OT: Federer | The Boneyard

OT: Federer

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,040
Reaction Score
33,534
I guess we're all just so used to his winning that it doesn't shock us anymore.

In the last year he's made his record against Nadal such that their one-on-one really shouldn't come into conversation for GOAT. His win against Nadal in the Aussie Open really gave him breathing room in the title count (since a loss and Nadal's two other wins would have made it 18-17 Fed. going into this Open) and he just keeps winning. He's stunning.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,127
Reaction Score
3,590
It's unfair to compare Nadal to Federer.
Clay court tennis is hugely different than grass/solid surface. Hugely.
Sampras never won at the French, and most people have him top 5 all time on grass/hard surface.
Nadal contends for best ever on clay. Beyond that, he's a top 10ish all time grass/hard surface player, with time left.
Federer is alien. Clearly best ever grass/hard surface, and took the time to win the French once just to prove he could do it - doesn't seem too far fetched that he could have won more if he had devoted more time to clay, perhaps at the expense of other titles. His ageless recent wins are remarkable, particularly when you consider that, a few years ago, the oldest Wimbledon winner was 31. That's insane. Because of his longevity and spread out wins, he's the best ever, and it's not close. It's like Brady and the next QB.

Best ever, all around, at his prime, was probably Borg. Dude retired at 26, having 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, only played in Australia once, and made 5 U.S. open finals 3 of the last 4 years he played. He just got bored with tennis. In the last 4 years of his career, he only lost 5 matches in French/Wimbledon/US Open play, and only failed to make the finals in those 4 years one time. Australia was on grass then, so it's completely possible the guy could have had a 4 year stretch where he won 11 or 12 majors and made the final in the other 4 or 5. Unreal.
 

Matrim55

Why is it so hard To make it in America
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
5,939
Reaction Score
53,254
It's unfair to compare Nadal to Federer.
Clay court tennis is hugely different than grass/solid surface. Hugely.
Sampras never won at the French, and most people have him top 5 all time on grass/hard surface.
Nadal contends for best ever on clay. Beyond that, he's a top 10ish all time grass/hard surface player, with time left.
This sells Nadal so, so far short. Dude is easily the best clay court player of all-time and has 6 titles across Australia/Wimbledon/US Open despite playing in the era of Federer and Djokovic. Remove one of those two guys and he's probably at 9 or 10 non-French Open titles. Conversely, remove Nadal and Federer probably has 3 French Open titles himself.

BTW if Federer retired when he was 26 it would have been at the end of a run in which he'd won 13 majors over the previous 6 years, and had made it to at least the semifinals of 18 consecutive majors. From 2005-2008 he was 101-7 in majors. Add in 2009, when he was 27, and he jumps up to 127-9 with a career grand slam and the most incredible consistency (he made it to at least the semifinals of every major from 2004 Wimbledon to the 2010 French Open) ever seen in the sport.

He's the GOAT, and the only one who's close is Nadal.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,127
Reaction Score
3,590
This sells Nadal so, so far short. Dude is easily the best clay court player of all-time and has 6 titles across Australia/Wimbledon/US Open
Nadal is tops on clay, all time, and top 10 non-clay.
That's "far short"? It can't be, unless you want to say he's "top ## non-clay" and the ## is smaller than 10. Top 5 on Grass and hard surface? Maybe contends for spot 4 or 5, but certainly far behind Federer, Borg, Sampras.
BTW if Federer retired when he was 26 it would have been at the end of a run in which he'd won 13 majors over the previous 6 years, . . . He's the GOAT, and the only one who's close is Nadal.
Certainly Federer has had the GOAT career. But "Borg, at his prime, was better than Federer, at his prime" is an argument that could be easily made. Borg won equally easily on grass and clay. That alone makes his case.


Clay and non-clay are practically different sports, they are so different in how the game is played.

Also, the "he played against Joker and Fed" doesn't cut it. Every player in every generation has to play against the best in the world.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction Score
23,496
I know you always risk inadvertently hijacking the thread with comparisons like this, but my first thought when I saw that he won was that he's eerily similar to Brady and in some respects more impressive given the cardio that tennis demands.

Hopefully a different result next weekend...
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,040
Reaction Score
33,534
Conversely, remove Nadal and Federer probably has 3 French Open titles himself.
He was in the Finals 5x and lost tough matches to him in the Finals 4x, and in the semis once. It's almost certain that in Federer's prime (2005-2009) he would have won the four slams in a calendar year at least once (he won all but French twice), and if he won even one of those, his peak streak could have been 7 grand slams in a row.

You don't get to redo history, but Jesus was that guy good. He's a fantastic clay court player, too: 5 finals and 7 semi-finals in addition to his win. Nadal is just the greatest clay court player in history. And a Top 10 non-clay court player.

