If Federer wins 15 GS but no French [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Federer wins 15 GS but no French

cool bird1
05-14-2007, 02:21 PM
Would he then be the greastest ever. He already has that title in my mind. He is the master.

W!MBLEDON
05-14-2007, 02:22 PM
Yes, but just imagine — what if he DOES win 15 or more GS, including a French Open title? Then he would be the GOAT, definitely. No doubt about it.

bokehlicious
05-14-2007, 02:23 PM
Would he then be the greastest ever. He already has that title in my mind. He is the master.

Please update your sig :eek: :o :wavey:

RickDaStick
05-14-2007, 02:25 PM
The Fed will eventually win RG. Not multiple times but once is a sure bet.

cool bird1
05-14-2007, 02:26 PM
Please update your sig :eek: :o :wavey:


Oh my gosh yeah what was he the 7th Grandslam he won that was the last time I poped in to say hello :wavey:

GlennMirnyi
05-14-2007, 02:26 PM
If course. Who cares about the French when you have 15 GS?

anon57
05-14-2007, 02:27 PM
If he wins 15 GS without RG, there will always be those who say he is not the GOAT because he didn't win RG. Even if he wins 15 Gs including RG there will be those who complain about the "weak era"

rolandgarros
05-14-2007, 02:30 PM
I hate "if"......

sodman12
05-14-2007, 02:32 PM
The Fed will eventually win RG. Not multiple times but once is a sure bet.

No.

CmonAussie
05-14-2007, 02:33 PM
...
______________________________________
I still reckon Rod Laver is `the man`, though "GOAT" terminology is tedious;><:

*Anyway I hope FED does win 15-Slams
~~Because it`s so annoying that Sampras holds the record [FED`s more worthy]!!!

GlennMirnyi
05-14-2007, 02:33 PM
No.

:retard: :rolleyes:

cool bird1
05-14-2007, 02:34 PM
If Volandri is in his side I don´t think so


:) :) That did make me smile. Volandri is on no level with the real Federer. I know he just beat him but that was more Federer doing that anything Volandri did

RickDaStick
05-14-2007, 02:34 PM
No.

Yes.

t0x
05-14-2007, 02:52 PM
Yeah....

Although if he's not going to win the French, a few more finals would certainly shut the doubters up.

Of course this is a big if. I think he'll win RG one year anyway.

CyBorg
05-14-2007, 03:34 PM
Winning the French would be huge, but what truly matters would be a stretch of clay court dominance. For example, if Federer wins two masters cups on clay in one spring (in style) and then succumbs at the French I would consider that to be sufficient proof of clay court excellence.

Otherwise, no. Federer needs to break through on clay and win something that matters (if not French, then at least Monte Carlo and Rome). Otherwise I just don't see how he's better than Borg.

Federer is the greatest hard court player ever however. Bar none.

Bilbo
05-14-2007, 03:40 PM
Federer won't achieve what Agassi has done. To be the best you MUST win all 4 majors IMO. Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

bokehlicious
05-14-2007, 03:43 PM
Federer won't achieve what Agassi has done. To be the best you MUST win all 4 majors IMO. Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

Even if he does win RG. I mean, he could win 25 slams on all surfaces, how could he pretend to the GOAT label playing in such a clown era ? :confused:

At least Andre fought in a spartan era :cool:

propi
05-14-2007, 03:47 PM
OF course, he's proved he can, is not a clay clown à la Sampras, whose inability to play on clay make some not to count him as the greatest, but Roger is no doubt pure talent no matter the surface, he's simply as unlucky to have Rafa as Rafa's for having Roger.

guga2120
05-14-2007, 03:54 PM
Proably yes, but only b/c he is clearly right now the 2nd best claycourter in the world, he was in the final last year, and will proably be in it this year, To be the GOAT, you have to be able to win on all surfaces. Roger unlike Pete is a great claycourter.

He will win the FO, hes too good on clay to not win it.

Jimnik
05-14-2007, 04:14 PM
Maybe, even if he has a spectacular collapse of clay form. He's already achieved more at the AO and RG than Sampras ever did. Also winning three titles in Hamburg and multiple final appearances in MC and Rome.

Then again, I don't consider Sampras the greatest of all time. :p

Sunset of Age
05-14-2007, 05:04 PM
Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

No. Roger completely agrees with you here, that's why he's perhaps the World's Second Best Clay Courter.

CyBorg
05-14-2007, 05:05 PM
Federer won't achieve what Agassi has done. To be the best you MUST win all 4 majors IMO. Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

Agassi fanboy or just delusional? :wavey:

Boris Franz Ecker
05-14-2007, 05:12 PM
Federer won't achieve what Agassi has done. To be the best you MUST win all 4 majors IMO. Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

Agassi won everything but most things only once.
He is no serious candidate for the greatest player ever.

Or does anybody really want that a great player stops playing a Grand Slam tournament if he wins it once?

guga2120
05-14-2007, 05:17 PM
Agassi won everything but most things only once.
He is no serious candidate for the greatest player ever. of course he is, we have seen even with a player as great as Roger, proably any way you want to measure it, the greatest ever, you have seen how hard it is to win all 4 slams on completly different surfaces.

Dougie
05-14-2007, 05:18 PM
Federer won't achieve what Agassi has done. To be the best you MUST win all 4 majors IMO. Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

That´s one way to look at it. But Agassi is still not the best, if you want to look at it that way, then Rod Laver is undoubtly the best.

LeChuck
05-14-2007, 05:25 PM
Agassi was a great player but he failed to dominate his era. As far as I'm concerned, that disqualifies him from being a GOAT contender.

Boris Franz Ecker
05-14-2007, 05:31 PM
of course he is, we have seen even with a player as great as Roger, proably any way you want to measure it, the greatest ever, you have seen how hard it is to win all 4 slams on completly different surfaces.

No, he isn't.

to repeat it, Agassi has won only once the French Open.

He is level with Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya and such players. But he is no French Open legend.

If you want GOAT level success on all surfaces, Agassi fails on grass, clay and even carpet.

guga2120
05-14-2007, 05:39 PM
No, he isn't.



He is level with Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya and such players. But he is no French Open legend.

If you want GOAT level success on all surfaces,No he was in 3 finals in Paris, and also was in 2 at Wimbledon, its not like he just got lucky at won, he won everywhere and competed everywhere, which you can not say about alot players, Sampras never even got close to winning the French, he lost to qualifiers at the French Open, Borg never won the Us Open, to be the GOAT you have to be able to win on all surfaces,

and even carpet. He won Paris twice, and how can you be a legend on carpet there is no Indoor Slam.

Tom_Bombadil
05-14-2007, 05:59 PM
Simply put: there is no GOAT. That kind of player that without any doubts can be considered as the greatest ever doesn't exist. And this controversy proves it.

Burrow
05-14-2007, 06:06 PM
well of course, because sampras is titled that and he never won it.

Burrow
05-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Simply put: there is no GOAT. That kind of player that without any doubts can be considered as the greatest ever doesn't exist. And this controversy proves it.

funny

GlennMirnyi
05-14-2007, 06:10 PM
Federer won't achieve what Agassi has done. To be the best you MUST win all 4 majors IMO. Tennis is not about hard and grass only.

What Agassi has done? A couple of flukes and the amazing achievement of "biggest phony of all time"?

Agassi fanboy or just delusional? :wavey:

Delusional.

Agassi won everything but most things only once.
He is no serious candidate for the greatest player ever.

Or does anybody really want that a great player stops playing a Grand Slam tournament if he wins it once?

Agreed.

of course he is, we have seen even with a player as great as Roger, proably any way you want to measure it, the greatest ever, you have seen how hard it is to win all 4 slams on completly different surfaces.

Wrong. Agassi wins at Wimbledon and the FO were flukes, he is as far as being the GOAT as Gaudio is from being a Wimbledon winner.

Aphex
05-14-2007, 06:52 PM
As long as Fed doesn't win the calendar slam at least once, he will never be the GOAT. Rod Laver did it TWICE! :worship:

Boris Franz Ecker
05-14-2007, 06:53 PM
No he was in 3 finals in Paris, and also was in 2 at Wimbledon, its not like he just got lucky at won, he won everywhere and competed everywhere, which you can not say about alot players, Sampras never even got close to winning the French, he lost to qualifiers at the French Open, Borg never won the Us Open, to be the GOAT you have to be able to win on all surfaces,

He won Paris twice, and how can you be a legend on carpet there is no Indoor Slam.

There was the Masters on Carpet.

And guess how often Agassi won it?
Once!

Not the number for a champion.

Agassi is a great player, but not in the league of Borg, Sampras or Federer. That's sure.
His lonely French Open/Wimbledon title doesn't change this and it doesn't matter how much finals he played.

LeChuck
05-14-2007, 07:13 PM
Agassi is a great player, but not in the league of Borg, Sampras or Federer. That's sure.


