I've narrowed down the topics for this blog to movies, music, women, art, quasi-art, animals, and pretty much everything else.
Well, it is of little doubt and consequence that federer is not as great as nadal is and that should not be even a point of discussion anymore. I would actually like to see how federer is not as great as other great players of past era like Sampras, Borg, and Laver. The numbers wont tell you that, but somewhere deep inside we all fell that is true. Do you have any points or facts or arguments to my hypothesis
First of all, there are hordes of clueless tennis fans who don't see it that way at all - hence partly why I wrote this analysis in the first place. Most tennis fans' minds are too simple to handle anything more complex than three numbers, i.e. 17, 14, and 13. In their minds, Roger, Pete, and Rafa are great - in that order. I prefer to look at the big picture.As for your second point, I think it's very difficult to compare players from different eras, especially when those players are 20 or even 30 years apart age-wise. My gut-feeling tells me that you're probably right, simply because Roger's beaten slam-finale opponents in those first 10-15 finales were often anything but the stuff of legends. 2003-2007 truly was a power vacuum, from which even Rafa profited, I might add.I wouldn't say that Roger isn't as great as Borg or Sampras, but would merely argue that he isn't greater than the greats. As for Laver, that's one helluva overrated player. His successes are essentially from the amateur Era and hence are of no interest to me whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, relevant tennis statistics start in the early 70s. The results before that are kids stuff.
One of the best articles i have ever read , now this will hurt Fedtards a lot but yeah an amazing article , no wonder Federer is great but he is not the GOAT.
That's all I'm saying, that he isn't the best ever, and there is no such thing in any sport probably, let alone tennis. Fedtards can experience butthurt, but deep down they know I am right on this.
If only you had spent the amount of time spent in writing this article in practicing tennis, you could well have become the greatest player of all time without a doubt ..
I think Federer's greatest achievement is playing at a high level consistently without being injured. Having a injury-free tennis of 8-10 years is itself an achievement, which allowed him to be at places to win championships (like the French open, note Federer DID beat Djokovic in semi's to reach the final).Your argument that Federer won matches when his opponents were injured, itself states that injuries are so common in this sport but having a decade of fitness in professional tennis is itself an achievement of sorts.He should be "Fittest Of All Players" :-)
Federer's FO 2009, which he won due to Nadal's injury, was devoid of a SF against Djokovic. He played Delpo instead. I never said that Federer's whole career has been winning matches when his opponents were injured, that's ludicrous. I merely described in detail how he profited from injuries to win a few slams more which he otherwise most likely would not have won. How many players get heavily injured when they're no.1? Rafa was very unlucky so far, unlike Novak and Roger who had fairly smooth sailing so far, injury-wise.Fitness and being injury-free go hand-in-hand but only to a certain extent. What you're talking about has more to do with luck than the realm of achievements. Is it an achievement not to have genetically weaker knees? I would argue the opposite: the bigger achievement is coming BACK from injury after injury and managing to always go back to the old winning ways, the way Nadal has, the way Tsonga has (to a lesser degree, obviously) and others. That impresses me far more. Delpo's example shows how difficult it is to reach the same level of play before a lengthy break. He hasn't been the same player since then, and it's taken him years to go back to the top 5.One of the many reasons Nadal is a greater champion than the Swiss is precisely because he had fought tough, long injuries and persevered. Federer has never been tested this way. His health was nearly always there, almost as if he'd been given it on a plate. People will always remember Nadal's remarkable comebacks, and they give his successes an added wow factor.I have no problem at all with giving Federer the title of the "Luckiest & Healthiest Player Ever", as you indirectly suggest. That's exactly what he is.Vjetropev
and we will see if rafa is anywhere near worl no.2 at 33 years of age and still playing well
If you fedtards would only learn to READ. The text states clearly that Rafa reached the top 5 aged 18, whereas Roger only managed that at 21. In other words, Rafa reached his potential much earlier than Roger, hence he has the "right" to become weaker much earlier than Roger. Slam-wise, Rafa achieved a LOT more earlier than Roger, winning his first slam at 19, Roger at 22.Now, if this concept is too complicated for you, seeing as how it involves numbers which fedtards seem to struggle with, ask someone to explain it to you.
Can I just say that ur an actual BOSSMAN. I swear I rate and respect you a million bro. If only everyone would read this article, then the world would be a MUCH better place. Mind you, I used to be a FEDTARD, but now I rate Nole and Rafa's achievements on a higher pedestal than Fed's. Especially, Fed's FO in 2009
any claims Roger as the best player, is purely out of sentimental reason...hard cold facts will say otherwise, which roger fans, time and again, have refused to accept! Cant believe ppl give reasons like he is the great because he stayed injury free, plays tennis like balled, artistically more sound, consistency...gosh! Look at one simple comparison, Fed at 27 and Rafa and 27 and we can see the difference in the achievements...
Sometimes it's sentimental reasons, and sometimes it's just plain stupidity. That's why we call them "fedtards". They are irrational, like children, like misfits.I have to say that giving a reason such as "he stayed injury-free" boggles the mind. That argument is what I used to help prove the exact opposite, i.e. the luck he's had by avoiding injuries. I don't see how not having injuries can be construed as an accomplishment - unless, of course, one is a mentally luckless fedtard himself. It's like saying "look how smart he is, he won the lottery". Utterly ridiculous. Fedtards can't even distinguish between luck and achievement.I had also already covered the "artistic" argument brought forth by deranged, confused and highly emotional fedtards. Absolutely retarded, the notion that the way he swings his racket (i.e. like a ballerina) can have any impact on whether he is best ever.As for consistency, it is much easier being consistent when you've had no injuries, and when 3 of your prime years (2004-2007) were almost devoid of competition. Part of Nadal's greatness is his ability to come up time and time again, after awful injuries, something I am assume Federer would have struggled with a lot more. To Nadal confidence comes much more naturally than to Federer who has struggle with it in the first years of his career (until 2003), and now. Federer's comeback from 7 months of injury - even in a year such as 2006 for example - would have been far less successful than any of Nadal's comebacks. All-in-all, I made a strong case that very clearly crushes any ambitions fedtards or Federer himself might have for him to be considered best ever. I really don't see what counter-arguments they can possibly have to most of the points I make here.
I really enjoyed this article. Thank you for taking the time to do the research. I was a huge Roddick fan during the power vacuum years and struggled to like Federer. In recent years I've gained an appreciation for all of the big four but usually route for Federer and Ferrer. I route for underdogs you see. This is why I loved Roddick. Federer has since become an underdog.
This article is beyond dumb.Go to 538, learn something about aging curves and maybe, just maybe, you will be able to put forth a cogent, logical argument based on statistical analysis as opposed to a subjective one.You might also want to refrain from using the term "Fedtard" if you want to convince your reader that you are making a bias-free argument.
There is no hope for Fedtards, and you're a prime example of that. I couldn't convince you Djokovic had two legs if I tried. If I wrote an essay about why the sky was blue it would probably confuse you. Anything that is remotely bleedin' obvious is a great big ball of confusion to you. You're almost as religious about your hero as the most zealous cult-members. I am an not an expert in de-programming, i.e. turning fanatics into sensible human beings. I don't have to convince Fedtards of anything. They aren't Fedtards for nothing. You cannot reform a Fedtard without a lobotomy, and there is no way you can make one understand the nuances of statistics either. I have offered you tons of proof and yet your only argument is "don't call us Fedtards coz that shows you're biased hence this whole article is a joke". Duh. Is that all you've got? You are quite clearly a very annoyed Fedtard, and the fact that this post annoys you doesn't bother me, not one bit. Keep counting Rafa's grand slam wins.
looool that's one of the best comebacks i have ever seen against someone who obviously have nothing beyond his "too complicated facts to understand".""Aging curves" ? i would gladly give an arm if you can prove anything with aging curves , my specialty is mathematics and theoritical computer science i know exactly what i'm talking about ...if you can't draw the simple logic from the simple stats the guy mentioned in this blog ,then you obviously have no buisiness talking about logic in the first place ...
I've not only given them TONS of arguments and facts, but I have discussed their own arguments as well and deflated them. I can certainly understand how this annoys them coz nobody likes to be proven wrong - the Ego can only take so much. They're like kids screaming for a lollipop when all shops are closed.The aging curve, yeah, that's hilarious.
What are your proofs good for when there aren't any established criteras for the term "GOAT"? Or was it "best ever"..."most successful"...what was it again you were arguing against/for? Do not fool yourself into assuming you've crushed any Fedtards "worldview" - because in the end the whole debate is in certain ways very much like a religious war among monotheistic persuasions. Each party claims their God to be only God there is as if they had all drunk from the goblet of truth. This article of yours merely attracted a flock of like-minded who didn't need to be convinced. It's opion(s) set in stone - a belief (system). And that's why the whole squabble bores me endlessly - it's utterly pointless. Speaking of kids: my dad is stronger than your dad anybody?
Well, first of all, this text isn't for morons, and you are further proof of that. Only a moron will comment on an article he has only read 1% of - and hasn't even understood that much.Secondly, as nearly every fedtard who has posted here bitching, kicking and whining, you do not attempt to refute any specific facts but simply offer a general "overview" which can be essentially translated as "you talk shit coz you don't appreciate my god Roger".Speaking of religions, the analogy you made is idiotic. If you had carefully read the text - or read it at all instead of just skimming through it like a child - you would have read that I never claim that Nadal is GOAT. In fact, I state very clearly several times that there is no such thing as GOAT, and I explain why Federer isn't one. This text isn't about replacing Roger with Rafa as GOAT, that much is obvious, at least to intelligent folk.The fact the GOAT can't even be defined should TELL you something...Think...No...?OK, I will help. Just the fact that I offer no clear definition of GOAT can only mean that nobody can be one. Not even your Swiss hero.You were so "bored" with this text that it prompted you to post an entire angry paragraph. Who are you kidding. Anger is usually a result of emotions and states other than boredom. How about "really truly pissed off"?As for fedtards being "converted", this text isn't meant to change their tiny minds but to annoy them. Just as it annoyed you. So I have succeeded.
I'm a huge Nadal fan and certainly want him to end up being regarded as the greatest ever. I've made the same argument on the ATP site that his achievements at given ages have been roughly equivalent, and in some cases superior, to Federer's. I would take issue with some of your arguments, though. Unfortunately I don't have time to write a thorough reply, but I will point out some factual errors:- Agassi is not the only other Open Era career GS holder. Laver did it -- and not only did he do it, he's the only man in the Open Era to achieve the true (calendar year) GS.- And by the way, it's not accurate to call Laver an amateur-era player, and you do an enormous disservice to him by writing him off as such. He played the amateur circuit only in his early years -- he turned pro in 1963 and dominated the other pros, winning the "pro grand slam" during the pre-Open Era years. If pros had been allowed to compete in the GS events during his first several pro years ('63-'67), he likely would have more GS titles than anyone, by a healthy margin. Take a look sometime at Wikipedia's Open Era Tennis Records page and his Wikipedia page, look at his Open Era records, and consider the fact that he was already 30 when the Open Era started and played until he was 38 (1976) -- an age range when players are typically in decline and not achieving much. The guy was incredible, and is the only man who should be in the GOAT conversation along with Nadal and, yes, Federer.- Rafa is not the only man to win multiple GS titles on each of the three surfaces. Mats Wilander did it as well -- 3 on clay at the French, 2 on grass at the Australian, one on hard at the Australian, and one on hard at the US. That's why, if Rafa wins only one more GS title, I hope it's Wimbledon, because that would make him the only man to win three GS titles on each surface -- a triple career "surface slam". I would consider that more impressive than another Australian to complete the double career grand slam -- and it would provide yet another great antidote to the idiots who still claim that he's not an all-surface player.
You didn't read the text carefully. I said that Nadal, Federer and Agassi are the only players to hold all 4 Slams in the OPEN ERA. Laver wasn't an Open Era player. That era started in 1973.I cannot take Laver's achievements that seriously. Tennis didn't become a truly professional and competitive sport until sometime in the 70s - that's just my opinion. Until that time it was even more elitist than it is now i.e. with a very limited talent pool of players who had the opportunity to become pros. Not to mention the fact that Laver won the Slam when 3 out of 4 slams were played on grass i.e. Federer could have easily achieved this several times (during 2004-2007) over had he had the opportunity to play so many grass slams per season, not to mention that even Nadal could've won a Slam if he had 3 slams being played on clay. Ditto Sampras if the 90s had 3 slams on cement.As for Wilander, thanks for this correction and I will apply it in the text straight away. It is tough to keep track of who won what surface-wise because AO and the U.S. Open kept changing their surfaces like diapers during the 70s and 80s.As for GOAT, I clearly stated in my conclusion that there is no such thing. The text does NOT argue that Nadal is Best Ever, it simply explains why Federer isn't. And, no, I would never include Laver in this discussion because the Open Era is what I focus on. Otherwise, I might as well talk about those ballet-tennis players from the 30s, from an era that I can't even relate to as being tennis - so much has the sport evolved.Your hope that Rafa wins Wimbledon again is shared by me. However, I know this won't happen. His track record in recent years at that slam shows that it's simply not his event anymore i.e. he'd need to be 100% fit (which is tough after a clay season) and he'd have to get a favourable draw that would not drain his knees and back in the pre-SF rounds. Just as I have great doubts he can win the Aussie Open again which has some sort of curse almost for him. The U.S. Open he can win only if/when he goes there in 100% form, which he had essentially done "only" in 2010 and 2013 when he won it, otherwise he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically, I can see him winning one more French, and that's it. It is abundantly clear that his body is about ready to cut his career short. Knees and now back? Forget it. He will be lucky if he wins no. 15, which I hope happens, but only next year perhaps.
Thanks for your reply. Love the comparison between changing surfaces and diapers!I did read the text carefully, and it is wrong. I don't know where you got the idea that the Open Era started in 1973, because it didn't. It started in 1968:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#Open_EraTherefore, Laver did achieve not only the career GS but the calendar GS in the Open Era, in 1969. He won 5 of his 11 GS titles in the Open Era -- at the advanced ages of 30 and 31. I'm open to your assertion that tennis wasn't "truly professional and competitive" until sometime in the 70s -- the very early 70s, anyway -- but nonetheless, it's a fact that he achieved the GS in the Open Era, and he played 9 years in the Open Era. And returning to the subject of his advanced age: He won more titles (45) after turning 30 than anyone in the Open Era; even Connors, everyone's standard for longevity and grinding out title after title, won only 14 after he turned 30. And Laver's Open Era winning percentage -- all during his 30s -- was about 80%. Only six men have posted a better winning percentage over their *entire careers*, not just after turning 30.I'm also sympathetic to your point that three of the four Slams were played on grass at the time. But I really don't think it's that different from now -- there was only one clay Slam then, and there's only one now, and hard courts are a lot closer to grass than to clay. When you said "Federer could have easily achieved this several times (during 2004-2007)", did you mean that he could have achieved the Grand Slam several times? That's certainly not true, given that the one clay Slam, the French, is the one that he could only win once -- the surfaces of the other three wouldn't have mattered. Moreover, it's a myth that Federer is/was wildly better on grass than on hard courts -- his winning percentage at Wimbledon is 89.3, and at the Australian and US it's about 87.5. I think it's accurate to say that if the Australian and US were still on grass, he might have won one more, maybe two more, than he actually did. Anyway, I don't think the 3-grass/1-clay format can be held against Laver -- I just don't think it makes much difference.Hmm, that turned into quite an essay on Laver. Believe it or not, I was never a fan of his (even though I'm ancient enough that he was the king of tennis and a household name when I was a young kid learning to play). I'm just really impressed by what he accomplished.Turning to the GOAT topic, I agree that there's no such thing as the GOAT -- there are only opinions and arguments for different ways of evaluating who might reasonably be considered for that status.I also agree about Nadal's Wimbledon chances. I don't share your certainty that he won't win it again, but I do think it's extremely unlikely. The Australian is the most winnable non-clay one for him, but yeah, the Melbourne Curse seems to simply refuse to let him get it. I agree that he probably won't get beyond 15, but on the other hand, he's the very definition of perseverance and proving naysayers wrong, so who knows?Good talking with you.
My bad. I expressed myself falsely. I meant to say that the rankings system started in 1973, and for me that's the cut-off point. It may be subjective, but that's how I feel about it. I simply need a cut-off point otherwise I have to take into account all sorts of eras that I frankly can’t take all that seriously. For example, the 30s were a bit of a joke. Few people know that when Fred Perry won Wimbledon he turned pro and then wasn’t allowed to play there anymore! In other words he won all his 3 Wimbys as a damn amateur – whatever that meant back then. This is why I jokingly say that Murray is the first Brit to win Wimbledon and that there was no “wait” for another winner, bit for a FIRST winner – and that the English by definition don’t have a Slam winner at all whereas the Scottish do!Of course, it is very difficult to find a cut-off point where one can say this is where it gets fairly professional whereas before that it wasn't so much the case because clearly this development doesn't happen in an instant. The fact that 3 slams were played on grass when Laver did the Calendar Slam kind of seems unrealistic, overly biased towards grass specialists and inappropriate, and I am not sure how similar grass was to hardcourt, hence why for me his achievement is a little questionable, if still impressive for that era. I mean, the Open Era starts in 1968 - and voila! There goes the first Calendar Slam right away! I cannot imagine the competition having been on a serious enough level i.e. the tour was still kind of in its infancy. I have always considered the Calendar Slam a total impossibility within a serious level of competition (even though Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic and Federer all had won 3 in a row and were very close to non-Calendar Slams which are the same damn things basically achievement-wise), which is another reason I am "suspicious" about Laver's achievement. The jury is still out basically, I simply can't get my mind around this fact and don't know how Laver's achievements compare to today's.Granted, it makes little difference whether Federer had 3 hard / 1 clay or 3 grass / 1 clay, but fact remains he won 7 Wimbys, 5 US Opens, and "only" 4 Aussies i.e. on grass he does win more slams. If the 2009 US Open had been played on grass he would have won it, for sure, and considering he won Aussie 2010 and the middle slams in 2009 he might have had all four in a row. It's all just speculation of course, and it would've been achieved during Rafa's first major injury break – which I am sure would never have deterred Fedtards to consider it a success with a great big factor of luck tainting it.I don’t see Nadal winning Wimbledon at all, and this suspicion is only further confirmed by his statements that his body suffers even more on grass. In light of his physical struggles in the past 2-3 years, that means his chances are slim to none. I have also always felt that the Aussie was the second-most suitable slam for Rafa, but the fact that it comes right at the beginning of the season seems to play a major role, otherwise he would’ve won a few more there perhaps. Yes, he has proved me wrong many times, not just the perpetually annoyed Fedtards, but I just get the sense that he is struggling quite a bit these days to stay fit while playing 7 best-of-fives in a row, and going into a slam finale with aches and pains can get you only so many wins.I am quite confused about this year’s Wimbledon. Usually that’s the one slam that is the “easiest” to predict, but I have absolutely no clue what Murray is capable of this year, I don’t know what frame of mind Novak will go into Wimby with (being depressed about going from 5-2 in slam finales to 6-7) and the fact that he only once won a middle slam, Federer is a question mark, etc. But it’s one of those three, for sure. I don't see an outsider taking Wimbledon, not a chance in hell. For all the talk of the Big 4 era coming to a close, we still see the same damn winners and finalists, over and over.
By the way, here's another thing I forgot to mention. It's not a "factual error" really, but it's something that might need some clarification.You say that you count the Olympics as a Masters 1000 event and that it shouldn't have a higher status than M1000s. I agree that it shouldn't, or at least I don't think it should be worth much more. But given your comments and the fact that you count it as an M1000, I'm wondering if you're aware that it's actually worth fewer ranking points than Masters are -- the title gets you only 750 points. (Under the old point system, when Nadal won it, it was also worth less than Masters events.)I think it should be worth as much as Masters events, or maybe it should be worth 1250 points given the best-of-5 final. But, given that it isn't worth as much as Masters events, you might want to consider removing it from the Masters title count comparison. Those who know that it's worth fewer points than Masters could say, "Well, he's including it only because it makes Federer look worse, not because it's worth a Masters title." Or you could simply define what counts as a big event to include the Olympics -- you could count "everything above ATP 500 level", which includes the Olympics, rather than "everything from Masters level up", which doesn't include it. That's what I usually do, because I think it definitely deserves to be counted as a big event.
Frankly, the points assigned to certain types of events do not interest me. The ATP and the ITF have shown great incompetence in that sense over the decades, which is why I assign importance not only based on points but from what I know about these events i.e. how competitive they are.Just one example: in the early 90s Courier lost his no. 1 spot to Sampras even though Jim held TWO slam titles and Sampras ZERO that month (I think March, April or May 1993 i.e. before Pete took Wimbledon), and when we look at the points assigned to slams as compared to Big 9 events, it was a joke. Ion Tiriac - a criminal - managed to get 500 points for his Stuttgart indoors event at a time when Slams counted for 700 or 800! In the early 90s slam titles only held marginally more than Big 9 events, and not all Big 9 events held the same amounts of points even! Another absurdity.This idiocy was soon rectified, but not soon enough, because for a number of years slams were assigned too few points compared to events that were truly far far far below in relevance. Big 9s i.e. M1000s are very important but they may not ever be assigned more than half the points you get for a slam win, otherwise the ranking system becomes a semi-joke the way it was during that period.So, no, it interests me zip that the Olympics get less than a Masters 1000 nor would it interest me if they got more. Fact is that all the top players are there during the Olympics and they want the title real BAD, hence to say that it matters less than a Masters 1000 just because the ATP is incompetent would be ludicrous.I prefer to use my common sense rather than rigidly grasp on to numbers that make no sense. That is partly how I managed to make a very strong case for Roger not being GOAT, simply because I do not religiously cling on to the 17-14 edge in an issue as complex as GOAT is. Numbers can be very useful - or they can be misleading. They only mean something if one understands them, just as with any raw data.Nor will I take it off the M1000 tally just to not appear biased to Fedtards. The Olympics ARE overrated, but who in their right mind would argue they count LESS than a M1000? I didn't invent the term "Golden Slam", it was there all along. I don't agree with it, but it does mean that a Gold Medal means enough - certainly enough to equalize it with M1000 events of which there are 9 every year, as opposed to one every 4 years.
Good points all. I do think it would be helpful to include a sentence explaining why the Olympics are roughly equivalent to an M1000 -- roughly the same draw size (a few more than most M1000s, less than Indian Wells and Miami), and best-of-3 except for the finals.
I've added it.
YOU WILL NOT BE CALLED GREAT IF YOU ARE ALWAYS INJURED.....INJURY FREE IS PART OF THE COMPETITION..YOU MUST BE READY FOR EVERY WAR...YOU WILL NOT GO TO A WAR WOUT THE WEAPON..AND THE WEAPON OF THE PLAYER IS THE HEALTH....
Is this the speech Mel Gibson made in "Braveheart"?"Always injured". I love that part. It implies that Nadal has divine powers because he managed to win 14 slams in spite of never being fit to play.Damn, that's funny.
Nadal's struggles with injuries make his accomplishments even more impressive. He has kept pace with Federer despite having missed a lot of time due to injuries.And yes, that is quite funny!
That's the whole point, but Medina65 seems to get very confused about things. Of course his struggles with injuries and his amazing, awe-inspiring comebacks make him even more of a legend.
I meant RAFA's comebacks make him more of a legend, not Medina's who HAS no comebacks, not even on this blog. Medina is not a legend, I was not implying that at all.
BY THE WAY ITS YOUR ANALYSIS....WHICH IS NOT OFFICIAL...EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN WAY OF GIVING THE ANALYSIS ABOUT THEIR FAVORITE.....
YES, BUT NOT EVERYONE SHOUTS WHILE DOING IT.You must be truly really utterly totally completely annoyed with this list full of facts. Such anger. Such despair. Just another over-emotional Fedtard, I'm used to it by now. Fedtards just cannot handle the truth, period. So long were they used to success, but now they're just all bundles of pure misery.Btw, Delpo and Monfils are my favourite players, not Rafa. I'm simply an objective observer - as opposed to a rabid Fedtard who worships a mere man as if he were a god. You must try going to a real church sometime. Or at least take some sedatives now and again.And thanks for "refuting" all my facts with that elaborate post.
I guess everyone here missed the fact that Fed was No.1 for 307 weeks. Being uninjured most of the time and defending his points. There is no point in comparing both of them.
"Everyone"? You're not the type to make sweeping statements, I can see that already.I have already explained in the text WHY he reached 307 weeks. A little thing called "POWER VACUUM 2004-2007".Not to mention he is 5 years older than Nadal. 5 x 52 = 260 weeks older, approximately.But I get it. Fedtards rarely actually READ the facts on this list. At best they skim through in 15 seconds and then post nonsense that I'd covered in the text in very plain, simple English. Not simple enough, apparently.Yes, Rafa and Roger CAN be compared because they play in the same Era. Roger and Rafa cannot be compared to someone like Borg or Connors as easily, that much is true, which is why Best Ever doesn't exist.As I've already mentioned 1000 times.
This is one category in which Federer's additional five years of age actually doesn't account for much of his lead over Nadal. In the last four years, he's spent only 16 weeks at #1, and in the last five years, he's spent a little over a year there. So the vast majority of the difference is from those earlier years -- the "power vacuum" years (although I haven't researched it enough to have my own opinion on how much of a power vacuum there was).But how big a deal is the number of weeks at the top? I've done a lot of thinking about how much importance should be placed on #1, and I've gone back and forth about it. But I've come around to the conclusion that it should be only a minor factor when evaluating an entire career. I think it's really driven mainly by two things: 1) the concentration of a player's success in a relatively short period of time, and 2) a player's durability, i.e. their ability to withstand a heavy schedule -- the injury-free issue again. And, as luck would have it, Federer and Nadal provide the perfect examples of the opposite ends of #1, while Connors and Nadal do the same for #2 (with Federer and Nadal again being good examples)...1) As we know, Nadal developed to a very high level at a significantly younger age than Federer. But his success has been more spread out (for example, he just became the only man to win a GS title in each of 10 years). Federer, on the other hand, didn't hit the heights until he was about 22. But once he did, he packed most of his success (and thus his ranking points) into about a 5-year period, which kept him at #1 for four and a half years straight. He burned very brightly for a shorter time, while Nadal has burned less brightly for a longer time. More-or-less the same accomplishments, but the one who packs them into a shorter time gets the bulk of the weeks at #1, while the longer-term player bubbles a little below that. That doesn't make the brighter-burning player better -- it's just a different route to the same total-career results.You can see this brighter-vs-longer contrast by looking at the weeks at #1 and the weeks in the top 2. While Federer holds the weeks-at-#1 record and Nadal has fewer than half that many weeks, Nadal is going to set the record for weeks in the top two next winter.2) Certainly, being durable (injury-free) and able to play a ton of events is a factor in evaluating someone's career, and it's impressive -- it's largely how Connors spent nearly as many weeks at #1 as Federer. But it's not as important as being able to win the big events -- Masters 1000 on up. Connors spent nearly twice as long at #1 as Nadal has so far. But would anyone seriously argue that Connors should be higher on the GOAT list than Nadal? That, right there, illustrates the fact that the weeks at #1 shouldn't be a major factor.These two factors -- concentration of success (Federer) and durability/ability to stay at #1 without winning a lot of big events (Connors) -- are why I came to the conclusion that the weeks-at-#1 statistic is a fairly minor one.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for this. I shall include some of these points in the text, if you don't mind.Absolutely. The guy who has a large number of weeks at no. 1 is the one who has shone more brightly and had compact success in a (this case) shorter amount of time. Not to mention that Roger got at least 50 weeks BY DEFAULT through Rafa's injuries. Without those knee problems in 2009 which also affected a part of 2010, Federer would not have surpassed either Sampras or Lendl. Of course that's LUCK, what else would it be? I don't know of any comparable case in the 80s or 90s when someone got heavily injured with such long stretches of time with the no. 2 benefiting from it hugely as Federer has.I totally agree about weeks spent at no.1 being IMPORTANT but not CRUCIAL in the GOAT discussion. Ask ANY top player whether he wants an additional 100 weeks at no.1 or another slam title and I guarantee you that nearly all would want another title - because slams are the ultimate goal in men's tennis, with the no. 1 being more of an icing on the cake.I personally never focused much on the rankings, partly because they can be really ridiculous. Many examples:1) Murray holds 2 slams last year and isn't no. 1, not even close.2) Becker ends 1989 with 2 slams, Lendl with 1, Chang 1, and yet Lendl is no. 1 for that year - and Becker doesn't even scratch the top spot for one measly week during that season! He waits until 1991 for that.3) Sampras overtakes Courier as no. 1 in spite of having just one slam finale and no wins in the previous 52 weeks, whereas Courier was holding TWO slams. Utter absurdity.4) Lendl became no. 1 in 1981 or 1982, if I'm not mistaken, for the first time, even though he would need a few more years to even win his first slam.Etc.What the computer spits out every week isn't necessarily always logical or fair, so the ranking truly isn't that important. It's about the slam and M1000 titles.Becker won 6 Slams and spent only 12 weeks at the top. Is that a representative number for a man who is a legend of the 80s and 90s? He only proves your point about a lengthy career with little success as no. 1.Etc.
