliners but on fast HCs, Agassi would take most wins. In 2005, RN was pushed to 3 sets in Canada by an ancient Agassi.

Fireballer
06-13-2012, 01:12 AM
Laughably pathetic excuse. Federer was literally ONE point from beating Nadal in the 2008 finals (up 4-3 and a break point in the 5th) and being the first Wimbledon champ to come back from down 2-0 in sets since 1927.

Djokovic lost the 2007 Finals in straight sets. And most of those set points Federer either served a service winner or hit a good shot. I really don't think he blew that. And if you are going to excuse that, Federer SHOULD have won the last two US Open meetings seeing as he held TWO MATCH POINTS in both matches. Djokovic ought to consider himself lucky that he's not 0-5 against Federer at the US Open.

So Fed saved 4 set points in 1st set on Djoker's serve with an ace?

bouncer7
06-13-2012, 01:12 AM
New Balls >> Nadal's generation. More slams, more different players winning them and generally higher level of tennis (yes tennis- shotmaking, ball striking, point constructing NOT athleticism, fitness and physical endurance)

ossiemug mentions delpo as usual (whose career CV doesn't touch any of the best of the New Balls)

LOL what a clown. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (not sure for Delpo) will be winnin slams for next 10 years. Not any new generation is going to spank them like new balls mugs.

On topic: 1 delpo Slam= 5 Fedmug Slams

Delpo to win Slam have to beat:
- QF murray
- SF Djokovic
- F Nadal

this is mission impossible for Fed. Odds would be more than 1000 LOL

Fireballer
06-13-2012, 01:13 AM
New Balls >> Nadal's generation. More slams, more different players winning them and generally higher level of tennis (yes tennis- shotmaking, ball striking, point constructing NOT athleticism, fitness and physical endurance)

ossiemug mentions delpo as usual (whose career CV doesn't touch any of the best of the New Balls)

Djoker and Nadal alone shit on New Balls gen except Fed

Looner
06-13-2012, 01:14 AM
So Fed saved 4 set points in 1st set on Djoker's serve with an ace?

Dude, you highlighted service winner or good shot yet you talk about serve only. Just :facepalm:.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:15 AM
His lefty slider out wide on low bouncing grass would be devastating. There is a good reason Nadal holds serve 90%+ of the time even on slow grass. On 90's grass that serve will be unreturnable.


Agassi's flat striking would not bother him because his defense is enough to compensate. And once he started dicatating with forehand it would be all over.\

Agassi's serve wasn't good enough to guarantee constant holds. Nadal would get a break then hold to finish the set.

Please dude. Those serves didn't bother Agassi. Agassi got beat by pace. Agassi would get good looks at his serve.

Nadal's defense is not good enough to compensate for his lack of power on 90's grass.

Let's be real here. Nadal wouldn't even be making the second week of Wimbledon in the 90s to play Agassi. Too many big serve and volleyers back then that would have taken him out.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:15 AM
CD, I fear the crack pipe may have to step away from you - that's how ridiculous that sentence is. Until RN wins a few more HC slams on these homogenised courts, he's not even close to Agassi. Both are baseliners but on fast HCs, Agassi would take most wins. In 2005, RN was pushed to 3 sets in Canada by an ancient Agassi.

Nadal was kid back then :rolleyes:

Mark Lenders
06-13-2012, 01:18 AM
LOL what a clown. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (not sure for Delpo) will be winnin slams for next 10 years. Not any new generation is going to spank them like new balls mugs.

On topic: 1 delpo Slam= 5 Fedmug Slams

Delpo to win Slam have to beat:
- QF murray
- SF Djokovic
- F Nadal

this is mission impossible for Fed. Odds would be more than 1000 LOL

Do you really believe this stuff you type?

bouncer7
06-13-2012, 01:18 AM
Nadal was kid back then :rolleyes:

math basics are serious problem for fedtards LOL

Looner
06-13-2012, 01:19 AM
Nadal was kid back then :rolleyes:

Yet, has he has only won a masters on HC pre-USO in 2008. I guess he had grown up by then. Laughable.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 01:19 AM
His lefty slider out wide on low bouncing grass would be devastating. There is a good reason Nadal holds serve 90%+ of the time even on slow grass. On 90's grass that serve will be unreturnable.


Agassi's flat striking would not bother him because his defense is enough to compensate. And once he started dicatating with forehand it would be all over.\

Agassi's serve wasn't good enough to guarantee constant holds. Nadal would get a break then hold to finish the set.



that is a great post right there general topspin.


agassi was also a midget. so he did not have the benefit of a leverage.

nadal`s physicality alone would be too much for agassi.

he also played a somewhat high risk game which is useless against nadal.

bouncer7
06-13-2012, 01:21 AM
Do you really believe this stuff you type?

Safin Slam = Soderling Masters ;)

Looner
06-13-2012, 01:21 AM
What about James Blake at the USO, general CD? Was that useless or are we conveniently forgetting some surfaces were fast once upon a time?

BigJohn
06-13-2012, 01:22 AM
that is a great post right there general topspin.


agassi was also a midget. so he did not have the benefit of a leverage.

nadal`s physicality alone would be too much for agassi.

he also played a somewhat high risk game which is useless against nadal.

asinus asinum fricat

Mark Lenders
06-13-2012, 01:23 AM
Safin Slam = Soderling Masters ;)

True.

After all, Safin only had to beat some weak era clowns like Fedmug, Mugwitt and Mugpras to win his Slams, while Soderling had to beat strong era giants like serve and volley GOAT Llodra, a better version of Mugpras himself, and Monfils.

It all makes sense.

BauerAlmeida
06-13-2012, 01:24 AM
that is total bullshit.

step away from the crack pipe.

agassi is not 1/2 the player clay warrior is. and that goes for any surface.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/21518616.jpg

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:25 AM
Yet, has he has only won a masters on HC pre-USO in 2008. I guess he had grown up by then. Laughable.

You can't seriously suggest that 2005 Nadal was the same player as the guy who won multiple Wimbledons and completed career grand slam. :rolleyes: 2005 Nadal was an awesome clay courter and merely decent on other surfaces. Comparing him to Agassi is dumb, because Agassi was past his prime, while Nadal was nowhere near his prime. That Toronto match means absolutely nothing.

LinkMage
06-13-2012, 01:25 AM
So much stupidity in this thread. :stupid:

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 01:25 AM
What about James Blake at the USO, general CD? Was that useless or are we conveniently forgetting some surfaces were fast once upon a time?

that was very early in nadal`s development.

you know me by now. i operate a no spin zone.

lot of people have been able to beat nadal on hard courts over the years.


you can see that he finally turned it around against players like berdych and tsonga for instance. he even went on to win the u.s. open and the australian open against 2 of the greatest hard courts players ever.


now step away slowly from that crack pipe.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 01:27 AM
asinus asinum fricat

ejaculon go knit a sweater or something. this shit is way over your head.

bouncer7
06-13-2012, 01:31 AM
True.

After all, Safin only had to beat some weak era clowns like Fedmug, Mugwitt and Mugpras to win his Slams, while Soderling had to beat strong era giants like serve and volley GOAT Llodra, a better version of Mugpras himself, and Monfils.

It all makes sense.

well, you actually wrote once these players had peak at age of 21, 22 LOL Hewitt, Roddick, Safin. It best indicates how shit era it was LOL

evilmindbulgaria
06-13-2012, 01:32 AM
I would like to comment on the first highlighted part of the opening post.

I really don't understand how can anyone be considered the greatest ever when he's been constantly beaten throughout the years by his closest rival. And not just in Grand slams! 18 times - come on! I would understand if the H2H between Federer and Nadal was, say 18:15, but 18:10??? Rafa has won at least one match against Federer every single year since 2004!!!

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:34 AM
Nadal has won at least one slam per year in the last 8 years. That's amazing consistency :worship:

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:34 AM
I would like to comment on the first highlighted part of the opening post.

I really don't understand how can anyone be considered the greatest ever when he's been constantly beaten throughout the years by his closest rival. And not just in Grand slams! 18 times - come on! I would understand if the H2H between Federer and Nadal was, say 18:15, but 18:10??? Rafa has won at least one match against Federer every single year since 2004!!!

Martina was 10-3 against Evert in slam finals. I guess Evert was a fraud too.

tripwires
06-13-2012, 01:35 AM
The stupidity of the OP is so immense that I don't even know where to begin so I won't bother.

