OT- Federer

[David 76]

Not sure what my crazy view is?

I think you got us all right where you want us.

 

[JSM1970]

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

Kris Bryant, Bryce Harper, Durant, and the Travelers are all jokes while Federer is a compiler who lived off of weak competetion.

The same person said all of these things. The frightening thing is the person is over 12 years old.

 

[tzznandrew]

Read the article, other people say the same thing

Federer has a losing record against Djoker & Rafa

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.

 

[NielsisGood]

It's not genius if you read the whole explanation. He was in his peak prime in a dead period for competition and he compiled a bunch of GSs during that.

If the GOAT is determined solely by GS wins then he would be considered that.

I think it they all played in their prime Djoker, Rafa, Pete and possibly others would beat him.

That's my opinion. And Johnny Mac agrees, at least Sampras on grass.

"I think if they played 10 times on grass, both at their peak, then Pete would win six or seven times," said McEnroe. "He had the greatest, most difficult serve in the history of tennis."

See #1 below on my point

6 reasons why Djokovic has now overtaken Federer as the greatest of all time

Why do you always repeat yourself? You've said this like 6 times already.

 

[tzznandrew]

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.

 

[intlzncster]

Always wonder if JSM sits at his computer, comes up with the hottest take he can think of and then runs with it. I'll give him credit, he's absolutely relentless with it.

 

[JSM1970]

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

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.

 

[superjohn]

Always wonder if JSM sits at his computer, comes up with the hottest take he can think of and then runs with it. I'll give him credit, he's absolutely relentless with it.

And then he repeats the same ridiculous hot take over and over and over and over...

 

[NielsisGood]

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.

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.

 

[tzznandrew]

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.

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).

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

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

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?

 

[JSM1970]

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

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?

 

[NielsisGood]

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

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.

 

[superjohn]

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

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.

 

[JSM1970]

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

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.

 

[NielsisGood]

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

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.

 

[huskyrob1]

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.

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.

 

[nomar]

Federer's a compiler like Russell and MJ and were compilers.

 

[JSM1970]

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

Federer has reached a Grand Slam final 29 times. Can these others guys come close to that?

 

[huskyrob1]

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

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.

 

[JSM1970]

Fed is closer to Russell than MJ, beat up
on bad competition, but a huge winner

Federer's a compiler like Russell and MJ and were compilers.

 

[jleves]

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.

Why do you specifically and everyone else collectively bother to debate this guy? It's all he wants. Stop it.

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

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

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.

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

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".

 

[NielsisGood]

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.

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.