Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[brokenshoelace]

I have a feeling that Roger might "mentally give up" on the slam record, now that Ralph is just one behind and sure to get at least one more RG. But, here is the interesting thing. Once he gives up, he will be more relaxed and plays without pressure and might actually win a slam or two next year. Just a thought.

I respect that Novak flat out said he wants to go after Roger's record, and that approach might work out for him and keep him motivated, but I really like Nadal's approach a lot, and yes, I believe him when he says it. Chasing the record is ill advised. You have to take care of your body, your game, your scheduling, your decision making, put yourself in the best position to compete for majors, and the rest will follow. For Fedal at least, I feel like this is the best approach. Nadal said that of course he'd like to be the one with the most slams but he won't lose sleep if he isn't, and I actually believe him. To me, if your aim to win more majors is for you to have the all time record if you're Roger, Rafa or Novak, you're going about it the wrong way. Now of course, if Rafa is in the AO final, tying the record will be on his mind, and might bring its own pressure, but I don't think it's what keeps him going, nor should Roger's motivation be to protect his throne. I think those guys have a little more perspective than that.

 

[El Dude]

I respect that Novak flat out said he wants to go after Roger's record, and that approach might work out for him and keep him motivated, but I really like Nadal's approach a lot, and yes, I believe him when he says it. Chasing the record is ill advised. You have to take care of your body, your game, your scheduling, your decision making, put yourself in the best position to compete for majors, and the rest will follow. For Fedal at least, I feel like this is the best approach. Nadal said that of course he'd like to be the one with the most slams but he won't lose sleep if he isn't, and I actually believe him. To me, if your aim to win more majors is for you to have the all time record if you're Roger, Rafa or Novak, you're going about it the wrong way. Now of course, if Rafa is in the AO final, tying the record will be on his mind, and might bring its own pressure, but I don't think it's what keeps him going, nor should Roger's motivation be to protect his throne. I think those guys have a little more perspective than that.

Yes, agreed. Records will always be broken. It may take decades for someone to surpass the Big Three, or maybe there's a teenager out there playing right now who will do it (hard to imagine, but you never know).

But barring societal collapse, someone will eventually pass Roger--and Rafa and Novak--no matter what. It will happen. This is the 11th year that Roger will finish as the Slam title holder. Maybe it is his last, but it might also be that even if Rafa takes over, he won't hold it that long or much longer. I could see Roger and Rafa being tied in 2020, Rafa going ahead in 2021, and then Novak passing both in 2022. But you just never know, and I don't think it matters as much as some think it does.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I wonder how poor Pete must feel. It was a huge deal at the time to break the record of 12 Slams...Next thing he knows, 3 guys zoom by! No fair...

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Yes, agreed. Records will always be broken. It may take decades for someone to surpass the Big Three, or maybe there's a teenager out there playing right now who will do it (hard to imagine, but you never know).

But barring societal collapse, someone will eventually pass Roger--and Rafa and Novak--no matter what. It will happen. This is the 11th year that Roger will finish as the Slam title holder. Maybe it is his last, but it might also be that even if Rafa takes over, he won't hold it that long or much longer. I could see Roger and Rafa being tied in 2020, Rafa going ahead in 2021, and then Novak passing both in 2022. But you just never know, and I don't think it matters as much as some think it does.

That's why Rafa's record on clay and at RG is the most epic of all because if there was one record that would never be broken it's this one. And he's not even finished there yet, he can even reach 15 RG titles. Some fans of other players might talk about "clay" and "non-clay" in a dismissive way but at the end of the day this will be the most special record of all (so far 12 titles and only 2 losses). We are talking about God-mode here. If I was a tennis player this is the one record I wish I would have cause it's the most impressive and epic, but all other records will be broken whether it's total slams or weeks at no.1 or whatever.

 

[Jelenafan]

I wonder how poor Pete must feel. It was a huge deal at the time to break the record of 12 Slams...Next thing he knows, 3 guys zoom by! No fair...

Sampras has from all accounts a content family life to keep him putting things in the proper perspective.

Contrary to many of their fans, it seems most champions not named Martina Navratilova have made their peace with their records being surpassed eventually.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is the 11th year that Roger will finish as the Slam title holder. Maybe it is his last, but it might also be that even if Rafa takes over, he won't hold it that long or much longer. I could see Roger and Rafa being tied in 2020, Rafa going ahead in 2021, and then Novak passing both in 2022. But you just never know, and I don't think it matters as much as some think it does.

That's why deciding GOAT on slam count alone is silly. Say Nadal wins the AO and the FO...he surpasses Roger...He's the GOAT. Then Federer wins Wimbledon and he ties him, and he's co-GOAT, and then he wins the US Open, and he's GOAT again? So the greatest player ever changes on a quarterly basis?

I've said it before, once you win an obscene amount of slams, the difference of one slam becomes very minimal and perhaps even not indicative of much. That one extra slam could be due to so many factors. To use that one slam as a means to unequivocally claim one player is greater than the other is ridiculous.

I think Fed is the greatest ever to be clear, but it goes beyond the slam count. I've made a thread about this before. I'll dig it up.

 

[El Dude]

That's why deciding GOAT on slam count alone is silly. Say Nadal wins the AO and the FO...he surpasses Roger...He's the GOAT. Then Federer wins Wimbledon and he ties him, and he's co-GOAT, and then he wins the US Open, and he's GOAT again? So the greatest player ever changes on a quarterly basis?

I've said it before, once you win an obscene amount of slams, the difference of one slam becomes very minimal and perhaps even not indicative of much. That one extra slam could be due to so many factors. To use that one slam as a means to unequivocally claim one player is greater than the other is ridiculous.

I think Fed is the greatest ever to be clear, but it goes beyond the slam count. I've made a thread about this before. I'll dig it up.

I agree, and well illustrated by the "Slam leader leapfrog." Strangely enough the only part I diverge at all from is Federer as GOAT. At this point I think we have to acknowledge that each the Big Three has their own claim to GOATness, their own flavors if you will. And it is unlikely that one will fully surpass the others in all ways that matter.

At this moment, Roger still has the better claim, but the gap is narrowing and if we extrapolate a bit, will dissolve to meaningless, even to the point of being unclear who of the three retires with the overall better resume. And that's just paper stats - there's also the greatness of the player, their style and talents, the dominance of their peaks, etc. In other words, I'll take your remark about the Slam title count and apply the same principle to career stats as a whole: we can't just look at the sum of the parts, we also should look at how it all fits together, and the tones and hues of their careers.

So I'm more comfortable saying that at this point, Roger's co-GOAT with Rafa and Novak - especially if we extrapolate a bit and assume that the gap in their resumes ends up being a lot closer. If we expand beyond the Open Era than I think we have to include Laver in the "herd" - and maybe Tilden and Gonzales, in that both players utterly dominated their respective eras. To me that is the hallmark of a great player: the degree to which they dominate their era, especially their peers.

Maybe it is a cop-out, and I know it upsets those who require a singular GOAT, but in the end I'm just more comfortable with tiered groupings. That is, unless one of the Big Three goes on a tear and somehow manages to separate themselves from the other two. But that would be hard for any of them to do, given the degree to which their claims to GOATness don't fully overlap.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

It's hilarious how Fed fans for nearly a decade used to always say 17 > 14 or 20 > 18 or whatever number and shut down any argument by Nadal fans about anything such as Masters 1000 or h2h or gold medal or 2 slams on each surface or la decima or injuries or the fact that he is 5 years younger... I remember writing huge posts with tons of arguments and I get Fed fans simply replying with a quick slam tally reminder. But now as soon as Federer's slam tally is threatened in a big way they all of a sudden say "oh slam total isn't everything".

Prepare yourselves for 21 > 20 or 23 > 20 or whatever things will end up as, you can't change the rules all of a sudden because they don't suit you. All Big 3 are fighting for the slam record and Federer fans bragged about it for years (as well as the media) even disregarding past generations in the process, but now that they are seeing their player about to lose it it's all of a sudden "not everything". Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

 

[Fiero425]

It's hilarious how Fed fans for nearly a decade used to always say 17 > 14 or 20 > 18 or whatever number and shut down any argument by Nadal fans about anything such as Masters 1000 or h2h or gold medal or 2 slams on each surface or la decima or injuries or the fact that he is 5 years younger... I remember writing huge posts with tons of arguments and I get Fed fans simply replying with a quick slam tally reminder. But now as soon as Federer's slam tally is threatened in a big way they all of a sudden say "oh slam total isn't everything".

Prepare yourselves for 21 > 20 or 23 > 20 or whatever things will end up as, you can't change the rules all of a sudden because they don't suit you. All Big 3 are fighting for the slam record and Federer fans bragged about it for years (as well as the media) even disregarding past generations in the process, but now that they are seeing their player about to lose it it's all of a sudden "not everything". Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

Well that goes without saying that each of us as a fan of a player will find the stat that best cuts off debate! I started out being a devotee of Federer's even when Nadal owned him from the early day! Head to head it got ugly with Rafa taking Fed on grass in '08! Roger's saved himself some embarrassment with his efforts of the last couple seasons, taking down Nadal several times, but coming up short trying to defeat Nole! Even when Djokovic was wallowing around 12 majors, "THE GOAT" talk had already started though well behind Fedal at the time; prob. 17>14>12! I agreed after his efforts from 2011 to 2016, completing his Nole Slam! I was still more a Djokovic supporter, but with Fedal extending their lead to 20>17>12! I figured Nole was out of it until he rose like the "PHOENIX" and took 4 of 6 majors after stealing this past Wimbledon! The numbers are still scrambling, now 20>19>16; Fed going down in flames with the race being decided in the end by Nadovic! :whistle: o_O

 

[Moxie]

It's hilarious how Fed fans for nearly a decade used to always say 17 > 14 or 20 > 18 or whatever number and shut down any argument by Nadal fans about anything such as Masters 1000 or h2h or gold medal or 2 slams on each surface or la decima or injuries or the fact that he is 5 years younger... I remember writing huge posts with tons of arguments and I get Fed fans simply replying with a quick slam tally reminder. But now as soon as Federer's slam tally is threatened in a big way they all of a sudden say "oh slam total isn't everything".

Prepare yourselves for 21 > 20 or 23 > 20 or whatever things will end up as, you can't change the rules all of a sudden because they don't suit you. All Big 3 are fighting for the slam record and Federer fans bragged about it for years (as well as the media) even disregarding past generations in the process, but now that they are seeing their player about to lose it it's all of a sudden "not everything". Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

@Nadalfan2013, it is nice to see you in the interesting conversation, and not in the trolling for no reason. Thanks for the above post. I think that Fed fans have always put up weeks at #1 and YECs as counter-balance. But I do think they don't appreciate how much Nadal has been off, owing to injury. One thing that was often said, over the years, was that the h2h wouldn't matter unless they tied on Slams. Well, that's getting close.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So I'm more comfortable saying that at this point, Roger's co-GOAT with Rafa and Novak - especially if we extrapolate a bit and assume that the gap in their resumes ends up being a lot closer. If we expand beyond the Open Era than I think we have to include Laver in the "herd" - and maybe Tilden and Gonzales, in that both players utterly dominated their respective eras. To me that is the hallmark of a great player: the degree to which they dominate their era, especially their peers.

I agree with the bolded part. That was the reason, I had a thread called "Most Dominant Player" which I could bump up.

Going by that, there are only one of two possible conclusions.

1. Roger is the GOAT. Among these three players, Fedalovic, who dominated their peers for an extended time. No one dominated like Fed did from 2004 to 2007. So, if at all one of these three players is GOAT, it is Fed.

2. If you are considering only the dominance of these three players among themselves, clearly at various periods of time, different players dominated the other two. In other words, none of the three dominated the other two conclusively. Hence, another way of thinking about it is that none of these are GOATs.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I agree with the bolded part. That was the reason, I had a thread called "Most Dominant Player" which I could bump up.

Going by that, there are only one of two possible conclusions.

1. Roger is the GOAT. Among these three players, Fedalovic, who dominated their peers for an extended time. No one dominated like Fed did from 2004 to 2007. So, if at all one of these three players is GOAT, it is Fed.

2. If you are considering only the dominance of these three players among themselves, clearly at various periods of time, different players dominated the other two. In other words, none of the three dominated the other two conclusively. Hence, another way of thinking about it is that none of these are GOATs.

What kind of dominance is it with only slams on fast surfaces? During that 2004-2007 period Federer won ZERO clay slams. I repeat: ZERO. Sorry that's not what a "goat" does unless you want to say that he was a grass/hardcourt goat or a "non-clay" goat. Meanwhile Nadal in 2010 won slams on all 3 surfaces. Now THAT is a real GOAT year.

Also Nadal has beaten Djokovic/Federer to win clay/hardcourt/grass slams. Now that's the HARD way and he did it everywhere. He managed to beat the best on each surface to win. Federer? He had 6 chances to beat Nadal on clay and couldn't find a solution but had to vulture it that one year against nobodies. Sorry but Federer is not a real GOAT. He's definitely top 5 though, so please don't lose any sleep.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What kind of dominance is it with only slams on fast surfaces? During that 2004-2007 period Federer won ZERO clay slams. I repeat: ZERO. Sorry that's not what a "goat" does unless you want to say that he was a "non-clay" goat. Meanwhile Nadal in 2010 won slams on all 3 surfaces. Now THAT is a real GOAT year.

Also Nadal has beaten Djokovic/Federer to win clay/hardcourt/grass slams. Now that's the HARD way and he did it everywhere. He managed to beat the best on each surface to win. Federer? He had 6 chances to beat Nadal on clay and couldn't find a solution but had to vulture it that one year against nobodies. Sorry but Federer is not a real GOAT. He's definitely top 5 though.

Dominance does not mean wining 100% of all matches played. It means winning an overwhelming % of matches played. It is 93%, 95%, 95% and 88% for four years in a row. I don't think you can find any other player who had such kind of dominance for four years in the entire history of ATP, even if you include the dark ages before the open era.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Dominance does not mean wining 100% of all matches played. It means winning an overwhelming % of matches played. It is 93%, 95%, 95% and 88% for four years in a row. I don't think you can find any other player who had such kind of dominance for four years in the entire history of ATP, even if you include the dark ages before the open era.

A year with 88%?

Bjorn Borg had four consecutive years with 91% or more:

1980: 92.1% (70-6)
1979: 93.3% (84-6)
1978: 91.9% (79-7)
1977: 91.6% (76-7)

Meanwhile Nadal has won a slam for a stunning record 10 consecutive years which is another form of GOATness!

Nadal also has no losing h2h record in a slam final (the biggest situation) to anyone while Federer has a losing record in slam finals to Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro.

Stop thinking that Federer is so special and so great. Many other greats have stunning records too, the biggest one being Nadal having on his best surface at RG 12 titles and only 2 losses while Federer having on his best surface at WB 8 titles and 13 losses! Makes you rethink what real greatness is, doesn't it? Compared to Nadal at RG/clay, Federer cannot be called "great" anywhere!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A year with 88%?

Bjorn Borg had four consecutive years with 91% or more:

1980: 92.1% (70-6)
1979: 93.3% (84-6)
1978: 91.9% (79-7)
1977: 91.6% (76-7)

Meanwhile Nadal has won a slam for a stunning record 10 consecutive years which is another form of GOATness!

Nadal also has no losing h2h record in a slam final (the biggest situation) to anyone while Federer has a losing record in slam finals to Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro.

Stop thinking that Federer is so special and so great. Many other greats have stunning records too, the biggest one being Nadal having on his best surface at RG 12 titles and only 2 losses while Federer having on his best surface at WB 8 titles and 13 losses! Makes you rethink what real greatness is, doesn't it? Compared to Nadal at RG/clay, Federer cannot be called "great" anywhere!

Calculate Borg's average over 4 years and Fed's . You will realize which one is larger.

Winning one slam each year has nothing to do with dominance. It only means getting a share of the pie each year.

Can't penalize Fed for bothering to reach finals, even if he lost there.

Your last point is valid. I agree that Ralph is clay goat. Moreover, I agree that Ralph is surface goat.

 

[Jelenafan]

Did I miss where all three players have retired?

We don’t have a final tally yet.

 

[Fiero425]

Did I miss where all three players have retired?

We don’t have a final tally yet.

What's more ridiculous is how people expect Djokovic to match Fedal right now even though they have combined years of 6 over his initial start to his pro career! I think it's phenomenal that he's this close and that Nadal has just about overtaken Roger with 5 years to spare! If Djokovic isn't injured too seriously, he'll come back and has plenty of time to catch up! :whistle:

 

[brokenshoelace]

What's more ridiculous is how people expect Djokovic to match Fedal right now even though they have combined years of 6 over his initial start to his pro career! I think it's phenomenal that he's this close and that Nadal has just about overtaken Roger with 5 years to spare! If Djokovic isn't injured too seriously, he'll come back and has plenty of time to catch up! :whistle:

Djokovic turned pro in 2003. Nadal turned pro in 2001 and they’re only one year apart in terms of age. Why are you making it sound like there’s a whole generation between them?

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic turned pro in 2003. Nadal turned pro in 2001 and they’re only one year apart in terms of age. Why are you making it sound like there’s a whole generation between them?

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I said Fedal, not Nadal! Two yrs on Nadal is like 5 on someone else! He won multiple majors earlier! Nole came into his own much later after 1st AO in '08! He had a lot to overcome w/ Fed & Nadal @ the top of their games! He's right on sched. IMO! :whistle:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I said Fedal, not Nadal! Two yrs on Nadal is like 5 on someone else! He won multiple majors earlier! Nole came into his own much later after 1st AO in '08! He had a lot to overcome w/ Fed & Nadal @ the top of their games! He's right on sched. IMO! :whistle:

So you decided to combine them both to make the gap look bigger? Amazing logic. Combine the rest of the top 100 while you're at it.

And I'm sorry, but if Nadal came into his own at 19 while Novak couldn't until "much later," then how is that not a point in favor of Nadal? If Novak wasn't good enough at 19 but Nadal was, that's not a random occurrence, that's just Nadal being better at that age.