OT- Federer | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT- Federer

It was an incredibly weak period of men's tennis

If Djoker played during this he would have done the same and had more than 4 in last 7+ years

Djoker > Federer in prime

Nadal domainted Federer both on clay and when healthy on all surfaces

Rafa > Federer

tzznandrew said:
On the early Fed era:

From the Australian Open 2004 to the Australian Open 2009, Federer played in 25 Major Championships. He won 15 of them, made the Finals in 6 of them, and only missed the Semi-Finals once.

Maybe people think the era was weak because Federer was so much better than them that they couldn't build up their legacies. I mean, he beat Roddick in 3 Finals and 2 Semi-finals.

Lleyton Hewitt had 2 titles, and was killed by Federer-- Hewitt was beaten in 6 of Federer's titles mid-2000s. Safin had 2 titles as well. He beat Fed, like, once or twice.

EDIT: Adding in the end of Agassi's career would have stretched farther, too, and he'd have 9-10 titles. There wouldn't be much of a gap between the end of the Sampras-Agassi careers to the Nadal-Djokovic...

But if you didn't have Federer, the era before Nadal really emerged would have probably had Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin splitting a bunch of titles, and we wouldn't think about it in the same way. Fed just mowed everyone down until Nadal could regularly compete with him.
Expand ...
 
tzznandrew said:
The article was from over a year ago. Since, Fed beat Rafa in the Aussie Open finals, and collected another Wimbledon while all three others choked.

Nadal has 15 major titles--10 of them at the French Open. Guy is the greatest clay court player ever. Period. He dominates everyone there. Take away clay courts, and their records look a lot different.

Djokovic has a winning record against Fed too, sure: 23-22. And Djoker in particular got lots of these wins after Roger turned 30.

I'd put Djokovic ahead of Nadal because without the French Open Nadal's essentially Andre Agassi (very great player, not transformative). But Federer is the GOAT.
Expand ...

The flipside to Nadal being the greatest clay court player ever is that Federer is arguably top 5 all time on clay and probably would have won 4-5 FO's had Nadal not been around, at which point Fed would be at 22-23 slams.


Also agree with having Djokovic above Nadal. Prime Djokovic is a better, more well rounded version of prime Nadal essentially.
 
NielsisGood said:
The flipside to Nadal being the greatest clay court player ever is that Federer is arguably top 5 all time on clay and probably would have won 4-5 FO's had Nadal not been around, at which point Fed would be at 22-23 slams.


Also agree with having Djokovic above Nadal. Prime Djokovic is a better, more well rounded version of prime Nadal essentially.
Expand ...
It's crazy. He made 5 French Open finals in 6 years. If it weren't for Nadal, people would find that amazing (he'd also have won more than 1 of those 5), another feather in his cap to dominate both grass and clay. As it was, you're right that's he's probably in that Top 5 list below Nadal (obviously) and Borg, and probably in the next set with Lendl and Wilander (though they have more wins).
 
JSM1970 said:
Read the article, other people say the same thing

Federer has a losing record against Djoker & Rafa

What did I ever say about KD?

Kris Bryant is a joke if you're going to pay him $30m+/year
Expand ...
Yes, Nadal and Djokovic are also in the top 5 ALL TIME for majors won.

Was he "compiling" when he was 19 and beat Sampras at Wimbledon?

Or how about when he beat the second greatest player all time, Rafa Nadal, in back to back Wimbledon titles?

Or when he beat Nadal in Australia this year, both coming off injury?

Or when he beat Roddick a gazillion times in majors?

Or when he beat Andy Murray in all 3 major finals they've played?

Or when he beat Djokovic 6 times in grand slams?
 
.-.
He beat Pete when Pete was at the end and his back was a mess

He has a LOSING record against both Rafa and Djoker

He compiled most of his GSs against lousy competition like Roddick. Roddick was an average player, he benefited playing in the same period Federer did

Rafa, Pete, Djoker better in their prime. Possibly Edberg too

RayIsTheGOAT said:
Yes, Nadal and Djokovic are also in the top 5 ALL TIME for majors won.

Was he "compiling" when he was 19 and beat Sampras at Wimbledon?

Or how about when he beat the second greatest player all time, Rafa Nadal, in back to back Wimbledon titles?

Or when he beat Nadal in Australia this year, both coming off injury?

Or when he beat Roddick a gazillion times in majors?

Or when he beat Andy Murray in all 3 major finals they've played?

Or when he beat Djokovic 6 times in grand slams?
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
He beat Pete when Pete was at the end and his back was a mess

He has a LOSING record against both Rafa and Djoker

He compiled most of his GSs against lousy competition like Roddick. Roddick was an average player, he benefited playing in the same period Federer did

Rafa, Pete, Djoker better in their prime. Possibly Edberg too
Expand ...

How come it doesn't matter to you when those h2h were played? Nadal wasn't good enough on grass (for a little bit) or hard court (for awhile) to meet (and likely lose to) Fed for several years, same with Djokovic, who didn't consistently make it far enough into tournaments to face Federer until about 2009-2010.
 
JSM1970 said:
He beat Pete when Pete was at the end and his back was a mess

He has a LOSING record against both Rafa and Djoker

He compiled most of his GSs against lousy competition like Roddick. Roddick was an average player, he benefited playing in the same period Federer did

Rafa, Pete, Djoker better in their prime. Possibly Edberg too
Expand ...
You are accusing Sampras of being done because Federer beat him when Sampras was 28/29. At the same time you are arguing that Federer has only won a few majors in his 30's like that is supppsed to be some sort of weakness. Federer has a losing record against Nadal because of clay, Federer easily has a winning record against him on all the other surfaces. Roddick wasn't average.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are you insulting me because I don't agree with you 100%? Honestly, this is the best arguement in sports, tennis.

I would have loved to see Pete and Djoker play, combo of power and finesse. Pete was a rock star, even though I always rooted for Andre.

1) Djoker
2) Rafa
3) Rodg
4) Pete


superjohn said:
You are accusing Sampras of being done because Federer beat him when Sampras was 28/29. At the same time you are arguing that Federer has only won a few majors in his 30's like that is supppsed to be some sort of weakness. Federer has a losing record against Nadal because of clay, Federer easily has a winning record against him on all the other surfaces. Roddick wasn't average.

You clown yourself on a daily basis and then embarrass yourself more by repeating the same lame argument ad nauseam. You must be a nightmare to live with.
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
Why are you insulting me because I don't agree with you 100%? Honestly, this is the best arguement in sports, tennis.

I would have loved to see Pete and Djoker play, combo of power and finesse. Pete was a rock star, even though I always rooted for Andre.

1) Djoker
2) Rafa
3) Rodg
4) Pete
Expand ...

Huh? Andre was the rock star, Pete was much more quiet and unassuming.


Cute list though. I see you've listened to everyone else and moved Fed above Sampras.
 
tzznandrew said:
The article was from over a year ago. Since, Fed beat Rafa in the Aussie Open finals, and collected another Wimbledon while all three others choked.

Nadal has 15 major titles--10 of them at the French Open. Guy is the greatest clay court player ever. Period. He dominates everyone there. Take away clay courts, and their records look a lot different.

Djokovic has a winning record against Fed too, sure: 23-22. And Djoker in particular got lots of these wins after Roger turned 30.