I agree

guga2120
05-14-2007, 07:27 PM
Wrong. Agassi wins at Wimbledon and the FO were flukes, So at Wimbledon Andre beating Becker,JMAc,Goran back to back on a very fast grass surface is a fluke, only a dumbass like you would think that.

Agassi is a great player, but not in the league of Borg, thats a joke, considering how many hard court majors Borg won, and Andre was obviously better than Pete on clay and slower hard courts, considering his record against him in Master Series and Australia, and Pete's great record at the French.;)

merlin
05-14-2007, 08:15 PM
I think if he doesn't win it in the next 2 years, 3 at the outside, he never will. He will only get slower and less effective on the surface, while new young guns will emerge, with Nadal being only one of many capable of regularly beating him at RG.

Jlee
05-14-2007, 08:55 PM
It depends if you consider Sampras to be the current GOAT. Some people do, and some don't. I'm hesitant to label him as such because of the French...it would be the same with Roger. IMO, if Roger wins RG at some point in his career, without even having to pass Sampras's GS count, he's the GOAT. In my mind, greatness includes an ability to adapt.

If Roger wins the calendar year Slam, passes Sampras's 14 GS titles, and holds the number one ranking for more weeks, he is the greatest ever. Otherwise it's debatable.

guga2120
05-14-2007, 09:10 PM
In my mind, greatness includes an ability to adapt.

If Roger wins the calendar year Slam, passes Sampras's 14 GS titles, and holds the number one ranking for more weeks, he is the greatest ever. Otherwise it's debatable.

agree about the ability to adapt, but is has nothing to do with 14 or 15 slams, that does not make the GOAT, especially since the one with 14 has 0 FO's. If Roger wins the FO this year he is the greatest ever, but he has to win it.

Kolya
05-14-2007, 09:14 PM
He will win a FO, Nadal can not win 10 straight :D

Auscon
05-14-2007, 10:07 PM
Considering when all is said and done, he will have most likely spent his days competing against the greatest claycourt player of all time, if he doesnt come away with the French I'd still consider him the greatest overall

goldenlox
05-14-2007, 10:52 PM
I think the most important thing Federer needs to do this year is win his 5th straight Wimbledon.
If he gets that done, it doesn't matter what he does the rest of the year. Plus he has the AO title.

GlennMirnyi
05-14-2007, 11:48 PM
So at Wimbledon Andre beating Becker,JMAc,Goran back to back on a very fast grass surface is a fluke, only a dumbass like you would think that.

thats a joke, considering how many hard court majors Borg won, and Andre was obviously better than Pete on clay and slower hard courts, considering his record against him in Master Series and Australia, and Pete's great record at the French.;)

Dumbass? I'm just telling the truth, I'm not a brainwashed fanboy like you.

Pete - 14GS. :wavey:

guga2120
05-14-2007, 11:56 PM
Pete - 14GS. :wavey:
And how many French Open titles did Pete get? No, how many times was he in the final?:D

GlennMirnyi
05-14-2007, 11:59 PM
And how many French Open titles did Pete get? No, how many times was he in the final?:D

Who cares? He won Wimbledon 7 times. It's more important and more traditional. That's the deal.

guga2120
05-15-2007, 12:04 AM
It's more important :bs:

GlennMirnyi
05-15-2007, 12:23 AM
:bs:

:rolleyes:

Brainwashed fanboy.

Merton
05-15-2007, 12:23 AM
Winning the French would be huge, but what truly matters would be a stretch of clay court dominance. For example, if Federer wins two masters cups on clay in one spring (in style) and then succumbs at the French I would consider that to be sufficient proof of clay court excellence.

Otherwise, no. Federer needs to break through on clay and win something that matters (if not French, then at least Monte Carlo and Rome). Otherwise I just don't see how he's better than Borg.

Federer is the greatest hard court player ever however. Bar none.

Right there is the reason I consider Borg greater than Sampras, even though 14>11. Looking at Borg's record on hard courts in general and against the players who defeated him at the US Open, one has to conclude that his failure to win the US Open is not indicative of hard court inferiority but rather Borg not feeling comfortable in the NY locale.

As for Roger, lets wait until he is done.

SBruguera
05-15-2007, 01:07 AM
Simply put: there is no GOAT. That kind of player that without any doubts can be considered as the greatest ever doesn't exist. And this controversy proves it.

:worship: :worship: Totally agree.

There are too many "ifs" in tennis to consider anyone the GOAT. Personal circumstances, injuries, different levels of competition in every era. The methodology to measure this is mostly based on the number of GS titles. But there are still too many "ifs". Laver´s decision to turn pro eliminated him from competition in the world´s major titles during five years. Borg only played the AO once, in 1974. And so on.

Jimnik
05-15-2007, 01:21 AM
If Federer wins 6 Wimbledons, 6 US Opens, 6 Aus Opens and no French Opens would he be considered the GOAT? Think about it, never winning on clay and failing to catch Sampras's Wimby record. :p

It's always debatable.

GlennMirnyi
05-15-2007, 01:30 AM
:worship: :worship: Totally agree.

There are too many "ifs" in tennis to consider anyone the GOAT. Personal circumstances, injuries, different levels of competition in every era. The methodology to measure this is mostly based on the number of GS titles. But there are still too many "ifs". Laver´s decision to turn pro eliminated him from competition in the world´s major titles during five years. Borg only played the AO once, in 1974. And so on.

No, there are no "if"s. There are GS titles, Sampras has 14 and that's it.

Borg only played the AO once because the AO is the MM slam. It's now, it was much more MM before.

guga2120
05-15-2007, 01:36 AM
No, there are no "if"s. There are GS titles, Sampras has 14 and that's it.

if its only about the number why do so many, like John McEnroe think if Federer wins the French he will be the greatest ever, even last year many were thinking if he won that final, meaning he would have only 9, but still be the GOAT b/c he had won all of them.

It is not about the number, thats a very ignorant way to look at, you have to look at who had the best record overall, Roger could win it this year, and retire, the GOAT.

GlennMirnyi
05-15-2007, 02:18 AM
if its only about the number why do so many, like John McEnroe think if Federer wins the French he will be the greatest ever, even last year many were thinking if he won that final, meaning he would have only 9, but still be the GOAT b/c he had won all of them.

It is not about the number, thats a very ignorant way to look at, you have to look at who had the best record overall, Roger could win it this year, and retire, the GOAT.

No. Ignorant is to think someone with a fluke win in the FO is a candidate to be the GOAT.

guga2120
05-15-2007, 02:50 AM
No. Ignorant is to think someone with a fluke win in the FO is a candidate to be the GOAT. no he earned that, considering who he beat and that he was in the final twice before.


this is ignoranceAll results Nadal ever achieved are results of cakewalk draws. Flukes. You either know nothing about tennis, or think very lowely of Federer.

merlin
05-15-2007, 03:37 AM
And how many French Open titles did Pete get? No, how many times was he in the final?:D

Doesn't change that Sampras > Federer as of right now. Federer is 99% likely to pass him, of course, but not yet. I mean, even McEnroe has a Fench final under his belt and I doubt many would rate him above Pete.

Right there is the reason I consider Borg greater than Sampras, even though 14>11. Looking at Borg's record on hard courts in general and against the players who defeated him at the US Open, one has to conclude that his failure to win the US Open is not indicative of hard court inferiority but rather Borg not feeling comfortable in the NY locale.

Sampras did fairly well on Clay for a while. Eventually his failure to win big got into his head. Read some tennis news from ten years ago and you'll see plenty of people speculating about him winning the grand slam. We'll see if Fed can succeed where Pete failed. Ignoring the futility of comparing eras, I am more impressed with Borg's accomplishments, however.

As for Roger, lets wait until he is done.

Agreed.

GlennMirnyi
05-15-2007, 03:47 AM
no he earned that, considering who he beat and that he was in the final twice before.

this is ignorance You either know nothing about tennis, or think very lowely of Federer.

He beat freaking Medvedev. The guy never won a slam. Get a clue.

About the second sentence, it's the pure truth. You can't see it 'cause you're brainwashed.

Mimi
05-15-2007, 03:56 AM
if roger wins more than 14 slams, even without FO, he certainly is still the greatest :wavey:

even i like pete a lot more than agassi, i think his FO win is not a fluke, well, may be he won it with some lucks :p

you can't say agassi is greater than pete, not only did he win 6 slams less than pete, but that he did not dominate the tour like pete (of course now, roger dominates the tour more than pete did) , agassi did not stay very long as no.1 :p

LeChuck
05-15-2007, 08:16 AM
you can't say agassi is greater than pete, not only did he win 6 slams less than pete, but that he did not dominate the tour like pete (of course now, roger dominates the tour more than pete did) , agassi did not stay very long as no.1 :p

I agree. Pete and Andre both played in the same era, and Pete was the dominant figure of that era, not Andre. 6 grand slams is a huge difference between the two players. Afterall, Becker and Edberg are both widely considered to be tennis greats and they won 6 grand slams. Pete spent 286 weeks (5 and a half years) as world no. 1, compared to 101 weeks (2 years) for Agassi. The only dominant spell that Agassi had was from the 1999 French Open until the 2000 Australian Open. It's very impressive but simply not long enough for GOAT standards in my opinion. I also think that being able to successfully defend grand slams is quite important. Agassi only did this once in his career. Sampras did it 6 times. A few years ago Brad Gilbert said something along the lines that for Sampras, Agassi and now Federer, a good year was to win one grand slam, a great year was to win two or more. By these standards, Pete had 4 great years while Agassi had 1.
If Agassi had reached double figures in grand slam titles and had enjoyed a more sustained period of dominance (3 years is the minimum amount required for me), then I could see how people could rank him above Sampras. However he didn't. Make no mistake, Andre is one of the greatest players of all time, but he is not in the same bracket as the likes of Laver, Sampras, Borg and now Federer.

Mimi
05-15-2007, 09:38 AM
wise post, yes, totally agreed :D :worship:

may be i am biased, i think one of the reasons why agassi was so dominating in 1999-2000 was due to the fact that pete was injured, remember, pete beat Andre in 1999 wimby final, and he also beat agassi 2 times more in the pre-us open tourneys, he was in very good form at that time, but then unluckily he injured himself and withdrew from us open 99, and when he came back a few months after, at the year end championship, he beat agassi in straight sets, even in 2000 AO semi, he was leading 2 sets to 1 before his physical conditions failed him, for me, agassi is a great player, but he never is as great as pete :cool:


I agree. Pete and Andre both played in the same era, and Pete was the dominant figure of that era, not Andre. 6 grand slams is a huge difference between the two players. Afterall, Becker and Edberg are both widely considered to be tennis greats and they won 6 grand slams. Pete spent 286 weeks (5 and a half years) as world no. 1, compared to 101 weeks (2 years) for Agassi. The only dominant spell that Agassi had was from the 1999 French Open until the 2000 Australian Open. It's very impressive but simply not long enough for GOAT standards in my opinion. I also think that being able to successfully defend grand slams is quite important. Agassi only did this once in his career. Sampras did it 6 times. A few years ago Brad Gilbert said something along the lines that for Sampras, Agassi and now Federer, a good year was to win one grand slam, a great year was to win two or more. By these standards, Pete had 4 great years while Agassi had 1.
If Agassi had reached double figures in grand slam titles and had enjoyed a more sustained period of dominance (3 years is the minimum amount required for me), then I could see how people could rank him above Sampras. However he didn't. Make no mistake, Andre is one of the greatest players of all time, but he is not in the same bracket as the likes of Laver, Sampras, Borg and now Federer.

Rommella
05-15-2007, 10:49 AM
As long as Fed doesn't win the calendar slam at least once, he will never be the GOAT. Rod Laver did it TWICE! :worship:
With three grand slams played on grass and only one on clay, to be exact. If 3 of the grand slams today were played on grass still, it would not be a stretch to say Roger would have won them all.

CmonAussie
05-15-2007, 12:29 PM
No, there are no "if"s. There are GS titles, Sampras has 14 and that's it.

Borg only played the AO once because the AO is the MM slam. It's now, it was much more MM before.


:( :( :o
Glenn get a life:mad:
...
I`m really sick of you disrespecting AO!!!!
>>> For a start MM [Mickey Mouse] & SLAM are a contradiction in terms;)
Even at AO`s worst period we still had several Top-10 players turning up;)
...
Borg`s:o disappointing choice not to play AO [except 74] was mostly his loss & his Swedish `offspring`~ Wilander & Edberg paid the tournament much more respect:cool:
...
>>
From 1905->1975 the AO had as much legitimacy to the word SLAM as the other 3;)
From 1976->1982 the AO weak field was surely threatening it`s legitimacy..
From 1983->2007++ the AO is on a par & possibly better than the other 3:cool:

Aphex
05-15-2007, 01:26 PM
With three grand slams played on grass and only one on clay, to be exact. If 3 of the grand slams today were played on grass still, it would not be a stretch to say Roger would have won them all. The French Open was on clay. Anyway forget about the surfaces. Laver's feat was he held up under the pressure to win the Calendar Grand Slam, the holy grail of tennis, twice. Sampras never did it. He was never even close. Federer has been close. But close doesn't cut it. Borg, you could argue he was close the years he won RG, Wimbledon and reached the USO final, because you'd think he would win AusO easily if he bothered to show up. Still none of these guys has done it. Laver has, twice.;) :p :wavey:

goldenlox
05-15-2007, 01:43 PM
Laver won a slam against amateurs. Then he turned pro and got his ass kicked.
He really won one slam, playing against the best players. 3 of the majors were grass.

CmonAussie
05-15-2007, 01:56 PM
Laver won a slam against amateurs. Then he turned pro and got his ass kicked.
He really won one slam, playing against the best players. 3 of the majors were grass.

Don`t be disrespectful:(
Rod Laver was an abso-fricken-loot genius:worship: :angel:
...
Check out Laver`s pro career [ie. after tennis went Open in 1968]:cool:
Note also that Laver turned 30-years old in 1968, so he won all these titles [including the SLAM in 69] well past his peak:worship: , & even as a 37yo in 1975 he was still good enough to beat young guns like Borg:)


1968 - Wimbledon, Los Angeles
1969 - Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, Philadelphia WCT
1970 - Queen's Club, Los Angeles, Louisville, Montreal / Toronto, Philadelphia WCT, South Orange, St Louis WCT
1971 - Berkeley, Bologna WCT, Fort Worth WCT, London, Rome
1972 - Denver WCT, Houston WCT, Philadelphia WCT, Richmond WCT, Toronto WCT
1973 - Hong Kong, Miami WCT, Richmond WCT, Sydney Indoor, Toronto WCT
1974 - Bretton Woods, Houston, Las Vegas, Palm Desert WCT, Philadelphia WCT, Tokyo WCT
1975 - Caracas WCT, La Costa WCT, Orlando WCT, São Paulo WCT

LeChuck
05-15-2007, 02:06 PM
I've just taken a closer look at Rod Laver's 1969, and he won 18 titles. Here's the surface breakdown of those titles:
- 3 on grass
- 2 on clay
- 6 on outdoor hard
- 2 on indoor hard
- 5 on indoor carpet

Wow that's impressive. While people are right to point out that his calendar grand slam in 1969 was 'only' achieved across grass and clay, apparently in that year he won the biggest hardcourt tournaments that were available to him at the time (Johannesburg and Boston) plus the biggest carpet tournaments (Wembley and Philadelphia). Taking this into account, surely no-one, not even Borg, has been able to match Laver's level of versatility across all the surfaces. Plus let's not forget that as part of his calendar grand slam, he was required to achieve the fiercely difficult French Open-Wimbledon double.

goldenlox
05-15-2007, 02:11 PM
It's not disrespectful to question the 1961 majors. Pancho Gonzalez and Lew Hoad were both a lot better than Laver in 62, but were not allowed to play majors for years, especially Gonzalez, who was probably the best player from that era. Gonzalez won 2 US Opens in the 40's.
And wasn't allowed to play a major from about 1950-1968.

Andre'sNo1Fan
05-15-2007, 03:03 PM
Yes, but just imagine — what if he DOES win 15 or more GS, including a French Open title? Then he would be the GOAT, definitely. No doubt about it.
There is doubts about it actually. You can't really compare eras for a start - would different players fair the same with different technology? What about competition? I mean no-one will ever know for sure, there are too many variables. How can u be so sure?

bokehlicious
05-15-2007, 03:42 PM
There is doubts about it actually. You can't really compare eras for a start - would different players fair the same with different technology? What about competition? I mean no-one will ever know for sure, there are too many variables. How can u be so sure?

In such a scenario, haters could still deny the obvious :shrug: , no big deal :)

Andre'sNo1Fan
05-15-2007, 03:45 PM
In such a scenario, haters could still deny the obvious :shrug: , no big deal :)
While you are blinded, there is no way of comparing eras - unless u can somehow come up with some magnificent way of doing it. There is no obvious - who is the greatest football team of all time? Its very subjective.

ycpg
05-15-2007, 04:23 PM
Roger is already a legend at the age of 25 he is tied for fifth on the all time grand slam champion list he's in double digits along Bill Tilden. Roger has nothing really to prove.

anon57
05-15-2007, 04:27 PM
Roger is already a legend at the age of 25 he is tied for fifth on the all time grand slam champion list he's in double digits along Bill Tilden. Roger has nothing really to prove.