I agree on most points and will accept that Rafa has performed better overall. Rafa and Djokovic are endowed with power & precision and has dominated Federer during last four years. He cannot match either of them with his single handed backhand. To an extent, in the early years, Fed was even lucky he had no such great opponents except probably the temperamental Safin. Rafa had not matured during Fed's peak and Fed has faded at Rafa's peak. After all, he is 5 years older. All three are great players in their own right and we should leave it at that.But the author of the blog is utterly wrong and biased on one issue. His argument is even weird! The greatest virtue of Federer is that he maintained physical fitness throughout, not missing a single GS. 23 GS semifinals / 36 GS Quarter finals on a trot are records which will take a lot of beating. That is a huge positive on Fed and a huge negative on Rafa. Rafa's game is extremely physical characterized by power which was bound to affect his fitness over long periods. That he competed half fit in GS is not a tribute to Rafa but a sad reflection of his inability to keep consistently fit . Fed definitely scores over Nadal on that point.I like to end my comment stating that all three are great human beings and great ambassadors to the sport. Rafa, Djokovic and Federer in that order.
Of course Federer is BETTER than Rafa in certain statistics - that's a given. No single record from EITHER of them makes either of them GOAT - that's the whole point. There is no such thing as GOAT, especially since Federer does not make a CONVINCING argument that he is GOAT. To be called GOAT you need to DOMINATE in a large number of statistics, but he doesn't. After all GOAT means "Greatest of ALL Times" i.e. you can't get that title with ease. It needs to be COMPLETELY EARNED. One can make the case that Rafa PREVENTED Federer from earning it. Tough luck for Fedtards, that's just the way it is.GOAT should be a player who SMOOTHLY sails when compared to his contemporaries and who accumulated records in a COMPETITIVE environment, which wasn't the case for Roger during the POWER VACUUM years. Safin was NOT a challenge. During these years they only met 2-3 times in slams, and Safin had a LOW ranking most of the time from late 2005 onwards. Beating Safin over and over when he was ranked 30 or 50 doesn't mean shit.NOBODY denies that Federer maintaining fitness is an accomplishment - but it is also a matter of LUCK, because NOBODY in the world can control their health SIMPLY BY TRAINING or whatever else. Health is always a LUCK ISSUE ultimately. Only GODS can control health and there aren't any GODS on the ATP tour - they're just flesh-and-blood humans.The reason Fed had that SF/F GS streak is precisely because it started during the POWER VACUUM YEARS. It is nonetheless an impressive record but that ALONE is not enough to make him GOAT. Your assessment of Rafa being some kind of talentless grinder shows that you have NEVER played tennis yourself hence have NO CLUE about technique, ability etc. A TYPICAL non-tennis-playing Federer fan sees the BALLET-like motions and he THINKS that constitutes perfection i.e. the ONLY way a player can exhibit skill and ability. Dumb.Chang, Muster, Courier and Lendl had "physical games" like Rafa - and were far less talented - and yet none of them had such long injury breaks due to wear-and-tear during their prime years. It is a matter of luck.
you really made me laughing so much it seems that a nadalist who seems that he didn't play tennis in his life or his love to nadal which made him especially after the last tournment give these silly stupid reasons and think federer is not the greatest of all time i would respect you if you said that this is what you think only you. you r fucking talking as if this is the trueif you know tennis and having some fair inside you you wouldn't say that
Karim Abdul Jibberish, if I wasn't able to put some sense into you I am glad that at least I made you laugh.Having you read this text is sort of like trying to teach a chimp industrial engineering. After the first class the chimp just grins like an ape afterwards (because chimps are apes) and then sticks a pencil into his girlfriend's ass and laughs some more. Of course that makes the chimp endearing, because it reminds me that not everybody can understand everything and that creatures of low intelligence do have their charming side - and not just when they play with their genitals in front of everybody.Fedtards are hilarious. Because they are so utterly in love with the Swiss Miss Prima Ballerina (and I mean sexually), they project those fantasies of male-on-male rape on Nadal fans who are just regular guys who enjoy tennis.Btw, you cannot have Federer. He is already taken. Gavin.
Karim i would like to know where are your counter arguments /refutations in all of this ...you simply resulted to Ad hominem in your first attempt of actually saying anything ...which actually proves you have nothing to refute ...everything the guy said was true ,some points of his could be interpreted differently based on your fan-orientation but the vast majority of what he said actually falls in his huge central claim which is "Federer is not the greatest of all time" , i challenge you to give me a non countered argument o Federer being the GOAT that is even half as logical as the article this guy wrote ....i know you don't have any because as Vjetropev i'm a long time tennis observer and i'm well aware that nothing beyond Federer's 17 slams record (which is not a reasonable argument for Federer's claim by anymeans as Vjetropev points out ) would even make a remotely logical sense to be held as a counter argument ...
All your article says is that you really really hate Federer and that's fine with all Federer fans.
Glad I got your approval, and I'm impressed that you speak for all Federer fans, i.e. that they voted you as their Spokesman Fedtard.Make sure you read more about Federer in my other tennis posts, "97 Things You Ought To Know About Pro Tennis" and "The Wonderful World of Roger Federer". These texts will make you even happier.Denial is a wonderful thing. Fedtards produce that stuff in spades.
Wow, I really read it patiently, I always considered that Federer was the best player there is (i think i am a Fedtard - btw don't call them/us like that please, it may be true but this text is meant to be very serious and if you go with the retard jokes that would rest credibility regardless of the very solid argument line) - but now, I don't know, it's like, I started to love tennis in the "Federer era" where there was no Nadal and Federer was always winning and being number 1, so there are a lot of emotions from my adolescence that keep attached to the player, you know, i think of "professional tennis" and I think of him. I'm very rational, i believe what facts say to me, what logic gives primarily, so I want to thank you for this article.I still think Federer is great - just like you do -, but yes he had luck, and Nadal is just the perfect example of racism (in a sort of way, people hate him because he is from Spain), emotion over logic (Like: "I love Fed, X is beating Fed all the time, Fed is crying, I hate X"), and pure persistence (you can watch it in his games; he's going to try to get the ball in all the points, to win all the games, to fight and fight and fight -...). Very good statement of why GOAT is bs. Also, I think Federer is a very complete player, a lot of strategy, technique and balance, and really I don't like Nadal's game too much, you can hear people say that he just plays consistently on the base line waiting for an unforced error by the opponent (not exactly true, but in a sort of way). Well sir, I hope you get a lot of views, this article sure needs to be shared. -Sorry for my english.
I don't consider ALL Federer fans as "fedtards", only those that are so fanatical and brainwashed that they are unable to process logical arguments such as the ones I offer here. You have shown ability to understand this text hence you are not a fedtard. A normal Federer fan can be reasoned with, whereas a fedtard is much like a member of Al-Qaeda, i.e. a fanatic in need of psychiatric treatment.Yes, all the data and statistics in this text are compiled with diligence, but that doesn't mean I can't joke a bit at the expense of fedtards. After all, tennis is just a game, it's not genetic engineering. If I throw the occasional jab at fedtards that does not take anything away from the many facts that are presented here.I never even considered "racism" a factor in the incredible hatred fedtards have for Rafa. As far as I know, Spaniards are white, and so is Roger. Since when are Spaniards non-white? Besides, I doubt that even fedtards would stoop so low as to hate Rafa for his dark tan (which is simply due to excessive exposure to the Sun). As you correctly mentioned, fedtards hate him simply for being the guy who whoops Roger's ass time and time again.And again. And again. And again. When it mattered most. The guy who has prevented Roger from having any real pretensions for being Best Ever - even if there was such a thing.The argument that Nadal's game is based on simply waiting for the opponent's errors is absurd. That kind of tiresome and dull clay tennis - once practiced by the likes of Villas or Wilander - is not in use anymore, at least not among slam winners. Nadal is an offensive baseliner. Especially in recent years has he become more and more offensive with every new season. If he waited for Djokovic to make errors he'd NEVER have beaten him in 4 slam finales. He beat Novak at the US Open last year precisely because he attacked whenever he had a chance.To even suggest that Nadal is an incomplete player is ludicrous. Any tennis coach will tell you that Rafa has ALL the tools of a genius. Or do you really think that in the age of atomic tennis someone who lacks talent could possibly have dominated this much over other outstanding players such as Djokovic and Federer? Fat chance.Back in the day, the 80s and 90s for example, most top players had incomplete games. Sampras couldn't rally for long. Edberg had the shittiest forehand of any top 10 player ever. Stich had a shitty forehand as well. Agassi sucked at volleying. Etc. However, these days nearly all top 10 players are complete players, with nothing lacking game-wise. What separates the men from the boys isn't so much technique as it is mental strength and dedication. That's why Rafa beat Roger so often, because he is mentally tougher than Federer who struggled with his confidence before winning Wimbledon in 2003.I hope this clarifies a few things, even for fedtards.
Dude, you're just a Joke-tardYou've opened your big mouth about head to head records- you've forgotten the elementary fact.......There are so many situations when Nadal could have faced Federer and lost but never got to face him, especially between 2006 to 2008.I can't believe you wasted time planting your butt to a chair for hours together and typing the above shit which nobody's going to pay any heed to.Even Nadal fans and half of Djoker's fans have accepted the fact that Federer is the greatest of all times and yet we have one joke-tard from Serbia who finds time to post crap here. Its easy to sit at home and type, while it isn't easy to win 17 grandslams, or even 7 grandslams for that matter. I'm a Nadal fan(guess you'll end up calling me a Nad-fed-tard), and I agree with the fact that Roger is the GOAT a 100% without a doubt.Get a life.
When a fedtard posing as a Nadal fan starts off his hate-filled tirade with "dude" disagree with me, that's just all the confirmation I need that I must be on the right track. I don't mind having burger-flipping tards dismiss this text. Don't mind it at all. Very encouraging indeed.You must have thought calling yourself "Roger Nadal" was a clever ruse. It wasn't. It's as transparent as the test-tubes both sets of Roger's twins came out of. Yet another extremely silly fedtard lying about being a Rafa fan. You know you hate Rafa with a burning passion. I think you follow him around with a baseball bat and hope to break his legs once your stalking skills reach a point when you figure out a way to catch him off guard in some hotel room (where you work as a burger-flipper in the kitchen).You haven't refuted a single fact on offer. Yes, I have discussed the 2006-2008 nonsense you mention (a desperate grasping at straws for you), but you evidently didn't read any of the text - apart from the title which spurned you into this your dude-rant.I realize this text must have had a devastating effect on your religious-cult-like psyche - sort of like a fanatical Mormon being de-brainwashed by a NASA scientist. Your religious beliefs have been deflated, so you feel lost, confused, betrayed, disgusted. "Fed isn't GOAT...????" Sort of like an Al-Qaeda terrorist realizing there isn't a god just seconds before his bomb goes off.I always warn my readers not to become religiously involved with any of their sports idols. May this be a lesson to you and all the duders out there.
"It's about as transparent as the test-tubes both sets of Roger's twins came out of."Aaaahhhh, I get it now. You just hate Federer for his success. It all makes sense. If only the internet had a set of rules stating that only adults should write blogs, to save time wasters like this.
Freddie-baby, you spend all your waking hours posting childish remarks about Nadal on YouTube, and then "accuse" moi for the same. You need to re-evaluate this tendency to project your own hatred of Nadal onto other, normal tennis fans. But if you were capable of understanding simple thoughts in very basic-English texts you'd have noticed that I wrote some very nice things about your idol, the Swuss, and his immense talent, plus the fact that Nadal isn't my favourite player. This is merely a list of facts that refute or at least put into question Woger's alleged GOATness.Of course you don't dare address any of these points but choose to instead focus on something as irrelevant as test-tube babies. Speaking of which, I am merely stating a fact: Federer is gay. He's been a gay icon for a decade and yet none of you gay-hating fedtards have even noticed this.This article is like the anti-viagra for fedtards, and that always gets smiling.
Good stuff. You wrote out my exact thoughts on this sporting "rivalry" into print form.Particularly funny observation on Fed and his white jacket at Wimbledon.Not only does Fed fail as GOAT he's not even an emotionally functioning human being I suspect.AO 2009 meltdown was testimony to that.It did showcase Nadal's superioir EQ quite nicely though.For someone portrayed as less cultured and more brutish than the effeminate Federer Rafa really knows how to conduct himself like a human being and not some 3yo throwing a tantrum.
Instead of focussing on the use of fancy words such as "effeminate" you might wanna check the definition of EQ before posting such garbage. Since the "IQ counts for roughly 10% (at best 25%) (while) the rest depends on everything else — including EQ" it is utterly ludicrous to discount Federer's EQ.
Earnings as tennis player Fed is the GOAT. 70 mil last year.
Great. Using that amazing fedtard logic, Lady Ga Ga must be GOAT-ESSE.Brad Pitt used to be GOAT. He doesn't make enough money these days.
Heh, heh, it looks really great, isn't it? Federer no GOAT, Djokovic&Nadal better than him. But you totally FORGOT about one thing. The ATP WORLD TOUR FINALS. Federer: 8 finals, 6 times win the tournament, 2 time lost being very close to win it (first against Nalbandian 2005, leading 2-0 and serving for the match in the 5th set having 6-5 and 30-0 for him [7:6 7:6 2:6 1:6 6:7], 2nd time against Djokovic 2012 - loses 1st set after a comeback from 5-4 40-30 for Djokovic serving for the set, then 2nd set loses after him serving for the 2nd set at 5-4 40-15, result: 7:6 [saving another set point at 6-5 after a marvellous defensive shot from behind him!], 7:5).What about Nadal? Only 2 finals and 2 loses! Against Federer (2010 in 3 sets) and Djokovic (2 straight sets). Even Djokovic is much better than Spaniard (3 finals, 3 wins - one against the "easy" Davydenko who beats Nadal every time on hardcourt and has not a bad H-H, one against Nadal and one against Federer). And rember 2011? Federer rocks in RR and veeery easily beats Rafa 6-3 6-0. I can tell you ATP WORLD TOUR FINALS is the only tournament where are the best players in the world [TOP8] from the whole season. If Federer wins 6 tournaments playing 5 matches (30 against the best players in the world) per one tour against the TOP8 players, it cannot be case of luck. That's why he proves why he's so good as the top player. Maybe he isn't the GOAT and probably he's not, but in that case Djokovic and Nadal aren't the GOATS also. So what the numbers say: Federer - 17 GS, Olympics Silver (singles) and Gold (doubles) medalist, 19 M1000, 6 WTF winsNadal - 14 GS, Olympics Gold (singles) medalist, 27 M1000, 0 (!) WTF winsDjokovic - 7 GS, Olympics Bronze (singles) medalist, 19 M1000 (same as Federer), 3 WTF winsSo. Nadal is better than Federer only because he does nearly the same things being younger (being younger makes a little bit advantage too, then you are a really fresh player) and winning 2008 Olympics? In what case? Epic SF against Djokovic, who was really close to beat him but choked totally at match point with the worst smash I have ever seen and then Nadal playing finals against who? Yeah, Fernando Gonzalez, who you say is not a real and consecutive competitor in straight 3 sets, like Federer does in AO a year earlier! What about Federer? Beating in SF Del Potro in 2012 Olympics after 18-16 in the 3rd set, being very tired and couldn't play normally against Murray, who beats him in straight three sets, 1-2 months later after Federer beating Murray on the same Wimbledon court in the finals and getting the 17. Grand Slam. So if he wouldn't be so tired , he would get the Olympic GS like Rafa does! So if Federer isn't the GOAT, and maybe he really isn't, then no one is the GOAT. Absolutely no one. Actually it's Rafa&Roger being the best players, then next Novak, and Murray at the 4th because of 2 GS wins and the Olympic gold medal (a big success for him, even with beating Federer in F not even at 65% form...), and 9 M1000 trophies...And I also don't appreciate that being an artist of tennis doesn't mean anything. Federer is a really great player because when he plays, he looks like everything he plays is really easy. His technique is one of the best and comprehensive ever. Great service (at 2009 Wimbledon making 50 aces against Roddick in epic final), very good forehands and backhands, can do backhand smash, tweener (SF against Djokovic US Open 2009), dropshots... just everything, like Rafa does (one of the best forehands, not a bad serve, great defensive backhands, superb runner and also can play a tweener, the best one in Madrid against Djokovic - a lob tweener!). I'm a fan of every tennis player, actually I can't say that Federer or Nadal are the real GOATs, but with their trophies and everything else they are for me 2 the best players of this modern history of XXI century. And also about their dramatic rivalry and class. Greetings.
Just like a fedtard, to start of with a retarded, childish "heh heh". A sign of desperation and great annoyance.First of all, I want to thank you for posting this comment. It is important that people get reminded - over and over - just how confused many tennis fans really are. Your comment proves this in a most spectacular fashion. You are very confused indeed.Now to business...It is more than apparent that you haven't read more than 15% (if that much) of the text. In it I address ALL of your obvious and illogical points: I explain the Masters Cup, I explain the whole Davydenko nonsense, I explain the Olympics, and everything else you address.I KNOW YOU FAILED TO READ THE TEXT, BUT READ THIS AT LEAST, YOUR LAST CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND THE GIST OF THIS ARTICLE:The point of the text isn't (I wrote that in bold letters just so people like you would see it, but evidently that wasn't enough) that Nadal, let alone Djokovic, are better than Federer or that either of them is GOAT. I CLEARLY explain on SEVERAL occasions that nobody is GOAT. Nor do I state ANYWHERE in the text that Nadal is more deserving of being GOAT. Or that he is a greater player - whatever that may mean - than your Swiss idol. The point is simply that Federer isn't GOAT because he isn't the best of his era, period. That is NOT the same as saying that Nadal is GOAT instead of him. I feel like I am teaching a class of 5 year-olds sometimes. Don't any of you fedtards ever use common sense and logic? I have to explain even the most basic, easy concepts as if I'm talking to orangutangs.Another specific point I would address is your almost fetish-like preoccupation with the Olympic Games, even going into detail about the 2012 Olympics, a tournament which has obviously hurt you greatly. Firstly, I could give a shit about the Olympics. If you'd bother to read my article you'd see that the Olympics is just a Masters 1000 event that hands out medals instead of cash. It is no big deal. Just because a player gets to wear a round piece of metal on his tits instead of holding a trophy does not make the Olympics special or different or unique in any way.Secondly, Federer being tired in the finale. Has it ever occurred to you that he had faced OTHER finalists who were tired in other big finales? Safin in 2004 AO had to win 3 5-setters in a row before playing Roger. Marat was totally exhausted - apparent for everyone to see - which Roger profited from. Not to mention profiting from Rafa's injury in the Wimby 2007 finale. Etc. What goes around comes around, that's sport. Federer wasn't even able to profit from Nadal's exhaustion in the Aussie 2009 finale when Nadal had to play a 5-hour match against Verdasco, that's how GOATish the Swiss is.Besides, if Roger was exhausted in the 2012 London finale, he only had to beat Delpo in STRAIGHT SETS and he would have been more fresh. Murray beat his SF opponent much more easily, so he was fresher - that's part of sports as well. No use whining about it. Being tired isn't the same as injury, and Roger had a great deal of luck with that.Don't make excuses for Roger, because quite frankly that just makes you sound like a desperate, confused fedtard. You claim you're a Nadal fan as well, but forgive me for being skeptical about that. The fact that you even mention Federer's totally irrelevant DOUBLES Gold medal as something important makes me suspect you're a but more fedtardian than nadalian. Or a whole lot more.
