Top 5 Reasons Why Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT

[Front242]

Yup. A good counter to that silly notion by the author of the link above would be to name a player with a better backhand whose won 17 slams.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Outside of the fact that there is no such thing as a "G.O.A.T.", since "all time" incorporates the future... I don't understand how someone could disqualify any player because one of his shots was not up to their subjective level of measurement. Just dumb.

Oh boy, Cali won't be happy when he reads your post. Expect him to contact you again soon

 

[andreaduemila1]

6- His nose is too big
7- Arrogant
8-He is from Switzerland
9-He once used I AFTER E and it was not even after C.
10-He leaves the toilet seat up
11-He's got weird sperm...I mean, TWO sets of twins? Give me a break!
12-Dominated by Kyrgios
13-Just got lucky, period

Are you joking?

 

[brokenshoelace]

6- His nose is too big
7- Arrogant
8-He is from Switzerland
9-He once used I AFTER E and it was not even after C.
10-He leaves the toilet seat up
11-He's got weird sperm...I mean, TWO sets of twins? Give me a break!
12-Dominated by Kyrgios
13-Just got lucky, period

Are you joking?

Yes he is. Well, except with reason number 6. He does have a pretty big nose.

 

[andreaduemila1]

6- His nose is too big
7- Arrogant
8-He is from Switzerland
9-He once used I AFTER E and it was not even after C.
10-He leaves the toilet seat up
11-He's got weird sperm...I mean, TWO sets of twins? Give me a break!
12-Dominated by Kyrgios
13-Just got lucky, period

Are you joking?

Yes he is. Well, except with reason number 6. He does have a pretty big nose.

I think Roger is the absolute king of tennis. But the world is beautiful because every person has a different thought

 

[isabelle]

6- His nose is too big
7- Arrogant
8-He is from Switzerland
9-He once used I AFTER E and it was not even after C.
10-He leaves the toilet seat up
11-He's got weird sperm...I mean, TWO sets of twins? Give me a break!
12-Dominated by Kyrgios
13-Just got lucky, period

Mirka is awful

 

[mrzz]

Outside of the fact that there is no such thing as a "G.O.A.T.", since "all time" incorporates the future... I don't understand how someone could disqualify any player because one of his shots was not up to their subjective level of measurement. Just dumb.

How many slams those future players won already? Zero. So Federer is better than them all. QED.

 

[britbox]

Outside of the fact that there is no such thing as a "G.O.A.T.", since "all time" incorporates the future... I don't understand how someone could disqualify any player because one of his shots was not up to their subjective level of measurement. Just dumb.

How many slams those future players won already? Zero. So Federer is better than them all. QED.

All Time is upto and including the present, because that's the only time ever measured to date.

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! Very true. But in the future when tennis players are allowed to juice to their hearts content, or wear rockets on their sneakers it's going to be tough to compare them with the current mob. It makes a nonsense of speculating about who would have beaten who under similar circumstances. Human beings are not linear constructs, but hugely complex. As an aside... Lance Armstrong said it all (during his Oprah confession) when he claimed that he was no more talented than any of his contemporaries, it was just that what he took was particularly effective for him.

A bit of a diversion, but it does anecdotally look at how athletes can change from good (or even mediocre) to great under very specific circumstances

PS, please please please.. I am in no way making accusations or imputations about any athlete. Just thought it was interesting in the context of GOAT discussions

 

[BalaryKar]

Right. Imagine the careers of Andy Roddick or David Nalbandian, and others besides, if Roger had decided to become a banker.

Andy Roddick in particular is a somewhat underrated player, in my opinion. I think he's one of the best players in the Open Era to win only a single Slam, along with Chang, Ivanisevic, and Gerulaitis, maybe one or two others.

Call me crazy but I believe that if there was no Federer, not only would Roddick, Hewitt, et al. would have more slams, I tend to also believe that Nadal and Nole would have less. Somewhere between 8-12 would be Nadal and 4-8 would be Nole. And no career slam for Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

^ The thought being that they wouldn't have had to work so hard to try and reach Roger's level that in turn they'd have been far less successful? It's plausible when you think about it like that.

 

[Moxie]

Right. Imagine the careers of Andy Roddick or David Nalbandian, and others besides, if Roger had decided to become a banker.

Andy Roddick in particular is a somewhat underrated player, in my opinion. I think he's one of the best players in the Open Era to win only a single Slam, along with Chang, Ivanisevic, and Gerulaitis, maybe one or two others.

Call me crazy but I believe that if there was no Federer, not only would Roddick, Hewitt, et al. would have more slams, I tend to also believe that Nadal and Nole would have less. Somewhere between 8-12 would be Nadal and 4-8 would be Nole. And no career slam for Nadal.

I do believe that Nadal and Djokovic came into an era where the bar was set high, but I disagree with your math. Nadal would surely have won the 9 French that he has, and he always had ambitions for Wimbledon, so he would have worked hard for that, with or without Roger. Without Roger, he'd likely have won 4. The things that led him to win Wimbledon won him the AO and the USO. So he'd have 16. I don't think you can make a good case that players that ambitious and talented and competitive would do worse in the absence of a hugely talented rival. No Roger doesn't turn them into slackers.

Actually thinking about it, Nadal, who started young, would then have been the bar for Djokovic and Murray to reach for, so there would still have been a big three. Djokovic and Murray would both, then, have more majors, in your universe where Fed is working at Credit Suisse.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Right. Imagine the careers of Andy Roddick or David Nalbandian, and others besides, if Roger had decided to become a banker.

Andy Roddick in particular is a somewhat underrated player, in my opinion. I think he's one of the best players in the Open Era to win only a single Slam, along with Chang, Ivanisevic, and Gerulaitis, maybe one or two others.

Call me crazy but I believe that if there was no Federer, not only would Roddick, Hewitt, et al. would have more slams, I tend to also believe that Nadal and Nole would have less. Somewhere between 8-12 would be Nadal and 4-8 would be Nole. And no career slam for Nadal.

Nadal would have two more slams. We're actually giving Roger credit for OTHER players' success now? That's a new one.

Yes, Roger set certain standards that forced others to work hard to catch him for sure. But guys like Nadal and Djokovic are ultra talented, hard workers, and their main motivation is to be the best and win. That wouldn't have changed had Roger not been there.

Nadal would have dominated clay just as badly as he did without Roger, since his clay dominance started when Roger "only" had 4 slams (not quite when he'd become GOAT). And it's only natural that he would have tried to improve on other surfaces given his competitiveness, desire, etc... Djokovic would have tried to match Nadal or whoever else was dominating, and again, would have had the same motivations.

Yes, I believe these guys pushed each other to become better tennis players, but it's really rich to take away slams from them had it not been for a player's existence (still not wrapping my head around that one).

But anyway, I guess we all owe Roger a thank you (I mean, Rafa fans owe him multiple thank yous for all those losses against Rafa and for taking out Novak at RG in 2011, but that's a different issue).

 

[BalaryKar]

I do believe that Nadal and Djokovic came into an era where the bar was set high, but I disagree with your math. Nadal would surely have won the 9 French that he has, and he always had ambitions for Wimbledon, so he would have worked hard for that, with or without Roger. Without Roger, he'd likely have won 4. The things that led him to win Wimbledon won him the AO and the USO. So he'd have 16. I don't think you can make a good case that players that ambitious and talented and competitive would do worse in the absence of a hugely talented rival. No Roger doesn't turn them into slackers.

Actually thinking about it, Nadal, who started young, would then have been the bar for Djokovic and Murray to reach for, so there would still have been a big three. Djokovic and Murray would both, then, have more majors, in your universe where Fed is working at Credit Suisse.

Quite possible, and why not. Afterall, when I said that about the possibility of lesser numbers, there was always the room for higher numbers too. Its all fiction and its nice to think that if Agassi was more successful at AO (starts there at 1990 instead of 95) and FO, and threats Pete at USO+Wimbledon, Pete would be forced to raise the barrier and return the favor at FO+AO. Maybe he would have won more than 2 slams at that combination.

Without Roger threatening Nadal consistently at the Masters+FO in the very later rounds, would Nadal be simply quiet and happy at winning clay events? Of course not, and he returned the favor right away. Great player that he always was. Thats why I laugh it off when people say that Nadal would be disaster on the 90's grass. A player who reaches 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals would be reaching and winning Wimbledon across eras. I have always quoted Courier as somebody reaching 93 finals and taking a set and two more to tie-breakers against Pete as evidence that Nadal would be doing fine even then. By no means I am implying and guaranteeing Nadal's success to Fed. That would be foolishness.

 

[BalaryKar]

Nadal would have two more slams. We're actually giving Roger credit for OTHER players' success now? That's a new one.

Why not? Its all fun

Yes, Roger set certain standards that forced others to work hard to catch him for sure. But guys like Nadal and Djokovic are ultra talented, hard workers, and their main motivation is to be the best and win. That wouldn't have changed had Roger not been there.

Yes, of course, they could have been a "Fed" of their own. Rather, say "Nadal" and "Nole" only as it is and should be. So, instead of "Big 2" to "Big 3" to "Big 4", it would have been "Dominant 1" to "Big 2" to "Big 4". Thats still a good club.

Nadal would have dominated clay just as badly as he did without Roger, since his clay dominance started when Roger "only" had 4 slams (not quite when he'd become GOAT). And it's only natural that he would have tried to improve on other surfaces given his competitiveness, desire, etc... Djokovic would have tried to match Nadal or whoever else was dominating, and again, would have had the same motivations.

Yes, but we don't what may have happened if Fed had not stopped Nole in 2011 FO semis? To be clear, I subscribe that Nadal, and not Nole, would have triumphed in 2011 finals. However, there is a good fraction who think Nadal would have been stopped, and that confidence for Nole would have helped him in 2013 semis too. So, even the 9 FO's may not hold either. Or for that matter, if Soderling would have won the 2009 finals, what could have been his confidence in 2010? Nice time pass discussions

Yes, I believe these guys pushed each other to become better tennis players, but it's really rich to take away slams from them had it not been for a player's existence (still not wrapping my head around that one).

No, no slam taking away. Merely thinking a different shade. Thats all.

But anyway, I guess we all owe Roger a thank you (I mean, Rafa fans owe him multiple thank yous for all those losses against Rafa and for taking out Novak at RG in 2011, but that's a different issue).

Not just Rafa, what about Nole? Would Nole lose to Roddick between 2007-9? Or if he had won all those USOs if not for Fed and then be a USO monster too and stop Nadal at USO 2010? Seriously, I had not thought discussing tennis without Fed would be fun too :lolz:

 

[El Dude]

Nothing like a war of what if scenarios (sarcasm).

That said, imagine if Rafa hadn't existed - what Roger's Slam record would be. Even if we only give him three out of the four Roland Garros titles that he lost to Rafa in, and then I think we'd have to give him 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO as well. That's a 5-1 record in Slam finals he lost, bringing his record to 22-3.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nothing like a war of what if scenarios (sarcasm).

That said, imagine if Rafa hadn't existed - what Roger's Slam record would be. Even if we only give him three out of the four Roland Garros titles that he lost to Rafa in, and then I think we'd have to give him 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO as well. That's a 5-1 record in Slam finals he lost, bringing his record to 22-3.

More importantly, he'd have at least one (possibly more) calendar slam.

 

[El Dude]

Nothing like a war of what if scenarios (sarcasm).

That said, imagine if Rafa hadn't existed - what Roger's Slam record would be. Even if we only give him three out of the four Roland Garros titles that he lost to Rafa in, and then I think we'd have to give him 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO as well. That's a 5-1 record in Slam finals he lost, bringing his record to 22-3.

More importantly, he'd have at least one (possibly more) calendar slam.

Which I think points to the greatness of BOTH players - that Roger was so dominant in 2004-07, and that Rafa was the only player who could really edge into that dominance.

 

[isabelle]

Nothing like a war of what if scenarios (sarcasm).

That said, imagine if Rafa hadn't existed - what Roger's Slam record would be. Even if we only give him three out of the four Roland Garros titles that he lost to Rafa in, and then I think we'd have to give him 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO as well. That's a 5-1 record in Slam finals he lost, bringing his record to 22-3.

More importantly, he'd have at least one (possibly more) calendar slam.

Which I think points to the greatness of BOTH players - that Roger was so dominant in 2004-07, and that Rafa was the only player who could really edge into that dominance.

Nadal wasn't the only one to contest his domination, Nalby beat him several times between 2004 and 2007

 

[BalaryKar]

Nadal wasn't the only one to contest his domination, Nalby beat him several times between 2004 and 2007

In that period Nalby had 3 wins against 7 loses, with first of the wins at WTF, and two at the fag end of 2007. While Nalby may have three wins in this period against Fed, probably the second most after Nadal, he hardly stopped the domination.