But, as I've said before, if you take away Federer's best surface (grass), he still has 12 Grand Slams, second most ever (and tied with Djokovic).
If you take away Nadal's best surface (clay) he has 6. He's essentially Andre Agassi. Very good, historically important. But not in the same conversation. Injuries played a roll in that, sure, as did playing against Djokovic and Federer. But every generation has great competitors, and this one just seems to have three transcendent ones.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,916
Reaction Score
5,364
Nadal is tops on clay, all time, and top 10 non-clay.
That's "far short"? It can't be, unless you want to say he's "top ## non-clay" and the ## is smaller than 10. Top 5 on Grass and hard surface? Maybe contends for spot 4 or 5, but certainly far behind Federer, Borg, Sampras.

Certainly Federer has had the GOAT career. But "Borg, at his prime, was better than Federer, at his prime" is an argument that could be easily made. Borg won equally easily on grass and clay. That alone makes his case.


Clay and non-clay are practically different sports, they are so different in how the game is played.

Also, the "he played against Joker and Fed" doesn't cut it. Every player in every generation has to play against the best in the world.
Disagree strongly that Borg was the greatest tennis player ever in his prime, to say he was better than Federer is nice to say but far from the truth. Borg was not as good on hard courts as he was on grass or clay. Grass and clay are similar surfaces, and grass courts will play even more like clay toward the end of a long tournament, when the grass gets really beaten up and plays like a hard dirt surface. Borg had very loopy shots which easily cleared the net, and he was a terrible net player. Those loopy shots however were critical in his five Wimbledon titles. He won the Canadian Open (played on hard courts) only once in 1979 against a very young John McEnroe who had just started playing on the tour, and made the finals only twice. Yet played it every year as did all the top players did as a tune-up for the US Open. As good as Borg was, good serve and volley hard court players like Roscoe Tanner or Vitas Gerulitus use to eat him alive on hard courts at the US Open and the Canadian Open. Because of his limitations at the net he never won a doubles title and IIRC only made the semi finals once in doubles.

My top 10 all time in the modern era

1) Federer
2) Sampras
3) Borg
4) Llendl
5) John McEnroe
6) Nadal
7) Djokovic
8) Agassi
9) Stefan Edberg
10) Boris Becker

A lot will disagree with me on who I think was the greatest ever in his prime, but I'll say it any way ...John McEnroe. He was almost untouchable in 1984, his dominance was very brief but unmatched IMO. Though a serve and volley type player, as a cocky brash young kid he came within a hair of being the first American to win the French Open since Tony Trabert in the 1950's, in what many think was the greatest single tennis match ever played. His opponents were some of the greatest ever, during tennis's golden age.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,340
Reaction Score
6,479
Nadal is tops on clay, all time, and top 10 non-clay.
That's "far short"? It can't be, unless you want to say he's "top ## non-clay" and the ## is smaller than 10. Top 5 on Grass and hard surface? Maybe contends for spot 4 or 5, but certainly far behind Federer, Borg, Sampras.

Certainly Federer has had the GOAT career. But "Borg, at his prime, was better than Federer, at his prime" is an argument that could be easily made. Borg won equally easily on grass and clay. That alone makes his case.


Clay and non-clay are practically different sports, they are so different in how the game is played.

Also, the "he played against Joker and Fed" doesn't cut it. Every player in every generation has to play against the best in the world.

You are just wrong
No US nor Aussies. Great player. Big quitter.
 

temery

What?
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
20,267
Reaction Score
37,155
It’s always fun, but still silly to compare players from a different generation. But for my money, if today’s players had to play with equipment from 30 years ago, I doubt Federer would have been as dominant.

I’ve always felt this would make a great money tournament series, maybe once every other year, or every four years.. Field of 128, all players use a 1970s wood racquet.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,127
Reaction Score
3,590
Grass and clay are similar surfaces . . . As good as Borg was, good serve and volley hard court players like Roscoe Tanner or Vitas Gerulitus use to eat him alive on hard courts at the US Open . . . .
Dude, did you just seriously say grass and clay are similar? Do you even tennis bro? LOL.

Regarding your ridiculous hard court argument, here's how he did in his 9 year career, one year of which was lost to injury:
1. Lost to Pilic in 4th Round (17 y.o.).
2. Lost to Amritraj in 2nd Round (18 y.o.).
3. Lost to defending champ Connors in Semi finals (19 y.o.).
4. Lost to Connors in the finals (20 y.o.).
5. Shoulder Injury, retired in 4th round (21 y.o.)
6. Lost to Connors in the finals (22 y.o), dominated Gerulaitas in the semis 6/3, 6/2, 7/6.
7. Lost to Roscoe Tanner in Quarters - his only bad loss.
8. Lost to McEnroe in the finals.
9. Lost to McEnroe in the finals.

In the last 5 he entered and completed (excluding the injury withdrawal) he went to the finals 4 times, losing to Connors twice and Mc twice. He only played Gerilitus once, and dominated him. He got beat by Tanner once, then beat him each of the next two years on his way to the finals.

Fact is, he caught Mc in the heart of his prime and Connors at the beginning of his prime, both of whom are among the best hard court players of all time, and both of whom had played on that surface most of their lives.

For people who know tennis, Borg played on another level. If Borg wanted to, he could have focused on hard court and beaten anybody. He quit because he was bored and he was that much better than everybody else.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,916
Reaction Score
5,364
Dude, did you just seriously say grass and clay are similar? Do you even tennis bro? LOL.

Regarding your ridiculous hard court argument, here's how he did in his 9 year career, one year of which was lost to injury:
1. Lost to Pilic in 4th Round (17 y.o.).
2. Lost to Amritraj in 2nd Round (18 y.o.).
3. Lost to defending champ Connors in Semi finals (19 y.o.).
4. Lost to Connors in the finals (20 y.o.).
5. Shoulder Injury, retired in 4th round (21 y.o.)
6. Lost to Connors in the finals (22 y.o), dominated Gerulaitas in the semis 6/3, 6/2, 7/6.
7. Lost to Roscoe Tanner in Quarters - his only bad loss.
8. Lost to McEnroe in the finals.
9. Lost to McEnroe in the finals.

In the last 5 he entered and completed (excluding the injury withdrawal) he went to the finals 4 times, losing to Connors twice and Mc twice. He only played Gerilitus once, and dominated him. He got beat by Tanner once, then beat him each of the next two years on his way to the finals.

Fact is, he caught Mc in the heart of his prime and Connors at the beginning of his prime, both of whom are among the best hard court players of all time, and both of whom had played on that surface most of their lives.

For people who know tennis, Borg played on another level. If Borg wanted to, he could have focused on hard court and beaten anybody. He quit because he was bored and he was that much better than everybody else.
Um...yes. I worked at Llendl's club in Weston for many years. I have played the game myself since I was ten years old. I know a heck of a lot more about the game than you do. Btw when Borg played McEnroe at the Australian Open it was 1979, just one year after JM turned pro. I also have been to 3 of the 4 grand slams in tennis. I have to say you do not have a clue about the game.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,127
Reaction Score
3,590
I know a heck of a lot more about the game than you do . . . . Btw when Borg played McEnroe at the Australian Open it was 1979, . . . I have to say you do not have a clue about the game.
You must know more than me. And most people, for that matter. Every source I check tells me Borg only played at the Aussie once, in 1974, and he never played McEnroe.

Did you attend that imaginary match in 1979?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,916
Reaction Score
5,364
You must know more than me. And most people, for that matter. Every source I check tells me Borg only played at the Aussie once, in 1974, and he never played McEnroe.

Did you attend that imaginary match in 1979?
My mistake, was thinking of the Canadian Open finals match in 1979. McEnroe vs Borg, Borg won. I did not attend. Trust me, when playing on grass the conditions can vary widely. If the courts are dry and sunbaked it plays just like clay, (red clay not Har-Tru) if it had been rainy for a few days it plays like a putting green.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,127
Reaction Score
3,590
One last thought on Borg, for those who count Majors. Borg didn't play at the Australian open after his first year. Had he done that - given that it was played on grass like Wimbledon, which he won five straight times and was untouchable doing so - he would have had 4 or 5 more majors, bringing his total to 15 or 16 - at the age of 26, which would put him, currently, tied for 2nd all time. Figure another 20 or 30 majors during his prime, and, obviously, the guy had the talent to have the greatest career of all time.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,916
Reaction Score
5,364
One last thought on Borg, for those who count Majors. Borg didn't play at the Australian open after his first year. Had he done that - given that it was played on grass like Wimbledon, which he won five straight times and was untouchable doing so - he would have had 4 or 5 more majors, bringing his total to 15 or 16 - at the age of 26, which would put him, currently, tied for 2nd all time. Figure another 20 or 30 majors during his prime, and, obviously, the guy had the talent to have the greatest career of all time.
I can't argue that point, you are correct. Borgs game was taylor made for grass, his loopy ground strokes always cleared the net with room to spare, while most of his opponents hit a harder flatter shot that had a much greater chance of going long or catching the top of the net tape. Borg was able to hit those low bouncing balls on wet grass because he really bent his knees and got down low to the plain of the ball yet was still able to top it. At same time hard courts were a big advantage for the harder hitting players like McEnroe, Connors and especially Llendl because the ball bounced higher. Llendl also hit with heavy topspin but his shots were not as loopy, were much harder, like lasers so he hit lots of winners but also had lots of errors, and he was not a great net player. That's why Llendl never won Wimbledon. Roger Federer is a combination of McEnroe's racquet control and Llendl's power and Borg's ability to hit hard but loopy shots if he has to. He is the best ever. Sampras I put second, great forehand, an ok backhand, but really great net play and the greatest serve the game has ever seen. I still maintain though that McEnroe in 83 and especially 84 was the best I've ever seen anyone play the game. I think in 1984 he lost only three matches all year, something crazy like 85-3.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,127
Reaction Score
3,590
I still maintain though that McEnroe in 83 and especially 84 was the best I've ever seen anyone play the game.
Very supportable argument. He was fantastic.
One last tidbit on Borg - by the time he played McEnroe in the 81 U.S. open, a sure sign that his brain had already moved on from tennis . . . it was only his 7th event of the year. That's 7. The guy only played in 6 tournaments from January through August, strolled into the U.S. Open and waltzed into the finals. Amazing.
 

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
2,708
Total visitors
2,788

Forum statistics

Threads
155,799
Messages
4,032,044
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom