Do you agree with McEnroe/Wilander on Nadal needing 15 slams to surpass Federer?

[zalvar]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

 

[DarthFed]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

Murray wasn't considered great competition until last year it is worth mentioning. Roger has been way past his prime since 2010, so it has been Rafa and Nole for the most part since 2010. Now Murray is in the mix.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Navratilova on Nadal in October 2010-

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1321161/Andy-Murray-told-shut-stop-whingeing-Martina-Navratilova.html

You know she was wrong, right?

She was wrong about him winning 2 per year in 2011 and 2012, but if she meant 2 per year on average, then if Nadal wins 4 slam titles in 2014, she'll be back on course. And since 95% of all tennis forum predictions have been wrong about Nadal (in 2013 and 2010), its not like we are in a position to doubt Navratilova's predictions.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Roger has been way past his prime since 2010, so it has been Rafa and Nole for the most part since 2010.

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Federer-Tells-Reddit-Fans-Ask-Me-Anything.aspx

(May 24, 2013) -- Roger Federer is catching up with social media...fast.

With fans still buzzing over Federer's sudden arrival onto Twitter with his official account, the tennis superstar kept the social media whirlwind spinning as he took part in an "AMA" or "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on Reddit earlier this afternoon.

"Roger, if you had an upcoming match against a 2007 Roger Federer, what would your strategy be to win and how do you think you would fare?"

Federer's answer: "Well first, I hope I'm a better player today than I was back then. I feel like I'm a more complete player today. Although my game hasn't changed much, my experience would allow me fewer mistakes and the ability to deal with challenges a little bit easier."

 

[ClayDeath]

right general darth. first start making some sense. this is not grade school.

I hope you realize how desperate you sound.

you cant stop saying and believing --in your own mind-- how irrelevant roger`s 17 slams are because you see somebody gaining on them.

and then you try to console yourself by saying it will be pretty damn easy for somebody to come along and get even 20 slams or more.


has it occurred to you how roger got his 17 slams? its by having to achieve all those records that you keep bringing up.

what exactly makes you think that your mythical figure---that is going to evidently mysteriously materialize out of thin air-- is not going to have bust up those very same records you now find yourself clinging to in order to get his 20+ slams which you claim are so easy to get.


that is one hell way to discredit and diminish roger`s fantastic record of 17 majors.

so desperate and terrified are you of nadal that you don't mind taking a cheap shot at your own player.

in order to discredit all that nadal has done in this sport, you are willing to cheapen roger`s own amazing achievements.

he said it was lifetime dream was to win all those majors and to be called the greatest to ever play the game. this is why he so desperately would seek the RG crown. he even said so when asked as to why RG crown was so important to him.

and you say it means absolutely nothing. to you it is "far less impressive".

it is to you because you wont have much else to hold on to soon if the current trends in place hold.

name one person living who believes that roger`s 17 slams are of no importance. also name a person who believes that winning slams is easy in this day and age. just give us one name.

so easy in fact that--according to you--a mythical figure will materialize any day now to haul in 20 slams or better.


I am ready for more of your excuses. let me grab a drink and some popcorn.


lets hear some more stories about how useless roger`s 17 slams are. this is beyond amusing now. now it is getting comical.

 

[britbox]

Navratilova on Nadal in October 2010-

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1321161/Andy-Murray-told-shut-stop-whingeing-Martina-Navratilova.html

You know she was wrong, right?

She was wrong about him winning 2 per year in 2011 and 2012, but if she meant 2 per year on average, then if Nadal wins 4 slam titles in 2014, she'll be back on course. And since 95% of all tennis forum predictions have been wrong about Nadal (in 2013 and 2010), its not like we are in a position to doubt Navratilova's predictions.

If she meant "on average" she would have said 10 slams over the next 5 years.

She said:

"You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years".

Who are we to doubt it?

Seeing as her prediction proved wrong within the first year - 2011 then I'd say you'd have to be pretty foolish not to doubt it - it's invalid already.

 

[britbox]

I don't think Darth is "diminishing" the 17 slams... he's just stating that of Federer's records, it's not going to be the hardest one to break. Sampras' 14 was broken within a few years of his retirement.

If Nadal doesn't break it, then judging on the other players coming through, then I think Federer's 17 will likely stand for at least a decade.

 

[DarthFed]

right. first start making some sense. this is not grade school.

you cant stop talking about how irrelevant roger`s 17 slams are because you see somebody gaining on them.

and then you try to console yourself by saying it will be pretty damn easy for somebody to come along and get even 20 slams or more.


has it occurred to you how roger got his 17 slams? its by having to achieve all those records that you keep bringing up.

what exactly makes you think that your mythical figure---that is going to evidently mysteriously materialize out of thin air-- is not going to have bust up those very same records you now find yourself clinging to in order to get his 20+ slams which you claim are so easy to get.


that is one hell way to discredit and diminish roger`s fantastic record of 17 majors.

so desperate and terrified are you of nadal that you don't mind taking a cheap shot at your own player.

in order to discredit all that nadal has done in this sport, you are willing to cheapen roger`s own amazing achievements.

he said it was lifetime dream to win all those majors and to be called the greatest to ever play the game. this is why he so desperately would seek the RG crown.

and you say it means absolutely nothing. to you it is "far less impressive".

it is to you because you wont have much else to hold on to soon if the current trends in place hold.

name one person living who believes that roger`s 17 slams are of no importance. also name a person who believes that winning slams is easy in this day and age. just give us one name.

so easy in fact that--according to you--a mythical figure will materialize any day now to haul in 20 slams or better.


I am ready for more of your excuses. let me grab a drink and some popcorn.

Yes, it isn't grade school, which is why it is getting more and more difficult to talk to you. Please find where I said 17 slams is of no importance? It is simple, clown, there are many records Roger has that will be more difficult to break than the 17 slams. 237 straight weeks at #1, 5 straight at 2 different slams, 23 straight semis, just to name a few.

I don't see how that makes me bitter or fearful of your precious Nadal, it is just an opinion. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind you will see 17 surpassed before a lot of his other records. No record is more important than the slam record, and 17 isn't being diminished...until it is passed that is.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

Zalvar, Federer's H2H was 0-5 against Nalbandian at the beginning of that rivalry. He had to solve that puzzle and pull ahead in that rivalry. Nalby was a good player. Hewitt also won 7 out of their first 9 matches against Federer...he righted that ship later on too...The only guy Federer totally owned from the start in his class was Roddick . He had some good rivalries before Nadal man.

 

[Moxie]

1. With 18, everybody would agree.

2. With 17, most would agree given his H2H against Federer.

3. With 16, many would agree, provided he has a Rafa Slam.

4. With 15, some would agree, if he has double career grand slam and at least one WTF win.

5. With 14 or less, none would agree independent of other factors.

Needless to say that all of the above assumes Roger does not add to his
total, which is not automatic.

I don't care too much for Rafa's multiple Davis Cup Victories. Ultimately,
Tennis is an individual support. All of us know that Roger did not have supporting
crew to earn davis cup victory.

Rafa has Olympic Gold. But it is not a deal maker, given that Roger also has
a Olympic Gold in Doubles and a Silver in Singles.

I believe Nadal will eventually surpass Roger in an uncontroversial fashion (by reaching
at least 17), if Roger does not add any more. It won't be easy; but with Rafa's
dedication and will power, he will get it done.

Even if Roger adds just one, I guess the task might be very very difficult for Rafa.

It's clear how volatile a conversation this is that it has generated 3 pages in no time at all, when almost nothing is happening in tennis. I lighted on GSM's post to respond to, because it is so schematic.

Personally, I don't think there will ever be any final resolution of who is the GOAT between Federer and Nadal, because their respective resumes are both impressive, but contain different highlights. (As Jelenafan mentioned this above.) Even if Rafa gets to 18. Roger has the amazing number of weeks at #1, the stunning consistency in Slams, and the number of players - across generations - that he has beaten, and his period of absolute dominance. I do believe we are already at the point of 'it will never be decided, and it will always be debated.'

For the record, I do think that Davis Cup and the Olympics are resume buffers, but not deciders.

To me, to have two such amazing players at the same time, clearly we're splitting hairs over which accomplishment is valued over another. I understand that Majors are the industry standard, but, to be realistic, Roger and Rafa have sent records to a new place, and they've done it playing each other. In the end, how will we ever choose between them?

 

[ClayDeath]

here is the deal general darth:

first of all you really need a drink. relax and enjoy the conversation.



history doesn't give a damn about who the hell was #1 for however many years.

or how many semis you made or even how many finals you made. lendl lost 11 slam finals. nobody ever mentions that because nobody gives a damn about it. it is not of any importance.

it is all about how well do at the biggest dance. roger specifically stated countless times that he was going after pete`s slam record. he also stated very clearly that he had to have RG in order to be called the greatest ever to play the game.

and I saw and heard that very interview with my own eyes and ears.

pete, in turn, said he was going to go after emerson`s record.

to roger slam record was everything and all that he ever wanted. it became a holy grail to him.


and look at what you just said: "17 is not being diminished...until it is passed that is."


you stated very clearly that slam record was the most important then you diminished it in the same sentence by saying it by far the less impressive.


you don't have to beat around the bush. it all comes out a little too damn clear that you will do anything to diminish nadal`s achievements. even to the detriment of your own player.