I'd put Djokovic ahead of Nadal because without the French Open Nadal's essentially Andre Agassi (very great player, not transformative). But Federer is the GOAT.
Expand ...
Federer has reached a Grand Slam final 29 times. Can these others guys come close to that? His ability to vary the spin on his shots and his serve and still hit with power is the best I have ever seen. His slice backhand is on par with Rosewall's who had the best ever, and his topspin backhand may be the best ever.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Fed has the better #s

He compiled most of his GSs in a period with no other great players, everyone knows this

Djoker played with Rafa, Murray, Fed, 2 0f top 5 and 1 more of top 25

Murray would have 10+ GSs if he was Rodg timing wise

He wasn't as good, but in that period he would have domainted

huskyrob1 said:
Federer has reached a Grand Slam final 29 times. Can these others guys come close to that?
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
He beat Pete when Pete was at the end and his back was a mess

He has a LOSING record against both Rafa and Djoker

He compiled most of his GSs against lousy competition like Roddick. Roddick was an average player, he benefited playing in the same period Federer did

Rafa, Pete, Djoker better in their prime. Possibly Edberg too
Expand ...
I like Federer and Sampras over Djoker, Roddick, and Nadal because they are two of the few great players left who still hit their backhand with one hand. The power and grace of a powerful one handed backhand is something to behold, using two hands is cheating. The WTF should have outlawed the two hander back in the early 70's when it came into prominence.
 
superjohn said:
You are accusing Sampras of being done because Federer beat him when Sampras was 28/29. At the same time you are arguing that Federer has only won a few majors in his 30's like that is supppsed to be some sort of weakness. Federer has a losing record against Nadal because of clay, Federer easily has a winning record against him on all the other surfaces. Roddick wasn't average.

You clown yourself on a daily basis and then embarrass yourself more by repeating the same lame argument ad nauseam. You must be a nightmare to live with.
Expand ...
Why do you specifically and everyone else collectively bother to debate this guy? It's all he wants. Stop it.
 
JSM1970 said:
He beat Pete when Pete was at the end and his back was a mess

He has a LOSING record against both Rafa and Djoker

He compiled most of his GSs against lousy competition like Roddick. Roddick was an average player, he benefited playing in the same period Federer did

Rafa, Pete, Djoker better in their prime. Possibly Edberg too
Expand ...
You just can't say that Rafa, Pete, Djoker are better in their prime, there's no evidence. The only evidence we have is that Federer has won 19 grand slam titles. Either way, match Federer in his prime vs any of those guys in their prime. It's a 5 setter, a tossup.
Sure, there's no one that's beating Rafa in his prime on clay. But Federer vs. Nadal in their prime on grass? I'll put my money on Roger.
But that isn't the argument. The argument is that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time because no one has won as much as he has at the highest level. And he continues to do it into his mid-30s.
Actually, there isn't even an argument. It's over. End of discussion. Federer is the greatest player of all time.
 
.-.
Also, Pete Sampras still won a U.S. open, after losing to Federer. He wasn't washed up by any means. And Federer was 19 YEARS OLD at the time.
Federer is 35, has played through the "golden age of tennis", and still has 19 major titles and counting. You simply have no evidence to say that Federer is not the greatest of all time. You have- "he won against lousy competition".
 
RayIsTheGOAT said:
You just can't say that Rafa, Pete, Djoker are better in their prime, there's no evidence. The only evidence we have is that Federer has won 19 grand slam titles. Either way, match Federer in his prime vs any of those guys in their prime. It's a 5 setter, a tossup.
Sure, there's no one that's beating Rafa in his prime on clay. But Federer vs. Nadal in their prime on grass? I'll put my money on Roger.
But that isn't the argument. The argument is that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time because no one has won as much as he has at the highest level. And he continues to do it into his mid-30s.
Actually, there isn't even an argument. It's over. End of discussion. Federer is the greatest player of all time.
Expand ...

Fed is the best grass player ever, top 3 hard court ever, and probably top 5 ever on clay. He pretty much only ever loses at slams to other members of the big 4.


And obviously he owns every important record ever, slam wins, finals, semis, most weeks spent being the #1 ranked player, most consecutive weeks at #1, and probably the greatest peak run anyone has ever seen.
 
He's none of these, except the #s due to playing against inferior competition for a long stretch.

To reiterate, he compiled yuge #s in a 6-7 year period against weak competition and was average in a period when other top players emerged.

