Federer, Nadal, and the question of GOATness in general...

[monfed]

When Rafa will can’t hit a proper FH and BH then we will talk about it or do you think that Woger is going to hit a proper BH for ever and ever? well, at least he has a great serve because without that ......and did you expect that comeback of Roger in 2017 after the four previous years not winning a single GS?
And if the last USO was a farce the last AO was even more farce.And I wish Nadal would skip one clay tournament and getting the grass season more rested, he could do it a lot much better

I'm simply stating the scenario in which Nadal stops winning RG. How was AO a farce? Cilic is the toughest opponent for Fed specially on a quicker HC and that showed as it went to 5 sets. Meanwhile Kanderson is a mug.

 

[Carol]

I'm simply stating the scenario in which Nadal stops winning RG. How was AO a farce? Cilic is the toughest opponent for Fed specially on a quicker HC and that showed as it went to 5 sets. Meanwhile Kanderson is a mug.

How was USO a farce? Federer was playing well and healthy but he lost vs Delpo who lost later vs Nadal who beat in the final a player who was playing very good the whole tournament. Cilic? after that far USO he has not done too much and I was very surprised that he was in the last Wimbledon final and the AO, and by the way what he did in the last USO?

 

[Fiero425]

Borg revolutionized tennis and his 3 channel slams are still highly regarded to this day. In Borg's time you had to go from pure baseline play to S&V at Wimbledon. Also Borg skipped AO so had he played it he could've finished with 15-16 slams.

.....

I'm an original Borg fan, but even I wouldn't go that far! He no doubt could have continued winning FO's like Rafa is now but for being "run off" by the ATP tour in '82! Going "down under" just made little to no sense for the top players back then! The payout was at the bottom along with the conditions being just awful; choppy grass, heavy gusting winds, & bugs! That's just OTTH since it just wasn't a Major monitored even when Connors won it in '74! With Wilander, Lendl, and Edberg headlining in the 80's, it still didn't register on the sports Richter scale until Sampras and Agassi started going! Top players gave the event legit status by the mid 80's, but IMO, it hadn't gotten to equal status of the other Majors until Fedalovic! Besides them "owning" it for over a decade, they consistently ventured down there year after year! The USO better get "on the stick" or it'll plummet in status and wind up being the most disliked Major no matter how much money they offer! :whistle: :sleep:

 

[DarthFed]

How was USO a farce? Federer was playing well and healthy but he lost vs Delpo who lost later vs Nadal who beat in the final a player who was playing very good the whole tournament. Cilic? after that far USO he has not done too much and I was very surprised that he was in the last Wimbledon final and the AO, and by the way what he did in the last USO?

Rafa played a ton of scrubs at USO. DP was the only good player he faced and with the level DP was at back then I'm being generous calling him good. If Roger was playing healthy at that tourament we can say the same for Rafa at every tournament he's played in. Roger's AO run this year wasn't too difficult but well beyond last year's USO. I sincerely hope you aren't saying Anderson is as good as Cilic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Finding a GOAT is not a fault finding mission, rather it is to see who has the best resume of them all. And in that regard it's either between Fed or Laver and perhaps Borg.
I think Fed's the overall GOAT but to play the devil's advocate, the Wim 08 and AO 09 losses hurt him. It was explainable to lose to Wafa at RG, the lopsided conditions in the latter's favour , but to lose in your best slam and then not being able to get one back at AO 09 specially when Fed was the better player in that match and then crying infront of the tennis watching world doesn't speak highly of a GOAT. I don't think GOATs of other sports like Jordan embarassed themselves in front of the whole world at any point in their career.

Fortunately, AO 17 recovered most of the damage from the Wim 08 and AO 09 losses but he could've nailed Nadal to the wall if he had beaten him at RG 11 thereby beating Wafa at his best slam.

I just feel Fed constantly leaves the door slightly ajar for Wafa to blast through. He won Wimbledon last year but then laid an egg at USO due to dumb scheduling decision of playing Canada instead of Cincy and pretty much calling it a season after winning Wimby claiming winning 3 slams would be too much. Next thing you know Nadal wins USO, almost predictably and Fed's made to look like a fool even losing YE#1 in the process. This year again he had a great chance to seal YE#1 by winning IW when he had 3 MPs on his own serve and he blows it and concedes #1 right back to Wafa in the best part of his season.

So as you can see, he keeps leaving the door open for Nadal to enter. I hope he's learnt his lesson by this point and slams the door on Nadal once and for all this year.

"It's about resume" but you somehow bring up Borg... Yeah OK.

 

[atttomole]

Finding a GOAT is not a fault finding mission, rather it is to see who has the best resume of them all. And in that regard it's either between Fed or Laver and perhaps Borg.
I think Fed's the overall GOAT but to play the devil's advocate, the Wim 08 and AO 09 losses hurt him. It was explainable to lose to Wafa at RG, the lopsided conditions in the latter's favour , but to lose in your best slam and then not being able to get one back at AO 09 specially when Fed was the better player in that match and then crying infront of the tennis watching world doesn't speak highly of a GOAT. I don't think GOATs of other sports like Jordan embarassed themselves in front of the whole world at any point in their career.

Fortunately, AO 17 recovered most of the damage from the Wim 08 and AO 09 losses but he could've nailed Nadal to the wall if he had beaten him at RG 11 thereby beating Wafa at his best slam.

I just feel Fed constantly leaves the door slightly ajar for Wafa to blast through. He won Wimbledon last year but then laid an egg at USO due to dumb scheduling decision of playing Canada instead of Cincy and pretty much calling it a season after winning Wimby claiming winning 3 slams would be too much. Next thing you know Nadal wins USO, almost predictably and Fed's made to look like a fool even losing YE#1 in the process. This year again he had a great chance to seal YE#1 by winning IW when he had 3 MPs on his own serve and he blows it and concedes #1 right back to Wafa in the best part of his season.

So as you can see, he keeps leaving the door open for Nadal to enter. I hope he's learnt his lesson by this point and slams the door on Nadal once and for all this year.

I am not even a Nadal fan myself, but I don't see how Borg is a better candidate for GOAT than Nadal.

 

[Carol]

Rafa played a ton of scrubs at USO. DP was the only good player he faced and with the level DP was at back then I'm being generous calling him good. If Roger was playing healthy at that tourament we can say the same for Rafa at every tournament he's played in. Roger's AO run this year wasn't too difficult but well beyond last year's USO. I sincerely hope you aren't saying Anderson is as good as Cilic.

I haven't said that Anderson is better than Cilic but we know about the results of this last one after to win that USO years ego.......
And I didn't see Roger playing in the last AO with "the creme de la creme" while the others players played under the sun with a tremendous heat and he played only at night

 

[DarthFed]

I haven't said that Anderson is better than Cilic but we know about the results of this last one after to win that USO years ego.......
And I didn't see Roger playing in the last AO with "the creme de la creme" while the others players played under the sun with a tremendous heat and he played only at night

Federer played one match during the day. It's normal to have the biggest draw and crowd favorite play at night. Nadal likely played one or two day matches. Come up with a better excuse

 

[Carol]

Federer played one match during the day. It's normal to have the biggest draw and crowd favorite play at night. Nadal likely played one or two day matches. Come up with a better excuse

Well, maybe local but not in the rest of the world. Most of the players were melted and Roger as fresh as a lettuce, it was very unfair

 

[DarthFed]

Well, maybe local but not in the rest of the world. Most of the players were melted and Roger as fresh as a lettuce, it was very unfair

Chung and Cilic both had two straight night matches before they played Federer. Fed had a day match in 4th round before he faced Berdych. So there was no advantage, you're just fishing hard. AO played a lot faster the last two years and the guy who should win in those increasingly foreign conditions did win.

 

[Carol]

Chung and Cilic both had two straight night matches before they played Federer. Fed had a day match in 4th round before he faced Berdych. So there was no advantage, you're just fishing hard. AO played a lot faster the last two years and the guy who should win in those increasingly foreign conditions did win.

Chung? he is one of the most overrated player that I've seen and Cilic no too much difference. I don't remember Fed playing at day match in the 4th round

 

[Moxie]

^ Borg is definitely no GOAT, he's arguably not even top 5 of Open Era at this point. I hear you about those losses, especially Wimbledon 08 which I think is what truly led to AO 09 debacle.

It was still arguably the most costly loss of Fed's career and the only reason there is still a legit slam chase going on. And yes, an inexcusable loss. I honestly don't know if he can slam the door anytime soon, if Rafa is healthy he could be winning RG's for 5-6 more years. Yes, his spin is that deadly on that surface.

I could say by the same token that the AO 2017 loss was one of the most costly of Nadal's career. Things would look rather different if Rafa had held his lead in that 5th set. It's not a one-sided game.

 

[DarthFed]

I could say by the same token that the AO 2017 loss was one of the most costly of Nadal's career. Things would look rather different if Rafa had held his lead in that 5th set. It's not a one-sided game.

That's true but I don't think there's any argument which was the bigger match as of now. Remember that Rafa in 2008 was still trying to show he could win off clay and Roger was deadly on grass until that year. And that embarrassment poured over to the future matches, most notably AO 2009.

 

[britbox]

I'm an original Borg fan, but even I wouldn't go that far! He no doubt could have continued winning FO's like Rafa is now but for being "run off" by the ATP tour in '82! Going "down under" just made little to no sense for the top players back then! The payout was at the bottom along with the conditions being just awful; choppy grass, heavy gusting winds, & bugs! That's just OTTH since it just wasn't a Major monitored even when Connors won it in '74! With Wilander, Lendl, and Edberg headlining in the 80's, it still didn't register on the sports Richter scale until Sampras and Agassi started going! Top players gave the event legit status by the mid 80's, but IMO, it hadn't gotten to equal status of the other Majors until Fedalovic! Besides them "owning" it for over a decade, they consistently ventured down there year after year! The USO better get "on the stick" or it'll plummet in status and wind up being the most disliked Major no matter how much money they offer! :whistle: :sleep:

I think the AO was relevant in the 80s, once Lendl and the Swedes started going. McEnroe then started going... a bit American-centric view to suggest it was a non-event until Agassi and Sampras.

I'd say there were three major milestones...

1. Lendl, Wilander and the Swedes started going
2. Change of date... there was no AO in 1986 as they moved the dates around. Edberg won back to back in 85 and 87
3. Moving from Kooyong to Flinders Park in 1988.

1) made it relevant 2) made it attractive on the calendar 3) made it attractive financially

 

[Moxie]

That's true but I don't think there's any argument which was the bigger match as of now. Remember that Rafa in 2008 was still trying to show he could win off clay and Roger was deadly on grass until that year. And that embarrassment poured over to the future matches, most notably AO 2009.

Indeed...it was the greatest match of all time, though I know you mostly don't like it to be called that. But at least you admit the import. And you piss and moan a lot about matches that Roger lost to Rafa, in particular, and others, but you admit no ground for the ones that Rafa lost by a small bit, which we might also have reason to regret for the if-but-for. According to Fed fans, Roger lost his chances at the USO last year and for YE#1 because his back went, but no admitting that if Rafa's back hadn't gone, in the final of the AO v. Wawrinka, he might well have had that one. I'm only arguing about inconsistencies. For you lot, Roger is the golden child, and whatever he lost was a tragic misstep. Whatever Rafa lost was due to his lack of talent, in your minds. I'll just let that sink in while you consider how to continue justifying.

 

[Fiero425]

I think the AO was relevant in the 80s, once Lendl and the Swedes started going. McEnroe then started going... a bit American-centric view to suggest it was a non-event until Agassi and Sampras.

I'd say there were three major milestones...

1. Lendl, Wilander and the Swedes started going
2. Change of date... there was no AO in 1986 as they moved the dates around. Edberg won back to back in 85 and 87
3. Moving from Kooyong to Flinders Park in 1988.

1) made it relevant 2) made it attractive on the calendar 3) made it attractive financially

Being in "The States" it makes sense that I'd sport an Ameri-centric view; going by how much coverage done here! No one looked for it more than me! Before '80's, only ESPN gave it any play! What else can I go by but what I see; Int'l media? No internet back then! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Being in "The States" it makes sense that I'd sport an Ameri-centric view; going by how much coverage done here! No one looked for it more than me! Before '80's, only ESPN gave it any play! What else can I go by but what I see; Int'l media? No internet back then! :whistle:

ESPN was only started in late 1979. But don't be defensive just because BB is being. It's not just US folks that ignored the AO for many years...it was everyone, except the Aussies. Lendl, Wilander and the Swedes started going? Why? Probably because it finally didn't take a boat, or 17 flights to get there. And likely the money got bigger. And, yes, when they moved it to the front of the calendar. But there really was a long time when non-antipodeans didn't go there to play.

 

[Federberg]

Indeed...it was the greatest match of all time, though I know you mostly don't like it to be called that. But at least you admit the import. And you piss and moan a lot about matches that Roger lost to Rafa, in particular, and others, but you admit no ground for the ones that Rafa lost by a small bit, which we might also have reason to regret for the if-but-for. According to Fed fans, Roger lost his chances at the USO last year and for YE#1 because his back went, but no admitting that if Rafa's back hadn't gone, in the final of the AO v. Wawrinka, he'd have had that one. I'm only arguing about inconsistencies. For you lot, Roger is the golden child, and whatever he lost was a tragic misstep. Whatever Rafa lost was due to his lack of talent, in your minds. I'll just let that sink in while you consider how to continue justifying.

Not particularly accurate. We bemoan his scheduling decisions last year. Bit of a leap to suggest that’s the same as Rafa losing in a final he had earned entry into. Keep trying

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not particularly accurate. We bemoan his scheduling decisions last year. Bit of a leap to suggest that’s the same as Rafa losing in a final he had earned entry into. Keep trying

In fairness, isn't the latter a bigger deal? Because in that case, Nadal actually made it to the final, rather than made it in his fans' own heads had he not played Montreal or whatever tournament Roger chose to play.

 

[Federberg]

In fairness, isn't the latter a bigger deal? Because in that case, Nadal actually made it to the final, rather than made it in his fans' own heads had he not played Montreal or whatever tournament Roger chose to play.

I don’t disagree that Rafa in the final is a bigger deal. My point is that there is no comparison whatsoever. Moxie is forever trying to find equivalence where there is none. If she wants to criticise those who try to diminish Rafa’s win then I’m on her side, but after that she lost me