you cant play on the both sides of the fence. if you are not reasonable and objective with the arguments that you advance then people just might decide to cross examine you.

and if all else fails, I am sure there are personal attacks. you can try those next.


you guys call roger GOAT and then with the same sentence you declare that there will be endless GOATS materializing out of thin air all the time.

players find it hard to win a single tournament these days and yet you have them winning 20 slams.


roger was good. so good that there had never been anyone like him in the last 60,000 years of fully documented history.

he had a complete game. nothing was left to chance as he could do it all. he was even armed with a serve that allowed to hold service games in a mere minute at the rate of 90%.

now it is the end of the line. all good things have to come to an end sooner or later.


don't belittle his achievements just because you cant stand nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

I have never belittled Nadal's accomplishments and for the last time nothing I said is diminishing 17 slams. It is an amazing amount and it is the record for a reason. But we are discussing what his most difficult records to beat are. It isn't my fault you are too blind, drunk, high, or whatever to see that. I don't even see how anyone takes it as an insult to Rafa that I dare say that 17 will fall before many of Roger's other records. It isn't even about Rafa, you just can't help but talk about him regardless of the thread.

 

[Moxie]

here is the deal general darth:

first of all you really need a drink. relax and enjoy the conversation.
history doesn't give a damn about who the hell was #1 for however many years.
or how many semis you made or even how many finals you made. lendl lost 11 slam finals. nobody ever mentions that because nobody gives a damn about it. it is not of any importance.
it is all about how well do at the biggest dance. roger specifically stated countless times that he was going after pete`s slam record. he also stated very clearly that he had to have RG in order to be called the greatest ever to play the game.
and I saw and heard that very interview with my own eyes and ears.

pete, in turn, said he was going to go after emerson`s record.

to roger slam record was everything and all that he ever wanted. it became a holy grail to him.
and look at what you just said: "17 is not being diminished...until it is passed that is."
you stated very clearly that slam record was the most important then you diminished it in the same sentence by saying it by far the less impressive.

you don't have to beat around the bush. it all comes out a little too damn clear that you will do anything to diminish nadal`s achievements. even to the detriment of your own player.

you cant play on the both sides of the fence. if you are not reasonable and objective with the arguments that you advance then people just might decide to cross examine you.

and if all else fails, I am sure there are personal attacks. you can try those next.
you guys call roger GOAT and then with the same sentence you declare that there will be endless GOATS materializing out of thin air all the time.
players find it hard to win a single tournament these days and yet you have them winning 20 slams.
roger was good. so good that there had never been anyone like him in the last 60,000 years of fully documented history.

he had a complete game. nothing was left to chance as he could do it all. he was even armed with a serve that allowed to hold service games in a mere minute at the rate of 90%.

now it is the end of the line. all good things have to come to an end sooner or later.

don't belittle his achievements just because you cant stand nadal.

CD, it seems to me you are being unfair to Darth, and to history. As to what I bolded above:

* The record weeks at #1 is huge, and it should not be swept aside.

* I do not believe that Roger has ever said that Slams are all to him. He loves the game, and that's why he still plays.

* Darth does not, and has not on this thread, denigrated Nadal's achievements. He has always been realistic about them.

 

[britbox]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

 

[zalvar]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

Zalvar, Federer's H2H was 0-5 against Nalbandian at the beginning of that rivalry. He had to solve that puzzle and pull ahead in that rivalry. Nalby was a good player. Hewitt also won 7 out of their first 9 matches against Federer...he righted that ship later on too...The only guy Federer totally owned from the start in his class was Roddick . He had some good rivalries before Nadal man.

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

 

[Ricardo]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

Zalvar, Federer's H2H was 0-5 against Nalbandian at the beginning of that rivalry. He had to solve that puzzle and pull ahead in that rivalry. Nalby was a good player. Hewitt also won 7 out of their first 9 matches against Federer...he righted that ship later on too...The only guy Federer totally owned from the start in his class was Roddick . He had some good rivalries before Nadal man.

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

 

[ClayDeath]

here is the deal general darth:

first of all you really need a drink. relax and enjoy the conversation.
history doesn't give a damn about who the hell was #1 for however many years.
or how many semis you made or even how many finals you made. lendl lost 11 slam finals. nobody ever mentions that because nobody gives a damn about it. it is not of any importance.
it is all about how well do at the biggest dance. roger specifically stated countless times that he was going after pete`s slam record. he also stated very clearly that he had to have RG in order to be called the greatest ever to play the game.
and I saw and heard that very interview with my own eyes and ears.

pete, in turn, said he was going to go after emerson`s record.

to roger slam record was everything and all that he ever wanted. it became a holy grail to him.
and look at what you just said: "17 is not being diminished...until it is passed that is."
you stated very clearly that slam record was the most important then you diminished it in the same sentence by saying it by far the less impressive.

you don't have to beat around the bush. it all comes out a little too damn clear that you will do anything to diminish nadal`s achievements. even to the detriment of your own player.

you cant play on the both sides of the fence. if you are not reasonable and objective with the arguments that you advance then people just might decide to cross examine you.

and if all else fails, I am sure there are personal attacks. you can try those next.
you guys call roger GOAT and then with the same sentence you declare that there will be endless GOATS materializing out of thin air all the time.
players find it hard to win a single tournament these days and yet you have them winning 20 slams.
roger was good. so good that there had never been anyone like him in the last 60,000 years of fully documented history.

he had a complete game. nothing was left to chance as he could do it all. he was even armed with a serve that allowed to hold service games in a mere minute at the rate of 90%.

now it is the end of the line. all good things have to come to an end sooner or later.

don't belittle his achievements just because you cant stand nadal.

CD, it seems to me you are being unfair to Darth, and to history. As to what I bolded above:

* The record weeks at #1 is huge, and it should not be swept aside.

* I do not believe that Roger has ever said that Slams are all to him. He loves the game, and that's why he still plays.

* Darth does not, and has not on this thread, denigrated Nadal's achievements. He has always been realistic about them.

you know I wonder why I even bother being here when you people have to run to hold their hands all the time.


is he a man or a mouse. he can defend for himself.


let them debate.



now he has to explain why the slams are of "far less importance" and yet getting to them is of the highest possible significance.



also he has to explain why it is so damn easy to win 20 slams today that there is somebody waiting just around the bloody corner to do it.

players find it hard to win a single tournament and yet to some of these people these records are just there to ransacked left and right.


that belittles both what roger and nadal have been able to achieve.


it is only because nadal is about to smash that record that all of a sudden roger`s 17 slams are "far less impressive" and yet somehow his getting to those slams was his most astonishment achievement.


let them talk.

 

[zalvar]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

 

[Ricardo]

Novak Djokovic has provided the tennis world with the evidence needed to make Rafa's case for the greatest player in the open era or at the very least his generation.

Where Roger failed miserably under the excuse of "match-up" Nadal has excel beyond expectations. Tennis it's a head to head sport and champions make their dues in the biggest of stages against their toughest competition where the light shine the brightest.

Statically speaking, Rafa needs to win at least 16 slams or pull the elusive channel slams for a third time to surpass Roger.

Rafa's supremacy on clay which is at this point stuff of comic books and mastering of his weakest surface has propelled him as the most versatile and his records and stats speak to that. Another AO would give him a second Career Slam.......another Wimbledon would give him the mind boggling record of 3+ slams in three surfaces. He already owns the three slams in three surfaces in the same calendar year......these are the stats that makes Rafa unique.

H2H? Yeah, that's huge.

But, Rafa hasn't won those slams yet and he might not....... so at this point in time, Roger has the greater career despite Rafa being the greater player.

excellent post. that "matchup" excuse has never had any traction except in the minds of legless trolls who just needed a god to worship.


the fact that he has a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players dispels that myth in a hurry.


I would have to agree. one more channel slam does it for him if it plays out that way in 2014.


that should clearly put him in a class by himself. lets see how 2014 plays out.

it is the single most important year in the history of tennis in my estimation.

only legless trolls don't admit there is matchup issues. Take Safin vs Santoro, Santoro has matchup advantage against Safin leading H-H, any doubt? are you going to say Santoro is flat out 'greater'? for me Safin is greater with 2 majors which is what counts, sorry but career results are what counts.
you can also take guys like Krajicek vs Sampras, you gonna say Krajicek is better according to H-H? I say Sampras is much better for what achieved, he had matchup issues against Krajicek so what?

only legless idiots deny matchup issues.

 

[zalvar]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

Zalvar, Federer's H2H was 0-5 against Nalbandian at the beginning of that rivalry. He had to solve that puzzle and pull ahead in that rivalry. Nalby was a good player. Hewitt also won 7 out of their first 9 matches against Federer...he righted that ship later on too...The only guy Federer totally owned from the start in his class was Roddick . He had some good rivalries before Nadal man.

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

I don't think it's a weak ERA. I never said that :huh: Since the 80s I've never really considered any ERA weak. But I wouldn't give the word "Rival" so liberally. Roger didn't have one until Rafa. When he was losing against Hewitt and the likes, he wasn't yet in his prime. When he was beating all of them, he was TOO GOOD for them. He didn't have a guy until Rafa where you didn't lean so hugely towards Roger to win any match he plays.