I agree, if he were to retire tomorow (not that I think he should) he already has his place in history as one of the most dominant players in the Open era. To be considered the GOAT he would need more GS.

guy in sf
05-15-2007, 04:54 PM
If course. Who cares about the French when you have 15 GS?

I think Sampras cared a WHOLE LOT all those years when he was trying to win just one. Right now, I would say Federer cares a whole lot about the French open as well because people are already debating whether he is or isn't the greatest with the missing French title being a huge factor in determining that.

Dancing Hero
05-15-2007, 05:10 PM
If Federer wins 15 GS but no French, is he the best ever? Good question. I don't know.:)

He will be considered one of the best ever, that's for sure, but the game has changed so much, it's difficult to compare the great players of other eras to the modern players. It's a nice talking point but opinions will still differ. If Federer wins 15 AND a French, he's got a better case for being considered the no.1, he would have won on all the surfaces.

goldenlox
05-15-2007, 09:41 PM
I don't know if winning the FO will have people raising their opinion of Federer. Everyone's career can be criticised once you take out the microscope.
But as a long time #1, he should want to remembered for winning all 4.

guy in sf
05-16-2007, 01:06 AM
I don't know if winning the FO will have people raising their opinion of Federer. Everyone's career can be criticised once you take out the microscope.
But as a long time #1, he should want to remembered for winning all 4.

Of course people will think even more highly of Federer if he wins the French, especially the critics and historians who write the books. That's exactly what they bring up when talking about who's the greatest, who's got everything and who's missing what. All you have to do is look at Sampras' case, they always mention that he'd failed to win the French. In fact, if he had at least 1 French title, people would be saying something right now like "Federer is sooo good but not sure if he's better than Sampras because he hasn't won the French and Sampras has." People aren't saying that right now, what most feel is that Federer is already greater than Sampras because Sampras never won the French title and even if Fed never wins it, most feel he can catch up with Sampras' 14 GS. Having one French title for Fed would surely seal his place above Sampras for sure, but he still needs to come a bit closer to Sampras 14 GS overall.

Fedever
05-16-2007, 01:47 AM
Yes he would. I have been a tennis fan for over 20 years and I have never seen anyone play like he does. Not even close. I have exhausted all the adjectives to describe the way he plays and so have many others; commentators, prior champions, people on this board, etc. He is truly one of a kind. The way he plays is pure genius. He seems to defy the laws of physics with some of his shots. He consistently makes shots that no one has ever seen before and that seem almost impossible to make. That is what makes him the greatest player of all time, not just the records he has broken....:worship: :worship: :worship:

Mimi
05-16-2007, 03:03 AM
actually what is the difference between playing as an amateur and professionally? :confused: , somehow, you are going to get prize monies even you are an amateur right?

Fedever
05-16-2007, 05:18 AM
Simply put: there is no GOAT. That kind of player that without any doubts can be considered as the greatest ever doesn't exist. And this controversy proves it.

There is no GOAT because there is controversy about it on the MTF??:rolleyes:

:haha: :haha: :haha:

CmonAussie
05-16-2007, 05:51 AM
actually what is the difference between playing as an amateur and professionally? :confused: , somehow, you are going to get prize monies even you are an amateur right?


:wavey:
During the early - mid 1960s the top players were divided, so that half the good players continued being amateurs & were able to win slams while the other half were pros & weren`t able to enter the slams;)
...
>>>
Fortunately common sense prevailed when Wimbledon agreed to let pros play as well as amateurs-> so the Open Era began [1968]:cool:
...
***Rod LAVER won 6-Slams as an amateur in the late 1950s & early 1960s [including all-4 in 1962] before turning pro in 1963..
Then Laver came back in 1968 and won the 1st Open Wimbledon:D
#1969 at age 31yrs Laver won all-4 Slams for the 2nd time, but this time the achievement was undisputably his greatest:worship: :angel:
...
Basically Laver won everything available to him both as an amateur & as a pro & then again when tennis went Open!!
...
Imagine if Federer or Nadal won the Calendar Slam at 31-years old the way Laver did in 1969!!!
Simply put nobody will ever match Laver`s feats, but of course the competition is much deeper these days;)

In my opinion the greatest year`s in mens tennis are [Open Era-1968>++]:

1. Rod Laver 1969 [The Slam]:worship: :worship: :angel:
2. Roger Federer 2006 [3/4 Slam + FO final]:worship:
3. Roger Federer 2004 [3/4 Slam + 11-titles]:cool:
4. Mats Wilander 1988 [3/4 Slam + Wimby QF]:D
5. Jimmy Connors 1974 [3/4 Slam + 14-titles]:devil:

Mimi
05-16-2007, 06:24 AM
thanks for your explanation, but still i don't understand, does it mean being "amateur", you have another job besides playing tennis, while for "Professional", playing tennis is your only job? but its rather confusing for me, coz somehow, you get monies from winning a title no matter you are an amateur or professional, so whats the difference? Amateurs play less tourneys?:confused:



:wavey:
During the early - mid 1960s the top players were divided, so that half the good players continued being amateurs & were able to win slams while the other half were pros & weren`t able to enter the slams;)
...
>>>
Fortunately common sense prevailed when Wimbledon agreed to let pros play as well as amateurs-> so the Open Era began [1968]:cool:
...
***Rod LAVER won 6-Slams as an amateur in the late 1950s & early 1960s [including all-4 in 1962] before turning pro in 1963..
Then Laver came back in 1968 and won the 1st Open Wimbledon:D
#1969 at age 31yrs Laver won all-4 Slams for the 2nd time, but this time the achievement was undisputably his greatest:worship: :angel:
...
Basically Laver won everything available to him both as an amateur & as a pro & then again when tennis went Open!!
...
Imagine if Federer or Nadal won the Calendar Slam at 31-years old the way Laver did in 1969!!!
Simply put nobody will ever match Laver`s feats, but of course the competition is much deeper these days;)

In my opinion the greatest year`s in mens tennis are [Open Era-1968>++]:

1. Rod Laver 1969 [The Slam]:worship: :worship: :angel:
2. Roger Federer 2006 [3/4 Slam + FO final]:worship:
3. Roger Federer 2004 [3/4 Slam + 11-titles]:cool:
4. Mats Wilander 1988 [3/4 Slam + Wimby QF]:D
5. Jimmy Connors 1974 [3/4 Slam + 14-titles]:devil:

CmonAussie
05-16-2007, 06:55 AM
thanks for your explanation, but still i don't understand, does it mean being "amateur", you have another job besides playing tennis, while for "Professional", playing tennis is your only job? but its rather confusing for me, coz somehow, you get monies from winning a title no matter you are an amateur or professional, so whats the difference? Amateurs play less tourneys?:confused:


:wavey:
No worries mimi:cool:
...
Yes,~in the 1950s & 1960s many amateur tennis players weren`t able to support themselves so they had other jobs. Though the really famous players were able to make money indirectly [eg. coaching famous/rich people, unofficial exhibitions, sponsorship]..


As a rule amateur sports are not supposed to receive prizemoney:eek:
So officially they received `zero` for winning Slams in the early days:sad:
Of course there are always going to be unofficial perks,~for instance the country may give special bonuses for outsdanding performances [eg. still happening with Olympic athletes];)

Mimi
05-16-2007, 07:08 AM
i understand now, you are very knowledgeable, thanks a lot :yeah: :yippee: :hug:

but no prize money, no good :(

:wavey:
No worries mimi:cool:
...
Yes,~in the 1950s & 1960s many amateur tennis players weren`t able to support themselves so they had other jobs. Though the really famous players were able to make money indirectly [eg. coaching famous/rich people, unofficial exhibitions, sponsorship]..


As a rule amateur sports are not supposed to receive prizemoney:eek:
So officially they received `zero` for winning Slams in the early days:sad:
Of course there are always going to be unofficial perks,~for instance the country may give special bonuses for outsdanding performances [eg. still happening with Olympic athletes];)

connectolove
05-16-2007, 02:39 PM
If Fed does not win the French, he will feel incomplete no matter what and always blame Nadal for it.

Andre'sNo1Fan
05-16-2007, 02:52 PM
There is no GOAT because there is controversy about it on the MTF??:rolleyes:

:haha: :haha: :haha:
No, because its too subjective, and its too variable. You can have an opinion on it, but nobody knows for sure, unless you're claiming an opinion is actually a "fact".

Andre'sNo1Fan
05-16-2007, 02:53 PM
If Fed does not win the French, he will feel incomplete no matter what and always blame Nadal for it.
Is it Nadal's fault if Federer can't win the French Open :lol:

He should blame himself for not being good enough.

Tennis-Engineer
05-19-2007, 07:44 AM
Agassi Says Federer Needs French Open Title to Be All-Time Best (http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?T=default&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vf2B.LtC6sA0.asf)