Also, CD and Trollspin should have their posting privileges confined to Castle where they can agree with each other's Nadaltard opinions and leave GM alone.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:36 AM
Martina was 10-3 against Evert in slam finals. I guess Evert was a fraud too.

You can't compare WTA to ATP :shrug:

william_renshaw
06-13-2012, 01:36 AM
Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Potro haven't beaten Nadal on ANY surface in a best-of-5 since 2008 (except when nadal has been injured/exhausted in RG 09/USO 09)

but all of the above have beaten Federer in best of 5 contests in that period.

evilmindbulgaria
06-13-2012, 01:36 AM
Martina was 10-3 against Evert in slam finals. I guess Evert was a fraud too.

Is Evert considered the greatest ever? I don't think so!

Also, the H2H between Becker and Edberg is 25:10. But is Edberg considered the greatest ever? I don't think so!

I hope you get my point. If I have beaten you 18 out of the 28 times we played and you say "I am the greatest ever" - that is simply laughable!

...and I never said that Federer was a "fraud".

stewietennis
06-13-2012, 01:37 AM
Look at the era in which Federer won most of his majors: a poor era where he was beating reasonably good (but not great) or distinctly average players in semis and finals: Philippoussis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Haas. For goodness sake, he even had Jonas Bjorkman (no disrespect-a great doubles player-but come on) as a semi-final opponent at Wimbledon one year.

Federer doesn't control the quality of his opponents, he can only play whomever is on the other side of the net. Whether it's some doubles player who got lucky or the next Bjorn Borg; all that matters is Federer won against them. Would it have been better if he tanked those matches because it's not against GOAT players?

Pete Sampras beat Volkov and Pioline in the SF & F of the 1993 US Open. He beat clay specialists Costa, Muster and Moya for his 1997 Australian Open title. He beat Todd Woodbridge (doubles player) and Pioline in the SF & F of his 1997 Wimbledon title; He also beat Philippousis, Ivanisevic, Henman and Todd Martin (all of one major between them) on the way to some; but you don't see anyone questioning his 14 slams.

Look at who Djokovic and Nadal have beaten in the latter stages en route to their majors – each other, Federer and Murray – outstanding players compared with the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Haas, Davydenko.

This statement appears to be contradicting what you're saying. You say Federer's titles are flawed because of the quality of his opponents yet you say he's outstanding anyway compared to Hewitt, Roddick, etc (whom Federer beat anyway). So is Federer great for beating those guys or is he not good because those are the guys he beat to win the title; hence you shouldn't include him in the great players Nadal and Djokovic beat to win their titles – which would then leave no-slam Murray as Rafole's singular rival.

Fireballer
06-13-2012, 01:38 AM
Dude, you highlighted service winner or good shot yet you talk about serve only. Just :facepalm:.

that's my bad

rocketassist
06-13-2012, 01:39 AM
LOL what a clown. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (not sure for Delpo) will be winnin slams for next 10 years. Not any new generation is going to spank them like new balls mugs.

On topic: 1 delpo Slam= 5 Fedmug Slams

Delpo to win Slam have to beat:
- QF murray
- SF Djokovic
- F Nadal

this is mission impossible for Fed. Odds would be more than 1000 LOL

This is how easy it is to get hold of smack. Kids, don't do it.

fivebargate
06-13-2012, 01:40 AM
This thread :facepalm:

A clown era exists only in the gently dreaming head of the hater. If it is to be believed, then any era in which one player raises his level to a towering height, automatically generates the circus. Saying a clown era exists, is like saying nobody is "that" good. But alas, we know that Fed was "that" good, because his exemplary record stands for itself....not only in the years passed, but even today almost 31 years of age....at no.3 in the world with a good shot at going higher still.

rocketassist
06-13-2012, 01:41 AM
Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Potro haven't beaten Nadal on ANY surface in a best-of-5 since 2008 (except when nadal has been injured/exhausted in RG 09/USO 09)

but all of the above have beaten Federer in best of 5 contests in that period.

The bold words sum it up :worship:

BTW Federer was supposedly injured in 2010 against Berdych (I don't buy it BTW) but surely if the Nadal excuses can stand so can that.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:42 AM
Is Evert considered the greatest ever? I don't think so!

Also, the H2H between Becker and Edberg is 25:10. But is Edberg considered the greatest ever? I don't think so!

I hope you get my point. If I have beaten you 18 out of the 28 times we played and you say "I am the greatest ever" - that is simply laughable!

...and I never said that Federer was a "fraud".

Evert is considered one of the greatest ever, yes.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:44 AM
Evert is considered one of the greatest ever, yes.

Once again: you can't compare WTA to ATP. Winning a slam on ATP is far more difficult.

evilmindbulgaria
06-13-2012, 01:44 AM
Evert is considered one of the greatest ever, yes.

And Federer is one of the greatest too. And so is Nadal. And Edberg. And Becker...

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:45 AM
Once again: you can't compare WTA to ATP. Winning a slam on ATP is far more difficult.

I'm not comparing the sports. I'm saying that you can't simply use head to head to decide is a player is worthy or not of GOAT consideration.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 01:45 AM
agassi today would be forced to compete with the women.

he would have trouble winning points against the likes of nole on any surface.

rocketassist
06-13-2012, 01:47 AM
Cripplegassi with cortisone injections was 5-2* up in a TB against Nadal in Wimbledon 2006. To suggest he would barely win a point against the 2012 big guns is :lol:

tripwires
06-13-2012, 01:48 AM
agassi today would be forced to compete with the women.

he would have trouble winning points against the likes of nole on any surface.

Oh dear god. :facepalm:

evilmindbulgaria
06-13-2012, 01:49 AM
Cripplegassi with cortisone injections was 5-2* up in a TB against Nadal in Wimbledon 2006. To suggest he would barely win a point against the 2012 big guns is :lol:

Wow, that fact is really telling! Thanks for sharing :worship:

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 01:49 AM
agassi today would be forced to compete with the women.

he would have trouble winning points against the likes of nole on any surface.

Let's not go that far :lol:

I agree on one count, however. Agassi's physicality is just not enough for the modern game. He had no monster serve to compensate either. He simply would not be able to withstand 20+ shot rallies against guys like Nadal/Djokovic (even Murray) consistently.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 01:50 AM
Oh dear god. :facepalm:




:drink::haha::haha:

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 01:52 AM
Let's not go that far :lol:

I agree on one count, however. Agassi's physicality is just not enough for the modern game. He had no monster serve to compensate either. He simply would not be able to withstand 20+ shot rallies against guys like Nadal/Djokovic (even Murray) consistently.



:drink::umbrella::smoke::rolls::rolls:


he was too small. not physical enough for modern tennis.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 01:52 AM
Let's not go that far :lol:

I agree on one count, however. Agassi's physicality is just not enough for the modern game. He had no monster serve to compensate either. He simply would not be able to withstand 20+ shot rallies against guys like Nadal/Djokovic (even Murray) consistently.

Wow, the stupidity here knows no bounds.

Agassi was the fittest guy on tour his later years in his career. The notion of Agassi not being able to withstand 20 shot rallies against Djokovic/Nadal is laughable. Agassi was a far better ball striker than either of them, he took the ball early and controlled rallies from the center of the court and often extended rallies instead of hitting outright winners, so he could wear his opponent down.

I'm thoroughly convinced now that you started watching tennis in 2008.

FedvsNole
06-13-2012, 01:54 AM
Must have been nice to win most of your slams facing gutless clowns and talentless mugs like Hewitt and Roddick. Nadal didn't have that luxury for sure.

as good as federer is, he won most of his slams in a pathetic era. delpo, nadal and djokovic have shown us his true colours.

Its funny. Even when he turned 30 federer was still capable to handle nole in his absolute peak peak prime (roland garros 2011 and us open 2011 the later of which lets all be honest he should have won on arguably very slow and maybe the slowest us open open courts EVER).

If fed were 23-25 and playing RIGHT NOW with the given conditions he would be "pushed" and honestly probably play an even higher level of tennis because his compeition than couldn't force him to really up his game. Its amazing he had that high of level when he really didn't even need to. He set the bar higher for tennis and thats the only reason nole and nadal got better over time.

Peak fed would have the advantage over nole by alot on fast courts say from 2003-2007 especially at wimbledon, us open, and was better on clay during that time than nole is today. On rebound ace with australia having 100 degree weather was pretty darn fast and no way nole would beat fed on that court.

Peak fed would have less of an advantage over nole on courts from 2008-2012 but the us open was only slowed down in 2010 and then by alot again in 2011 and fed in his old age should still have won over nole in his peak years. Its reasonable to say that peak fed would still win on the courts at the us open given the conditions even today. Wimbledon would still be fed's over nole. French would still be fed's perhaps even more so since its been sped up.
I would say the current plexicushion surface would be 50/50 maybe i dont know. If nole was getting beat almost always on the other slams by fed he would have little confidence against him and it would be a great match and i think nole would win some of them and fed would win some of them on that type of surface to be honest. Forget the mono fed or whatever, if you look at 2008 aussie open the fed nole match. Fed was up in those sets and i just don't think he would let the sets go when he was in his peak. The same happened in 2011 with fed being up in the 2nd set actually serving for it and those are things when fed was focused fully he didnt let happen.

Nole's defense is very hard to penetrate in this slow court era. It would be useless in the faster court era when fed dominated. Look what fed did to hewitt who had great defense but that court speed with the offense fed had was not beatable using defense alone. Fed's serve was even more rewarded back then and as great of a returner nole is its on a genreally slower courts overall. Much harder to return on faster courts.

Against rafa fed would only really lose on clay and an ocasional slow hard court. Rafa would not beat fed at us open, wimbledon when it was fast, and plexicushion since it played like today's fast hard court.


Would fed have less slams if they were all 22 years old playing in 2003 or 22 years old playing in 2009. Probably yes. But what everone else forgets is federer would win far more slams post 28 years old since the way his opponenets noel and nadal play would force them to leave tennis or have injuries over time and not really last that long. I mean no one would be beating fed in slams between 2003-2012 for the most part if there way no nole or nadal.
Imagine if there was no nadal or nole since fed turned 28 in 2009 us open. Who would beat fed from 2009-2012 in slams? Yeah you had del potro with a fed choke but even then fed would win maybe every roland garros, us open, and aussie open fromn 2009-2011 if he didn play nole or nadal. So he'd still have the same number of slams if not more if all these players were the SAME AGE AT THE SAME TIME. Be happy they are not otherwise fed would be closer to 20 slams since who the hell else could beat him outside a tsonga/berdych at wimbledon in this era if nole and rafa were both 28-30 years old they would be out of tennis.

Houstonko
06-13-2012, 01:55 AM
What a trolling thread. Fed pioneer tennis to higher level thats why he deserve the reward. Like u do business and pioneer some technology u are rewarded before your rivals catch up. Its not mug era, he shows up with alien tennis.

Plus he win a tournament he gets very tired at this age, there will be no continuity..Muscle strains are a problem when u play physical at 30 yrs old, his younger rivals have less of this problems. You can tell winning Madrid against Berdych already took him out and he was taking painkillers.

Topspindoctor
06-13-2012, 02:01 AM
Wow, the stupidity here knows no bounds.

Agassi was the fittest guy on tour his later years in his career. The notion of Agassi not being able to withstand 20 shot rallies against Djokovic/Nadal is laughable. Agassi was a far better ball striker than either of them, he took the ball early and controlled rallies from the center of the court and often extended rallies instead of hitting outright winners, so he could wear his opponent down.

I'm thoroughly convinced now that you started watching tennis in 2008.

He was fit for his era. Today's athletes have elevated the game to another level. Can you honestly imagine Agassi play a 6 hour slam final? I sure don't. The players of today raised the bar. You can no longer be a no fitness mug and succeed at the game. In modern game you need athleticism and talent, both.

hipolymer
06-13-2012, 02:13 AM
Its funny. Even when he turned 30 federer was still capable to handle nole in his absolute peak peak prime (roland garros 2011 and us open 2011 the later of which lets all be honest he should have won on arguably very slow and maybe the slowest us open open courts EVER).


Peak fed would have the advantage over nole by alot on fast courts say from 2003-2007 especially at wimbledon, us open, and was better on clay during that time than nole is today. On rebound ace with australia having 100 degree weather was pretty darn fast and no way nole would beat fed on that court.


Nole's defense is very hard to penetrate in this slow court era. It would be useless in the faster court era when fed dominated. Look what fed did to hewitt who had great defense but that court speed with the offense fed had was not beatable using defense alone. Fed's serve was even more rewarded back then and as great of a returner nole is its on a genreally slower courts overall. Much harder to return on faster courts.


That is simply not true. Nole pushed Federer in 2007 USO final and had around 4 set points in the first set, with more chances to win the set and later sets. He also beat him in Montreal that year. You are acting as if Nole is only a slow court player.

paseo
06-13-2012, 02:16 AM
I used to read this kind of thread. Now, I just skimmed over it. You trolls and tards need some new material. This one is old, boring, and not fun anymore.

We need something fresh, here. Entertain me, damn it!!

juan27
06-13-2012, 02:19 AM
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's

where is the stronger era????

the top-10 in fed`s era was by far better that the actual top-10 with much more potencial than this mugs!!!!

nadal faced in slams semis guys like melzer in rg!!!! puerta , berdych , his us open 2010 was a joke he not faced a top-10 until the final against nole!!!!!

haas and safin even past his peak were capable to defeat nole in wimbledon , roddick past his peak too and with murray incluiding!!!

gonzalez desroyed nadal in australian open and in rg 2009 defeat murray in roland garros , he beat always the nº1 that he faced in his career.

davydenko is the only player that has a really positive h2h with nadal not murray , djoko , tsonga , delpo and more.

topspindoctor , nadal didn`t had that luxury?????? he never faced a really clay courts specialist and many clayy titles were against verdascos , almagros or ferrer!!!!!!!! his only true rivals were are fed and djoko and both of them are fast courts specialsits be the clay his worst surface , coria was the only clay court specialist capable to force nadal and he was over in 2005 like gaudio......nadal was and is alone in clay

but players like coria , nalbandian , agassi with 33-35 years old, blake ,gonzalez ,haas ,safin , hewitt ,davydenko ,ferrero , moya , roddick and more at his best were much better players than almagros , tipsarevic , murray , berdych and more......

the quality is subjective , maybe you put sampras in the draws of fed slams and he lose , the same thing with federer in pete`s slams , the only true is the archivements , the rest is all subjective.

the same becker said that the man who puts the tennis in another level in quality , game and footwork is federer

with respec to agassi , if he plays in this era against nadal , in hardcourts and grass with his great offensive tennis form the baseline , bakchand and return of serve , he would be one of nadal`s worst nightmare

juan27
06-13-2012, 02:20 AM
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's

where is the stronger era????

the top-10 in fed`s era was by far better that the actual top-10 with much more potencial than this mugs!!!!

nadal faced in slams semis guys like melzer in rg!!!! puerta , berdych , his us open 2010 was a joke he not faced a top-10 until the final against nole!!!!!

haas and safin even past his peak were capable to defeat nole in wimbledon , roddick past his peak too and with murray incluiding!!!

gonzalez desroyed nadal in australian open and in rg 2009 defeat murray in roland garros , he beat always the nº1 that he faced in his career.

davydenko is the only player that has a really positive h2h with nadal not murray , djoko , tsonga , delpo and more.

topspindoctor , nadal didn`t had that luxury?????? he never faced a really clay courts specialist and many clayy titles were against verdascos , almagros or ferrer!!!!!!!! his only true rivals were are fed and djoko and both of them are fast courts specialsits be the clay his worst surface , coria was the only clay court specialist capable to force nadal and he was over in 2005 like gaudio......nadal was and is alone in clay

but players like coria , nalbandian , agassi with 33-35 years old, blake ,gonzalez ,haas ,safin , hewitt ,davydenko ,ferrero , moya , roddick and more at his best were much better players than almagros , tipsarevic , murray , berdych and more......

the quality is subjective , maybe you put sampras in the draws of fed slams and he lose , the same thing with federer in pete`s slams , the only true is the archivements , the rest is all subjective.

the same becker said that the man who puts the tennis in another level in quality , game and footwork is federer

with respect to agassi , if he plays in this era against nadal , in hardcourts and grass with his great offensive tennis form the baseline , bakchand and return of serve , he would be one of nadal`s worst nightmare.

but the people because one or two great players , forgets the rest of the field!!!!

Fedex
06-13-2012, 02:22 AM
He was fit for his era. Today's athletes have elevated the game to another level. Can you honestly imagine Agassi play a 6 hour slam final? I sure don't. The players of today raised the bar. You can no longer be a no fitness mug and succeed at the game. In modern game you need athleticism and talent, both.