Almost all of the great players played in eras against other great players.

If he didn't have this 2017 resurgence we'd honestly be labeling him as a borderline joke because he was dominated for 5-7 years. 2017 has actually made and saved his legacy.

NielsisGood said:
Fed is the best grass player ever, top 3 hard court ever, and probably top 5 ever on clay. He pretty much only ever loses at slams to other members of the big 4.


And obviously he owns every important record ever, slam wins, finals, semis, most weeks spent being the #1 ranked player, most consecutive weeks at #1, and probably the greatest peak run anyone has ever seen.
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
He's none of these, except the #s due to playing against inferior competition for a long stretch.

To reiterate, he compiled yuge #s in a 6-7 year period against weak competition and was average in a period when other top players emerged.

Almost all of the great players played in eras against other great players.

If he didn't have this 2017 resurgence we'd honestly be labeling him as a borderline joke because he was dominated for 5-7 years. 2017 has actually made and saved his legacy.
Expand ...


Tap out, you're making a fool of yourself. It's never possible to find a consensus GOAT, but any discussion has to include Federer.
 
Last edited:
JSM1970 said:
He's none of these, except the #s due to playing against inferior competition for a long stretch.

To reiterate, he compiled yuge #s in a 6-7 year period against weak competition and was average in a period when other top players emerged.

Almost all of the great players played in eras against other great players.

If he didn't have this 2017 resurgence we'd honestly be labeling him as a borderline joke because he was dominated for 5-7 years. 2017 has actually made and saved his legacy.
Expand ...


Roger Federer - Wikipedia


GOAT. Fed owns the record books. He's the GOAT.
 
.-.
I love the tennis debates. I was an avid and competive player and the run of greatness in the game from the late 70's to early 2000's was incredible.

I'd just like to add that a properly trained, fit Agassi in his prime would likely have been the most talented of all these guys. His natural ability with very little training relative to what everyone else did was just incredible. When he finally started trying, he was way past his prime. Nothing was more beautiful than watching Agassi hammer back huge serves for winners off both forehand and backhand. His ability drew a lot of interest to the game because kids wanted to rally and big servers were starting to dominate. Agassi showed that you could combat the huge serve with timing and transferring the power from the serve into laser beam returns. Go watch tape of Agassi winning Wimbledon, just gorgeous tennis.
 
Jsm do you have same feelings about tiger woods? He compiled against a weak field?

It's crazy to think about but we have seen arguably 4 GOATs compete in Their respective sports over the past 20 years

Tiger
Fed
Serena
LeBron (Not there yet but on his way)
 
JSM1970 said:
He has the most GSs, but not the best player

Very consistent and well rounded, not great at any one thing whereas Pete & Djoker relied on high 1st serve %s
Expand ...

Fed is great at every aspect of tennis, click the link and take a gander at all the records he owns singularly. Djokovic isn't even known for his serve, comments like this are why I don't think you're trolling, I think you're actually this stupid.
 
methodology said:
Jsm do you have same feelings about tiger woods? He compiled against a weak field?

It's crazy to think about but we have seen arguably 4 GOATs compete in Their respective sports over the past 20 years

Tiger
Fed
Serena
LeBron (Not there yet but on his way)
Expand ...
Fed and Serena, yes.

Tiger, debateable, but probably a no (#2)

LeBron, still below MJ. Maybe Kareem too (who no one puts in these conversations, but probably deserves to be).
 
I didn't say Djoker is a serve & volley guy or who relies on huge ace #s, just that a guy who needs a good 1st serve %.

My point has solely been in their primes Rodg is not as good as Rafa, Pete or Djoker.

I don't know how that is trolling


NielsisGood said:
Fed is great at every aspect of tennis, click the link and take a gander at all the records he owns singularly. Djokovic isn't even known for his serve, comments like this are why I don't think you're trolling, I think you're actually this stupid.
Expand ...
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,449
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom