[RafitoGoat]

Originally Posted by fsoica

for any poll involving Federer I'd vote to please the haters, because the guy IS JUST THE GOAT ! nothing more...eat that, haters !

Yeah eat that haters!

[Boris Franz Ecker]

Federer 5 times in a row
Sampras youngest ever champion

That's good and that's exclusive.

Connors has no such things to offer.
This winning on all surfaces is nonsense.

Apart from that, Federer is not a US american.
That should give him the edge.

Federer never had such things like home advantage.

[Echoes]

What's the point in being the best in one tournament only?

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by JediFed

He'd have 4 Wimbledons, and possibly another 2 USOs.

He has lost 6 times to Federer in just those two slams.

Who's saying if Roger Federer weren't around that Roddick would beat this other player in the final?

Roddick is a one slam wonder, he has basically no level of greatness at all.

Wilander >>>>>>>>>> Roddick

[stebs]

Since Federer is still playing and surely in with a shot at acheiveing more at the USO this question is rather redundant for now.

[Everko]

Sampras was better than Federer

[SetSampras]

Originally Posted by JediFed

He'd have 4 Wimbledons, and possibly another 2 USOs.

He has lost 6 times to Federer in just those two slams.

Im sorry but Roddick isnt that great of player and has historically had issues with his nerves in tight match big situations. To just HAND Roddick slams if Federer isnt there is not right. There is no proof that Roddick would have won those slams had Federer not been in the draw. You can just hand players slams if the abscence of another player especially Roddick.

Roddick may not have won all those wimbeldons. He still had a prime Hewitt to contend with. Roddick was Hewitt's bitch for the longest time. Then you have Nadal at wimbeldon. No proof that Roddick has what it takes to beat him. One of the years, Roddick went out at wimbeldin in the 1st round. So again. Its not as though Roddick is the ultra consistent player. There are players capable of catching fire and taking Roddick out.


You are not being very reasonable. First your comparing an all time great Mats Wilander to Roddick the one slam wonder. Than you give Roddick 6 slams in the abscence of Federer as if he was a sure thing to grab all of them.

[rocketassist]

Let's hand Agassi slams if Sampras wasn't there.

[bhathiya9999]

I think Its Federer..

[thrust]

Winning the USO on three different IS an outstanding accomplishment. I think he beat Borg in one clay final. I would not concede any Slam final to Roddick. He was rather lucky to win the one Slam he has.

[SetSampras]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Let's hand Agassi slams if Sampras wasn't there.

Both were the 2 best players of their generation. Proven slam champions many times over with the longevity.. Thats more plausible handing them slams without the other one around. Such as Agassi taking maybe 1 or two Australian Open titles from Pete give or take in 95 and 00. Pete taking possibly the 99 Wimbeldon away and few USO titles from Agassi like 1995 and a few others. Yes. Thats plausible. But to give Roddick 6 slams and place him on the level of Mats Wilander who has 7 slams?

In the abscence of Roger, Roddick probably grabs 3 slams or so. Maybe 4. Thats more plausible But thats still not an all time great career on the level of an Agassi, Wilander, Sampras, Roger etc. Far from it.

It all comes down to Roddick just not being good enough. If he was good enough there would be reason for him to have a such a pathetic 2-19 h2h against Roger. None at all. If Roddick was good enough there was no reason for him not grab a list a few big matches from Roger especially Wimbeldon this year when Fed wasnt exactly at his best

[Voo de Mar]

I think Connors is the biggest legend of US Open in the Open Era, wins on 3 different surfaces, QF in 1973 and SF in 1991, and 5 titles between, beating both giants like Borg and Lendl twice in the finals - it's stunning. Federer can still overcome him but needs at least one more triumph.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Voo de Mar

I think Connors is the biggest legend of US Open in the Open Era, wins on 3 different surfaces, QF in 1973 and SF in 1991, and 5 titles between, beating both giants like Borg and Lendl twice in the finals - it's stunning. Federer can still overcome him but needs at least one more triumph.

Most sensible posting in the thread.

[Benny_Maths]

Federer is betterer.

/thread