Agassi was far more talented than anyone currently playing not named Federer.

Agassi trained in Vegas and he thrived in the intense heat of the Australian Open and loved the day time finals back then. LOL @ thinking that Agassi couldn't compete due to lack of fitness and athleticism. Tardness at its finest.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 02:25 AM
relax Fedex.

general topspin operates in a no spin zone. and he speaks the truth.

it is what it is.


agassi is a nobody in modern tennis. the game has moved on and you should too.

Looner
06-13-2012, 02:26 AM
CD, this trolling is not fun. The no-spin zone has been cancelled for tonight :drink:.

Clay Death
06-13-2012, 02:28 AM
CD, this trolling is not fun. The no-spin zone has been cancelled for tonight :drink:.




:drink::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::smoke::



nice sig looner. i like it.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 02:29 AM
Agassi in 2004 and 2005 was still able to consistently challenge Federer on hard courts and give him some of his toughest matches. Agassi was pretty old then too. He'd do fine in this so called era.

BauerAlmeida
06-13-2012, 02:34 AM
Agassi reached a GS final at the age of 35 playing like 3 five-setters during the tournament. Nothing wrong with his fitness I guess.

BauerAlmeida
06-13-2012, 02:36 AM
relax Fedex.

general topspin operates in a no spin zone. and he speaks the truth.

it is what it is.


agassi is a nobody in modern tennis. the game has moved on and you should too.

Agassi is the only player who won every grand slam, the Olympic gold and the Masters Cup. I don't think he is a nobody.

Fedex
06-13-2012, 02:36 AM
Agassi reached a GS final at the age of 35 playing like 3 five-setters during the tournament. Nothing wrong with his fitness I guess.

In a row too. And he was one set all, 4-2, 30-0 up on prime Federer in the finals.

atennisfan
06-13-2012, 03:29 AM
Federer is a clown who only beat mugs, making his slam victories less meaningful.
Now since Nadal won many of his titles against a clownish Federer, it means Nadal's victories are also cheapened.
And finally, since Nole beat a clownish Nadal in many of his slam victories, his achievements are further cheapened.

Conclusion: everyone is a clown, playing in a neverending clown era.

This is the BEST post ever!

heya
06-13-2012, 05:18 AM
novak makes nadal bitter everywhere even when novak doesn't care. novak is a late bloomer so novak has many moody emotions which caused his careless serves, but he exhausted nadal on mud clay in his least fave slam rg. novak can play 6 setters on hardcourt while fed and murray cry and nadal goes into a slump. for 10 years, fed needed many injured, distracted, and uncaring top 4 opponents who struggled to win 2 matches on their hated surface.
roddick was the greedy dummy mouse among men. federina still laughs at that doucherag today.
agassi should've finished off fed at the us open but he was shot with cortisone. according to fedfreaks, 2004 agassi and roddick were better than the current top 5 now :eek: let's see ferrer against meth-using agassi at age 27

Chirag
06-13-2012, 05:27 AM
I dont get this at all :shrug: It takes quality to win 16 majors ,that quality being longevity :shrug:

stewietennis
06-13-2012, 05:31 AM
I dont get this at all :shrug: It takes quality to win 16 majors ,that quality being longevity :shrug:

I think the OP means quality of opponents as opposed to quality of play.

tripwires
06-13-2012, 05:31 AM
I dont get this at all :shrug: It takes quality to win 16 majors ,that quality being longevity :shrug:

Haters will always be jealous of FedGOAT's achievements. :shrug:

evilmindbulgaria
06-13-2012, 05:33 AM
Haters will always be jealous of FedGOAT's achievements. :shrug:

As long as there are people calling him GOAT, there will be threads like this :wavey:

Chirag
06-13-2012, 05:37 AM
CD stop with this trolling

Agassi is as superior to Nadal on the hard courts as the living are to the dead :p (I always wanted to pull this one on you :lol: )

manadrainer
06-13-2012, 06:15 AM
Can you explain why Djokovic has a losing record against roddick and Nadal has a losing record against davydenko? Weren't they the "clowns" Fed dominated?

EDIT: I forgot gonzalez, which is often brought as example of clown opponent in gs final, who routined Nadal in that same slam...

heya
06-13-2012, 06:20 AM
As long as there are people calling him GOAT, there will be threads like this :wavey:

they think roddick and ljubicic were quality top 3s and smart and agile servers, and that safin and davydenko were supposed to overtake novak let's pretend that novak didn't have surgery, and allergies which impeded his efforts

TigerTim
06-13-2012, 07:41 AM
Nadal Semi Finals/Finals:
2005 RG: Federer/Puerta
2006 RG: Ljuba/Federer
2006 WIM: M. Baghdatits
2007 RG: Djokovic/Federer
2007 WIM: Djokovic (retired)
2008 RG: Djokovic/Federer
2008 WIM: R. Schuttler/Federer
2009 AO: Verdasco/Federer
2010 FO: Melzer/Soderling
2010 WIM: Murray/Berdych
2010 USO: Youhzny/Djokovic
2011 FO: Murray
2011 WIM: Murray
2012 USO: Murray

Loses in SF to Tsonga, Murray, Del Pony

Make of it what you want.

Benny_Maths
06-13-2012, 08:06 AM
nadal's 11 GS exactly equal to 1 GS QF once you apply the MEC (mug era coefficient).

Always a pleasure to see maths/science references :D. I was going to good rep you but the notification said I needed to spread it around.

So Fed saved 4 set points in 1st set on Djoker's serve with an ace?

You're just being obtuse. His point was that Fed wasn't handed the win on those points. In fact, from memory the first set point Fed saved in the first set was with a forehand winner to the corner of the court.

heya
06-13-2012, 08:21 AM
Federer doesn't control the quality of his opponents, he can only play whomever is on the other side of the net. Whether it's some doubles player who got lucky or the next Bjorn Borg; all that matters is Federer won against them. Would it have been better if he tanked those matches because it's not against GOAT players?

Pete Sampras beat Volkov and Pioline in the SF & F of the 1993 US Open. He beat clay specialists Costa, Muster and Moya for his 1997 Australian Open title. He beat Todd Woodbridge (doubles player) and Pioline in the SF & F of his 1997 Wimbledon title; He also beat Philippousis, Ivanisevic, Henman and Todd Martin (all of one major between them) on the way to some; but you don't see anyone questioning his 14 slams.



This statement appears to be contradicting what you're saying. You say Federer's titles are flawed because of the quality of his opponents yet you say he's outstanding anyway compared to Hewitt, Roddick, etc (whom Federer beat anyway). So is Federer great for beating those guys or is he not good because those are the guys he beat to win the title; hence you shouldn't include him in the great players Nadal and Djokovic beat to win their titles – which would then leave no-slam Murray as Rafole's singular rival.
31 year old haas and agassi had fed in a chokehold. fed bitterly said he would never hit a trick shot like novak did. fed, with an injury, could never do that

TBkeeper
06-13-2012, 08:37 AM
:drink::umbrella::smoke::rolls::rolls:


he was too small. not physical enough for modern tennis.

So that "not physical enough" madafaka Davydenko is beating Nadal left and right , right ?

TBkeeper
06-13-2012, 08:39 AM
Can you explain why Djokovic has a losing record against roddick and Nadal has a losing record against davydenko? Weren't they the "clowns" Fed dominated?

EDIT: I forgot gonzalez, which is often brought as example of clown opponent in gs final, who routined Nadal in that same slam...

Leave them alone bro they don't understand shit.....

cardio
06-13-2012, 08:41 AM
It is quite funny how OP brought up Gonzalez as proof of "weak era finalist."

AO 2007 QF Gonzalez def.Nadal 6-2, 6-4, 6-3

AO 2007 F Federer def. Gonzalez 7-6, 6-4, 6-4

So it was Federer`s fault Nadull couldnt get past Gonzo to make era "stronger" ? :devil:

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-13-2012, 09:13 AM
op knows nothing about tennis
average nadal fan

this era has been shit
no clay courters apart from ass picker
slow grass
slowed down evwrywhere

borg would have won 5 straight grand slams

nadal is one undeserving motherfucker

borg laver gonzales and federer are the best- i dont care what order u put them

but that undeserving cheating douche bag doesnt deserve to carry their jockstraps

Sophocles
06-13-2012, 10:56 AM
MTF was crying out for this thread.

william_renshaw
06-13-2012, 10:50 PM
The top 6 during the middle of Federer's era of dominance:

1 Federer, Roger (SUI)
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS)
4 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO)
5 Roddick, Andy (USA)
6 Robredo, Tommy (ESP)

Please tell me there aren't people who believe that the likes of Davydenko-Ljubicic-Roddick-Robredo represent just as tough a challenge as the likes of Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga. As for Nadal, even at his "peak" Federer struggled against him on clay and didn't have a great record against him on other surfaces either.

As for Djoko having a losing record against Roddick, that is SO misleading. In one of those matches Djoko was ill and had virtually collapsed from heat exhaustion in Melbourne. In another he had just been getting used to a new racquet, which takes time. And in another he was exhausted having played (and won) 3 weeks straight and tanked the match.

Oh btw, Nadal won 15 consecutive sets against Mugzalez.

stewietennis
06-13-2012, 11:56 PM
The top 6 during the middle of Federer's era of dominance:

1 Federer, Roger (SUI)
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS)
4 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO)
5 Roddick, Andy (USA)
6 Robredo, Tommy (ESP)


It's quite misleading when you take the supposed "middle" of Federer's dominance and Ivan Ljubicic made it into the rankings that year, for the only year. The actual year end rankings during Federer's reign from the ATP site is listed below:

2004:
1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Safin
5. Moya
6. Henman

2005:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Roddick
4. Hewitt
5. Davydenko
6. Nalbandian

2006:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Davydenko
4. Blake
5. Ljubicic
6. Roddick

2007:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Davydenko
5. Ferrer
6. Roddick

You've taken the bottom four of the top six so we'll compare rankings from past #3 to 6 to your current era list of players (Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga):

2004
Hewitt vs Djokovic = obviously Djokovic
Safin vs Murray = obviously Safin
Moya vs Del Potro = Moya (1 major and 1 final)
Henman vs Tsonga = Henman (6 major semis, #4 ranking vs 2 major semis, 1F, #6 ranking)
Winner = 2004

2005
Roddick vs Djokovic = obviously Djokovic
Hewitt vs Murray = obviously Hewitt
Davydenko vs Del Potro = Davydenko (an old Davydenko beat 2009 JMDP in the YEC)
Nalbandian vs Tsonga = Nalbandian (YEC win)
Winner = 2005

2006
Davydenko vs Djokovic = obviously Djokovic
Blake vs Murray = Murray
Ljubicic vs Del Potro = Del Potro
Roddick vs Tsonga = Roddick
Winner = current era

2007:
Djokovic vs current Djokovic = current Djokovic
Davydenko vs Murray = Davydenko
Ferrer vs Del Potro = Del Potro
Roddick vs Tsonga = Roddick
Winner = tie

The only weak year in Federer's years of dominance is 2006 where Blake and Ljubicic have no business being in the Top 5 but they caught fire that year and won non-major tournaments. So to answer your question: YES I do believe that the quality of opponents in 2004 and 2005 are greater than the current era. In 2006, NO the current era is better. As for 2007, the quality of opponents back then and now are comparable.

FedvsNole
06-14-2012, 02:04 AM
If federer was 23-25 right now. He'd be number 1 comfortably and winning wimbledon and us open slams for multiple years in a row, only losing to nadal at french, and only losing to djokovic at aussie open which would be 50/50 anyways. True he may lose to nadal at aussie open as well but fed would be number 1 and djokoic number 2 and chances are other than this years annomolay fed and nadal would be in separate halves.

Fed and nadal would more often than not be in differnt halves and with djokvic number 2 he would battle nadal consistely at the semis in grand slams.

Nole would find it harder to beat fed there if he had nadal in his half which he almost certainly would every year provided fed was number 1 and nole number 2. They would play second on super saturday while fed would dismantly murray like always. Nole would be tired when he played fed less than 24 hours after battling nadal.

The end

Topspindoctor
06-14-2012, 02:05 AM
If federer was 23-25 right now. He'd be number 1 comfortably and winning wimbledon and us open slams for multiple years in a row, only losing to nadal at french, and only losing to djokovic at aussie open which would be 50/50 anyways. True he may lose to nadal at aussie open as well but fed would be number 1 and djokoic number 2 and chances are other than this years annomolay fed and nadal would be in separate halves.

Fed and nadal would more often than not be in differnt halves and with djokvic number 2 he would battle nadal consistely at the semis in grand slams.

Nole would find it harder to beat fed there if he had nadal in his half which he almost certainly would every year provided fed was number 1 and nole number 2. They would play second on super saturday while fed would dismantly murray like always. Nole would be tired when he played fed less than 24 hours after battling nadal.

The end

LOL

FedvsNole
06-14-2012, 02:53 AM
LOL


Because peak nole having the season of his life couldn't beat a 30 year old fed in roland garros and it took 5 sets and being down 5-2 in the 5th set of the slowest us open in history which he really should have lost.

Peak fed would have done at the minimum at least as good as that you can't argue that. Nole never would have bothered fed outside plexicusion aussie open and indians wells and miami. He wasn't a left handed topspining machine.

There was a reason nadal sucked at the us open till 2010 because it was acutally fast and not slowed down. He never reached the final of the aussie open till they installed a slowed down plexicushion.

Topspindoctor
06-14-2012, 02:59 AM
Peak Fed had to rely on a monstrous choke from kid Novak to win 2007 USO.

FedvsNole
06-14-2012, 03:01 AM
Peak Fed had to rely on a monstrous choke from kid Novak to win 2007 USO.


Fed had already started to decline by that point. And please with roger federer across the net with his accomplishments i guarantee many many in that position would not have won. Fed hit an increditble shot or two when novak was serving 40 love. Then novak felt the pressure. Murray would have found a way to lose if he had a 6-0 lead in the tiebreak.

What happned to the kid in 2008, 2009 shouldn' he have destroyed fed. It seems he only went downhill after his "choke"? By god it took nole at his best and federer having become olderer in 2010 and 2011 at 30 years of age before nole Barely barely escaped defeat in 5 sets being match point down...

Topspindoctor
06-14-2012, 03:05 AM
Fed had already started to decline by that point.

What happned to the kid in 2008, 2009 shouldn' the have destroyed fed. It seems he only went downhill after his "choke"?

Novak pretty much turned into a clown for 1.5 years after first half of 2008. I think that helped him realize his potential by working harder. Olderer's wins over him aren't surprising considering how awful he was.

tripwires
06-14-2012, 03:10 AM
Peak Fed had to rely on a monstrous choke from kid Novak to win 2007 USO.

Oh please, you talk as if Novak would've won in straight sets had he won the first set.

rocketassist
06-14-2012, 03:13 AM
If federer was 23-25 right now. He'd be number 1 comfortably and winning wimbledon and us open slams for multiple years in a row, only losing to nadal at french, and only losing to djokovic at aussie open which would be 50/50 anyways. True he may lose to nadal at aussie open as well but fed would be number 1 and djokoic number 2 and chances are other than this years annomolay fed and nadal would be in separate halves.

Fed and nadal would more often than not be in differnt halves and with djokvic number 2 he would battle nadal consistely at the semis in grand slams.

Nole would find it harder to beat fed there if he had nadal in his half which he almost certainly would every year provided fed was number 1 and nole number 2. They would play second on super saturday while fed would dismantly murray like always. Nole would be tired when he played fed less than 24 hours after battling nadal.

The end

Djokovic would be 3 not 2 if Fed was the same age, as Nadal would always be defending his Paris turf.

Topspindoctor
06-14-2012, 03:15 AM
Oh please, you talk as if Novak would've won in straight sets had he won the first set.

He had set points in set 2 as well.

2 sets to 0 advantage? I'd give him a pretty good chance. We all know how good Olderer is in 5 setters against decent opponents :tape:

FedvsNole
06-14-2012, 03:15 AM
Novak pretty much turned into a clown for 1.5 years after first half of 2008. I think that helped him realize his potential by working harder. Olderer's wins over him aren't surprising considering how awful he was.


Novak was 22.5 in that 2009 us open final. All this shit about how his defense and movment is so much better now is a farce. The courts were faster than and have been slowed down since by a great degree and thus it gives him more time to get to the balls and gives an illusion of having an improved defense and movement. Plus even in decline that 2009 federer was the last version that could still baseline rally with nole. He was playing handicapped from the baseline in 2010 onward and still should have won.

FedvsNole
06-14-2012, 03:34 AM
Djokovic would be 3 not 2 if Fed was the same age, as Nadal would always be defending his Paris turf.

Peak novak would have chances against anybody on slowed down plexicushion. He would also do well on all the hard courts over the year and have better results than nadal. I would like nole's chances if he won australia and he would likey be in the sf in rg, wimbledon, and have a solid run an montre, cinci, shanghai, indian wells, miami, dubai and still be solid in the clay season making it to semis in MC, madrid, rome. Hes also solid indoor player i blieve he's won the season ending world tour and has won indoor paris bercy and basel. He would have the number 2 seed by the us open at least some years.

Everyone should realize that as these players aged together after 27-28 nadal and nole would be slowed down enough that their play would be less troublesome for fed. nole and rafa would be gone from tennis by 30 for sure while fed would rack up slams from 30-33 at least 2 or even 3 per year with nole and nadal gone so federer wins if you make them all the same age at the same time and his slams count would be just as high and maybe even higher in the backend of his career. I dont think you can argue this. Imagine if there was no nadal or djokovic since 2011 us open because they had turned 30 and retired. The way roger plays he would have won us open, australia, and even the french since he would have played clownga or ferrer in the finals.

The only fair way to make an if this player was peak vs that player was peak he would win less majors is to mkae them the same age. You cannot argue that federer would not be winning multiple slams a year even at 30 with nadal and djokovic retired given the game today and he would have the same amount of slams or more in the end if they all started at the same age together. Less slams with nadal and djokovic at peak but that would be made up by more slams in the backend of his career. You know thats true. He's still #3 right now by a large margin which is insane.

/thread

paseo
06-14-2012, 06:03 AM
Hey tards, there's no way that Nadal can be called the ClayGOAT if Fed is not The GOAT. I made a thread explaining all about this, but NadalTards bias mods deleted it within minutes!

paseo
06-14-2012, 06:03 AM
I'm going crazy here. Shouting a random thing in a random thread. I'm pissed because the mods deleted my thread without explanations. Where do I complain here?

Sharpshooter
06-14-2012, 08:08 AM
Ever since the AUS Open switched to plexicusion Fed has made 2 finals, won one and lost one. The rest have been semi exits still a great achievement. BUT he has lost to Djokovic twice on the plexicusion at AUS OPEN and also twice to Rafa there as well. At the same time, he has not picked up a victory against either of them up there. The only time he won it was when he didn't have to face either Rafa or Djoker and had a joke draw playing guys coming off 5 setters and a slam final choker in Murray.

Hard to call someone the greatest HC player when there are differences in HC surfaces. I would say Rafa and Djoker at there best would beat Fed at his best on the AO plexicusion simply because they have better defense and their BH side is less likely to crack as Fed's. US Open is a different story, the Decoturf would play more to Fed's advantage and at his best would beat both Rafa and Djoker even at their best on that surface.

At Wimbledon, it's very hard to say but I'd say 50-50 between Rafa and Fed both playing at their best. I base this on the fact that Rafa at a very young age was still able to push peak Fed at Wimbledon in both finals so with Rafa's development at his best would certainly be able to beat Fed at his best, but then again Fed was incredible at Wim too, so that's why I'd call it 50-50 between them two. Djoker playing against either Rafa or Fed at their best at Wim would not be able to beat them.

There's really no need to discuss RG we all know that Rafa at his best easily takes care of anyone just like Fed at his best at USO.

So my take is this;

AO: Novak
RG: Rafa
WIM: Rafa/Fed
USO: Fed

That would be where the slams would be going if they were all playing at their best, at the same age and injury free for say 5 years. BUT because Fed is older, he was able to take advantage of the weaker field of players to dominate 3/4 slams. That is the only reason he has 16 slams to his name. Djoker and Rafa have had it tougher since they had to deal with Fed and each other most of the time to get their slams. Sorry, but the top 10 doesn't matter, this top 4 is FAR more dominant than the top 4 from 2004-2007.

Rafa, Roger, Djoker and Murray have WAY more consistency than guys like Hewitt, Safin, old Agassi, Nalbandian & Davydenko. Roddick was the only guy consistently keeping his spot apart from teenage - very early 20's Rafa. I pose this question, take Fed out of the 2004-2007 era and replace him with Nadal or Djoker at the same age and tell Nadal wouldn't win 16 majors who would stop him? Baby Fed? Roddick at WIM would've troubled him, but I still think Rafa would beat him anyway. Maybe Djoker wouldn't have 16 but he'd have close to 10. The point is NONE of those guys mentioned had a chance against Fed in majors apart from Safin playing lights out which happened once or twice a year. Nalby didn't even live up to his potential and have the chance to play Fed in majors often enough and Davydenko, Hewitt, old Agassi and Roddick the question wasn't who would win, but how many sets do you reckon these guys could take off him if they have a good day? They were all really good players and it certainly wasn't the weakest era ever but they all lacked a major component to their game. Hewitt lacked fire power, Agassi lacked youth, Davydenko lacked nerves and Roddick lacked in endurance and his groundstrokes especially after 2004 when he stopped going for that FH. And none of them could turn defense into offense like Rafa and Djoker.

Nadal and Djoker don't lack endurance, fire power, youth, nerves and certainly don't lack in groundstrokes and more importantly they can turn defense into offense off both wings. This is why Fed has struggled against them in the past. They have far fewer weaknesses than the top players from 2004-2007. Fed would hit winners against every player but against Rafa or Djoker at their best, those winners come back with interest and suddenly Fed finds himself having to defend when he should've won the point. Murray is the only one of today's top 4 that lacks in 2 areas; fire power off the FH side and nerves. Can anyone guess why he hasn't won a major now?

Today's competition makes it MUCH tougher to win a major because you've most likely got to beat 2 out of the top 4 to get it. Just because someone in the top 10 from 2004-2007 had a chance to progress further than a top 4 player (apart from Fed) doesn't make that top 10 better than the current top 10. They too can cause upsets in Majors, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro and Murray are all capable of defeating the top 3 in majors, so it's not like Rafa and Djoker have a walk in the park straight to the final but I would be tipping they would if they were in Fed's place from 2004-2007...

bjurra
06-14-2012, 08:45 AM
If you trail one of your main rivals 8-2 in majors, you are not the GOAT, period.



This is flawed logic. GOAT doesn't mean invincible or godlike, it simply means greatest of all times. If Federer is not the goat, someone else has to be. Since nobody else can rival Federer's record, Federer is the GOAT. Simple as that.

JediFed
06-14-2012, 09:00 AM
This is flawed logic. GOAT doesn't mean invincible or godlike, it simply means greatest of all times. If Federer is not the goat, someone else has to be. Since nobody else can rival Federer's record, Federer is the GOAT. Simple as that.

Nadal is not Federer's rival. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Once again, Federer's rivals are Hewitt (World number 1 for 2 years running), Juan Carlos Ferrero (World number 1), Andy Roddick (World number 1), Marat Safin (world number 1), and folks like:

Tommy Haas (world number 2), David Nalbandian, Nikolay Davyedenko, Fena Gonzalez, etc.

About the only records Federer doesn't own among this bunch are, 1, titles on clay (14) (JCF), and 2, wins on Grass, (Hewitt), and the percentage winning record in finals (Davydenko).

The fact that Federer's career rivals are considered to be Djokovic, Nadal and Murray, assumes that Federer's career started in 2008.

JediFed
06-14-2012, 09:04 AM
Please tell me there aren't people who believe that the likes of Davydenko-Ljubicic-Roddick-Robredo represent just as tough a challenge as the likes of Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga. As for Nadal, even at his "peak" Federer struggled against him on clay and didn't have a great record against him on other surfaces either.

Uh, lets see. Roddick > Murray. 10 GS SFs, and actually one won of them.

Del Potro, other than the single slam, Davydenko > Del Po.

Tsonga = Ljubicic. Neither has won a slam.


As for Djoko having a losing record against Roddick, that is SO misleading. In one of those matches Djoko was ill and had virtually collapsed from heat exhaustion in Melbourne. In another he had just been getting used to a new racquet, which takes time. And in another he was exhausted having played (and won) 3 weeks straight and tanked the match.


As always, nobody beats a healthy Djokovic. How is it that Federer dominates Roddick, but the 5 years younger Djokovic has a losing record?

oz_boz
06-14-2012, 09:27 AM
Here we go again.

The basic argument of the OP is that Fed is a second rate champ, and Nadal is great because he managed to beat Federer in slams. How does that add up? Also he/she conveniently forgets to mention that Nadal he lost a lot more to the players Fed constantly beat up on.

A little note here: Counting from RG 2005, Nadal has 11 Slams and 5 final losses, Fed has 12 Slams and 8 final losses. (In 2 of the Slams Fed won, Rafa did not take part - if he had, Nadal would possibly have won 1 of them (Wim 09) and Fed the other (AO -06). So their records are actually equal for the overlap of their respective careers, regardless of how much people are touting Rafa to be dominant during that period.

The h2h only show matches between 2 players, but the tour consists of a good many more players than that. Also skewing the h2h a bit is that the clay competition is worse than the hc, so Nadal missed a lot of possible finals vs Fed in early years, but Fed keeps reaching latter stages of clay, even at his old age. The h2h logic is also totally flawed since reaching RG semis would be better for Fed than reaching finals, using "h2h logic" :retard:

Fed has the better career, no doubt whatsoever. Nadal can reach his level but that'd take 3-4 more slams, with at least 1 more Wim and 1 more AO or USO, IMHO. That's quite doable, considering the weakness of the post Rafa generation.

(Nole has nothing to do in the GOAT discussion, so I left him out.)

Sharpshooter
06-14-2012, 09:29 AM
Nadal is not Federer's rival. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Once again, Federer's rivals are Hewitt (World number 1 for 2 years running), Juan Carlos Ferrero (World number 1), Andy Roddick (World number 1), Marat Safin (world number 1), and folks like:

Tommy Haas (world number 2), David Nalbandian, Nikolay Davyedenko, Fena Gonzalez, etc.

About the only records Federer doesn't own among this bunch are, 1, titles on clay (14) (JCF), and 2, wins on Grass, (Hewitt), and the percentage winning record in finals (Davydenko).

The fact that Federer's career rivals are considered to be Djokovic, Nadal and Murray, assumes that Federer's career started in 2008.

Wrong. Even Federer said Nadal's his rival, but I gues you're right and he's wrong yeah?

A rival is somebody who constantly meets you in important matches and you push each other to improve, this has been the case with Rafa and Fed, it has nothing to do with age at all.

Sharpshooter
06-14-2012, 09:37 AM
Uh, lets see. Roddick > Murray. 10 GS SFs, and actually one won of them.

Weaker field dude. Murray has to contend with 3 players that have very little weaknesses in their games, Roddick only had to deal with one, Roger. Oh and he never beat him in a major either even though they played so many times.


Del Potro, other than the single slam, Davydenko > Del Po.


lol this statement reeks of fanboyism, Del Po is a FAR bigger slam threat than Davydenko has ever been in his match fixing career.


Tsonga = Ljubicic. Neither has won a slam.


Really? Wow this is amazing lmfao! Tsonga has beaten Fed, Rafa and Djoker in slams, got to the AO final as well as semi's at WIM and RG what did Ljubicic ever do to warrant such a ridiculous statement? They are far from equal.


As always, nobody beats a healthy Djokovic. How is it that Federer dominates Roddick, but the 5 years younger Djokovic has a losing record?

Djokovic was quite healthy at RG a couple days ago and somebody beat him.

TigerTim
06-14-2012, 09:40 AM
In answer to the actual question of quality over quantity I myself would rather, and regard higher 3 Wimbys that 5 AO's

cocrcici
06-14-2012, 09:42 AM
yes and no

justine&coria
06-14-2012, 09:58 AM
If Federer is not the goat, someone else has to be. Simple as that.
No.

2003
06-14-2012, 10:02 AM
Why does everyone say Nadal would win at RG no matter what?

Soaderling beat him in 2009. In 2008 RG SEMI Baby Nole gave him a good touch up in the 3rd set. He wasn't exactly invincible.

2003
06-14-2012, 10:03 AM
The only God Nadal was 2008 one really.

2005/2006/2007 and especially 2010 Nadal really had NO competition on clay.

If Fed could get sets off him im sure he could have been beaten by someone.

Sharpshooter
06-14-2012, 10:53 AM
The only God Nadal was 2008 one really.

2005/2006/2007 and especially 2010 Nadal really had NO competition on clay.

If Fed could get sets off him im sure he could have been beaten by someone.

Nadal doesn't usually ever have competition on clay. You say Sod beat him? Wow one loss when he was going through personal issues and knee injury, we all saw what happened the next 2 times they played at RG didn't we? Raf stitched him up bad.

Sorry, but no matter who it is Rafa wins at RG provided he is healthy, the only thing that'll cost him is injury. He'll decline in a few more years but until then it is his unless he's injured.

juan27
06-14-2012, 11:55 AM
He had set points in set 2 as well.

2 sets to 0 advantage? I'd give him a pretty good chance. We all know how good Olderer is in 5 setters against decent opponents :tape:

well....that is not a great factor.

baghdatis in 2006 was won the first set and he was 2-0 in the second.

gonzalez in 2007 was serving for the first set too.

in tennis lose setpoints and this things are logic.

everybody talking about murray is a joke , the man lose with a old mahut in grass not only with the top-3!!! he lose with ferrer too , players of fed`s generation

Pratik
06-14-2012, 11:56 AM
Look at the era in which Federer won most of his majors: a poor era where he was beating reasonably good (but not great) or distinctly average players in semis and finals: Philippoussis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Haas. For goodness sake, he even had Jonas Bjorkman (no disrespect-a great doubles player-but come on) as a semi-final opponent at Wimbledon one year.

When he finally came up against serious opposition, (Nadal on clay since 2005, Nadal & Djokovic on other surfaces from 2008 onwards) he hasn’t been able to live with it, and has consistently fallen short.

Look at who Djokovic and Nadal have beaten in the latter stages en route to their majors – each other, Federer and Murray – outstanding players compared with the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Haas, Davydenko. Since 2008 Nadal hasn’t been hit off the court by Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling etc except RG2009 when he was clearly injured and suffering personal issues.


We bow down to thee, in awe of your flawless logic.
Peak Murray > Peak Roddick, Hewitt, Safin
Muster, Kafelnikov, Chang, Guga>> Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby

And now come the real gems of wisdom:
Federer's win against Gonzalez(AO F,2007) does not count because it was a mug era and Gonzalez was a mug. Nadal's win against Gonzales(Olympics F,2008) is counted as one of his most important titles, more than a slam.

Federer wins against Soderling. Mug era. Nadal wins against Soderling. Clay GOAT.

Federer wins against (multiple) slam winners Safin, Hewitt, Roddick. Mug era. Don't count. Nadal wins against WTA player Mary Puerta. Nadal has 7 RG's. Clay GOAT.

And anyone who disagrees with these gems are Fedtards who apparently, can't see straight.

Sophocles
06-14-2012, 02:34 PM
I pose this question, take Fed out of the 2004-2007 era and replace him with Nadal or Djoker at the same age and tell Nadal wouldn't win 16 majors who would stop him? Baby Fed? Roddick at WIM would've troubled him, but I still think Rafa would beat him anyway. Maybe Djoker wouldn't have 16 but he'd have close to 10.

This is twisted. One of the main causes for celebration for Fed-haters such as you is that Fed has stopped Nadull in only 2 slams. Take Fed out & Nadull probably has 2 more Wimbledons. Make Nadull older from 2004-7 & he's going to be older & declining post-2007, so you have to take away some of his slams in that period. Even post-2007, he was losing at hard-court slams left, right, & centre to the likes of Tsonga, Murray, Del Po, Ferrer, as well as Djoker; make him older & declining & he loses even more. Nadal may have been young in 2005, but he ended the year at No. 2 & was well into his prime; even during his peak 2008-10 he was able to win 2 out of 6 hard-court slams.

What Nadal would have in the scenario you prognosticate is many more weeks at No. 1.

GOAT = Fed
06-14-2012, 02:44 PM
Didn't read lol.

rocketassist
06-14-2012, 02:44 PM
This is twisted. One of the main causes for celebration for Fed-haters such as you is that Fed has stopped Nadull in only 2 slams. Take Fed out & Nadull probably has 2 more Wimbledons. Make Nadull older from 2004-7 & he's going to be older & declining post-2007, so you have to take away some of his slams in that period. Even post-2007, he was losing at hard-court slams left, right, & centre to the likes of Tsonga, Murray, Del Po, Ferrer, as well as Djoker; make him older & declining & he loses even more. Nadal may have been young in 2005, but he ended the year at No. 2 & was well into his prime; even during his peak 2008-10 he was able to win 2 out of 6 hard-court slams.

What Nadal would have in the scenario you prognosticate is many more weeks at No. 1.

Nadal peaking in 04 wouldn't win as much as Federer did in that time. Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Oldassi, Nalbandian not to mention faster courts than today at the AO, USO and Wimbledon would ensure no Fed-like dominance for the Manacor kid. In 06 he may have had more of a chance with most of those players gone and Ljubo 3rd and BOREDO top 5 though.

BauerAlmeida
06-14-2012, 04:28 PM
Peak Murray > Peak Safin


:haha::haha::haha:

rocketassist
06-14-2012, 04:29 PM
:haha::haha::haha:

He is actually joking there. :lol:

BauerAlmeida
06-14-2012, 04:50 PM
He is actually joking there. :lol:

Yeah. He wasn't the one who said it but the one he was quoting did.

luie
06-14-2012, 04:57 PM
7 of Nadulls 11 slams have come in the weak clay court era enough said.

Jimnik
06-14-2012, 04:59 PM
Yes. Wimbledon matters more than RG.

luie
06-14-2012, 05:01 PM
If Feds era is weak then Nadulls is even weak as a result , as the weakest surface among the elite players is clay . So Nadulls Domination is down to a weaker era comparatively speaking.

luie
06-14-2012, 05:02 PM
Yes. Wimbledon matters more than RG.

People can talk all they want but by competition at the highest level RG is weakest of all the slams.

luie
06-14-2012, 05:05 PM
All the talk of Djokovic, nadull , Delphi is garbage because Nadulls domination of fed is clay based and Novak is age based, in this homogenized era.

luie
06-14-2012, 05:09 PM
Novak= egg . Nadull= boiled egg . In this slow homogenized , physical based tennis.

Manequin75
06-14-2012, 05:09 PM
give me 17 slams. Make it as worst quality wins you want. I don't mind :)

Sapeod
06-14-2012, 05:11 PM
16 >> 11 >> 5 :wavey:

Roger Federer will forever be the GOAT, even if Nadal overtakes him in slam titles because we all know that Roger Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafael Nadal. End of discussion.

Jimnik
06-14-2012, 05:12 PM
Would you prefer 17 AOs to 4 of each slam?

luie
06-14-2012, 05:14 PM
In this era the best tennis players would have been if they so chosed , would have been Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson , ledford Christie ,Maurice Green, Donovan Bailey , Usant Bolt and such guys.
The technology and surface did the rest.

habibko
06-14-2012, 05:14 PM
it's a misleading question, you can't quantify quality therefore there's no definite way to measure it, had Federer not existed more of his so called pigeons would have been multiple slam winners and their games would have looked more impressive than the way they looked when exposed by Roger

that wouldn't have meant the quality was higher just because it was more competitive with many multiple slam winners contesting for slams

thus we are left with quantity as the sole objective measure

Manequin75
06-14-2012, 05:15 PM
16 >> 11 >> 5 :wavey:

Roger Federer will forever be the GOAT, even if Nadal overtakes him in slam titles because we all know that Roger Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafael Nadal. End of discussion.

come on today's 16 year olds are a pretty smart bunch. Don't embarrass them :) Save all this energy for when Andy wins a slam. I think he is close and will shock ppl soon. (hopefully not at Rafa's expense) :)

Sapeod
06-14-2012, 05:17 PM
come on today's 16 year olds are a pretty smart bunch. Don't embarrass them :) Save all this energy for when Andy wins a slam. I think he is close and will shock ppl soon. (hopefully not at Rafa's expense) :)
Andy? :scratch: I was talking about Federer being the greatest player of all time. I wonder how that is in any way related to Murray :scratch:

Jimnik
06-14-2012, 05:23 PM
William Renshaw won a bunch of CLOWN slams. Great my arse.
You obviously haven't done the math.

AO = 1 slam
RG = 0.1 slams
Wimby = 1 slam
USO = 1 slam

Renshaw = 7 slams
Nadal = 4.7 slams
Renshaw > Nadal

Irrefutable logic.

peribsen
06-14-2012, 06:53 PM
:zzz:

(Rafa's 11 slams include no less than 6 taken from Roger and 2 from Djokovic. Whatever you make of wins over Soderling -same rival as Fed beat in his only RG- or Berdych is fine with me. Puerta was something else, of course, but even he is a worthy rival if you consider that Rafa had barely turned 19... and had beaten the obvious candidate for the title, Fedgoat himself, in the semis...uhmmm, maybe we should make that a 7th win over Fed. Methinks his fans can sleep soundly regarding the list of his RUs).

viva-rafa
06-14-2012, 08:09 PM
Controversial Thread!
IMO Quality is subjective and so is greatness, while quantity is what it is (just numbers). Numbers could be helpful or misleading depending on how they are presented or viewed. In sports everything is subjective; people present and view numbers as they wish; people judge quality of play as they see fit. But you can't deny the sheer importance of numbers; after all, only numbers would remain when actual witnesses of an era itself would pass. I started watching tennis in 2002, and numbers tell me that Borg, Laver, Samprass etc. were great players. However, numbers don't tell the whole story. What made these players so great? I can't judge by just numbers. After all, Roy Emerson won 12 majors too. Why have I never heard of him being included in the list of greats? Why do people don't talk about him as they talk about others?
As for Federer is concerned, I've followed his amazing string of victories. I've seen the guy play, and there's no doubt in my mind that he is one of the greatest players. Sure his game doesn't interest me, and if not for Rafael Nadal I wouldn't have watched and fallen in love with tennis. Before discovering Nadal is 2005, I was just casually following men's tennis. Federer was making me bored to death. But I don't think for a minute that his competitors were weak. He was just that good! Thank God for Rafael Nadal for bringing interest (at least for me). Similarly I would always think of Rafael Nadal as one of the greatest players.
Now do I believe that Federer is the greatest player of all time? I don't know if there's any such thing as "Greatest of all Time". The time hasn't stopped is it? Therefore, it can't be determined who's the greatest. After the time would stop and tennis would cease to be, then we could form such conclusions. But definitely Federer is the most successful player so far.

Manequin75
06-14-2012, 08:20 PM
:zzz:

(Rafa's 11 slams include no less than 6 taken from Roger and 2 from Djokovic. Whatever you make of wins over Soderling -same rival as Fed beat in his only RG- or Berdych is fine with me. Puerta was something else, of course, but even he is a worthy rival if you consider that Rafa had barely turned 19... and had beaten the obvious candidate for the title, Fedgoat himself, in the semis...uhmmm, maybe we should make that a 7th win over Fed. Methinks his fans can sleep soundly regarding the list of his RUs).



of the 11 slams rafa has won, he had to beat federer enroute to win eight of them (5 French opens, 1 wimbledon, 2 AO). Six of them in finals and two in semifinals.


He has won only 1 slam where he didnt have to face fed or novak - wimbledon 2010. Remaining 10 have been won beating atleast one of them enroute if not both.

christallh24
06-14-2012, 08:20 PM
It's another beat a dead horse thread.

Roger fans and Nadal haters will forfuckingever contend quantity, (if Rafa doesn't surpass him), is over quality and quality over quantity if Rafa does. And so goes on the world.

BauerAlmeida
06-14-2012, 08:27 PM
of the 11 slams rafa has won, he had to beat federer enroute to win eight of them (5 French opens, 1 wimbledon, 2 AO). Six of them in finals and two in semifinals.


He has won only 1 slam where he didnt have to face fed or novak - wimbledon 2010. Remaining 10 have been won beating atleast one of them enroute if not both.

In RG 2010 he didn't beat Djokovic or Federer.

And Nadal won 1 Aus Open, not 2.

r2473
06-14-2012, 08:56 PM
This is what MTF has come to?

Jimnik
06-14-2012, 09:18 PM
This is what MTF has always been.

BigJohn
06-14-2012, 09:21 PM
This is what MTF has always been.

I beg to differ. These are special times in MTF, with the two tardiest tardbases (Noletards and Rafatards) going at it.

rocketassist
06-14-2012, 10:11 PM
In RG 2010 he didn't beat Djokovic or Federer.

And Nadal won 1 Aus Open, not 2.

Wimbledon 2010.

Berdych was beyond dismal in that final.