First of all, I told you I'm a tennis fan... I'm not only a fan of Federer (calling fedtard... -.-) or Nadal. You don't understand me. And about Masters Cup. It can be overrated, but it doesn't change the fact there are still the best players in the world's tournament. Maybe it hasn't got the biggest value. But it doesn't change facts you have to play at least 3 players from the TOP8, so it's always a very big challenge. About Nadal being 3 times injured during the Masters Cup, well, it's unlucky, but even if he will really managed to win these 3 events, 3 against 4/5/6 (maybe less?)... not so much. And about the Olympics... yes, I read about it's like a Masters 1000 tournament, but it gives also lots of more mental pressure... I wrote you in the last post about Djokovic which choked totally in the SF against Nadal in 2008. You can't compare these tournaments at all. Remember also that the 3rd set hasn't got a tie-break like a M1000, the final set is like in a Grand Slams (without US Open of course - they play tiebreak for the final set), and also... there are 64 best players in the world, I don't believe there are qualifications to that like in M1000 events. About Masters Cup, ok, you said it's "roughly on the level of Masters 1000", then about the numbers, let's imagine "Masters Cup" as another "Masters 1000" tournament, also for Djokovic.So in "numbers":Nadal - 14 GS, 27 M1000, Olympics Gold medalistFederer - 17 GS, 25 M1000, Olympics Silver medalistDjokovic - 7 GS, 22 M1000, Olympics Bronze medalistAnd at last, I'm not a fedtard, nadaliard, sradard, blablard etc... I'm a tennis fan and I've got respect to every tennis player... and it looks like you call me "fedtard" only because I don't agree at all with your opinion and I've got another sentence about the article you wrote. You are absolutely wrong, sorry to say that. Federer and Nadal are actually at nearly the same level (including all time), as the numbers said and as their level said. The only difference is now that Nadal is a little bit better in some things and he's a bit younger, while Federer still holds a very nice level, but Nadal and Djokovic are actually better at this time. You are right in some things, Federer is overrated player, the Olympic Grand Slam and Masters Cup are also overrated and it's a true that nobody is a GOAT. You've got a point here. And thanks for the discussion, even with these "fedtarded mistakes". PS Sorry about my mistake, it was 19-17 in that 3rd set against DelPo, not 18-16 at all. Greetings.
Wow, there's been a lot of effort put into this blog which made for quite compelling reading.But I question why it would take such an effort to some how justify why Nadal is the GOAT instead of Federer. If it was so clear cut, then why the need to go to such great lengths to justify how one players favorable achievements are somehow inferior to the other players achievements.I have no issues with any of the arguments presented. However, I would disagree on the points around injuries. Injuries are a part of the sport and everyone gets injured. I would argue its part of how you play, your technique, your approach to the game. I can only blame my tennis elbow on my technique, not bad luck. I'm pretty sure Federer doesnt go around saying that its simply bad luck that he's had a bad back over the years or that he couldnt change his weak backhand against Nadal lefty forehand. At the same time, Federer fans should not be complaining about why there are so many more clay court tournaments vs grass tournaments or how the courts and balls have been slowed down. Its not bad luck, it is what it is.At the end of the day I'm a big fan of tennis and wish people would just appreciate both players for what they are, both legends of the game that revolutionized how tennis was played.
Where do I even begin... There are some rather strange questions and illogical arguments here. 1) "Why the effort?"Why not? Perhaps you've never written anything longer than a recipe for a paella, but that doesn't mean other people struggle with writing lengthy texts. Frankly, writing is fun, and if you take a look at this blog you will see a large variety of texts on various subjects. What a strange question. Why do anything, using this "logic".I wrote this primarily for FUN, but also because after having heard and read hundreds of moronic opinions about the GOAT issue, I thought I'd do an extensive article about it, to clarify things to tennis fans, most of whom either don't have all the data or simply can't be bothered to think logically - or aren't able to. Besides, compiling statistics is a lot of fun fun, as well. It's kind of a hobby.2) "... why Nadal is GOAT instead of Federer".You're kidding, right? I've mentioned about a 1000 times that this text isn't about Nadal being GOAT. Neither of these players is GOAT. Just because I am taking the GOAT title away from Federer doesn't mean I am giving it to someone else. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?3) "Injuries are how you play, your technique."WOW. That's is so silly, it boggles the mind. Using this "logic", we conclude that Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Murray, McEnroe, Connors, Chang, Philippoussis, Rafter, Courier, Haas, Delpo, Tsonga, Monfils, Kuerten and countless other top players USE the WRONG technique. If you truly believe this, then I don't know what to say - other than that you're the most confused and clueless commenter on this page. Sure, amateurs sometimes get injured due to wrong technique - but even more from not warming up enough - but ANY pro can get injured (and nearly all do), especially those with lengthy careers and thousands of matches and training sessions played. Federer was simply lucky. That's all there is to it. A little bit of a bad back is peanuts next to major injuries that require surgery or breaks ranging from a couple weeks to a year. Federer never misses a single slam, and that is nothing but incredible luck. If you truly believe that luck plays no role in life, then you must have been reading too many Chinese fortune cookies.4) First you argue that "everyone (meaning pros) gets injured", but then you say it depends on how you play, the technique! Such self-contradiction, not to mention absurdity, especially when you ridiculously compare injuries on the pro level to injuries on the amateur or even beginner's level - because only a beginner would get tennis elbow with modern rackets.5) Of course Federer doesn't "go around saying that he's had a bad back".He doesn't because this bad back was always a slight injury that he took out of the bag when he needed to justify a defeat. Also, it would be asinine for him to complain about such a relatively minor injury when other players have hip, knee, back or wrist surgeries. He may be a bad loser but he isn't a moron.6) Fedtards who complain about a lack of grass courts know nothing about tennis, i.e. how difficult and expensive it is to make and maintain grass courts. That's the main reason they're in the minority on the tour. A bad grass court - and most of them around the world are - is a joke to play on, with awful bounces and often way too slippery, hence a huge hassle even for pros who enjoy quick surfaces.Your comparison of bad-luck injuries and bad luck with surface selection doesn't make sense, btw. Totally different issues.Still, at least you're not a fedtard.
Very interesting article and well researched. I have a question. It's a serious question and not a slam against Nadal. My questions is: How do you feel about all the negative publicity regarding Nadal? I think you probably know my meaning but it includes: strategic medical time outs, all kinds of gamesmanship, complaining about not enough clay courts, complaining about ranking system, bumping into players who are beating him during changeovers, outright cheating, etc. This is a serious question. For example, a Nadal fan on Bleacher Report said that the cheating was very minor. He did admit to some Nadal problems but simply said that they don't detract from the accomplishments.
I am always glad when fedtards post anonymously - and by that I mean pretending not to be fedtards just so they can defend their idol as “neutral observers”. Fookin’ hilarious.It's always funny to read such comments. Such a short post, but so much bullshit in it. You get an F for logic and factual research, but an A for entertainment value.You start off with "this is not a slam (grand slam?) against Nadal" but then throw a barrage of totally exaggerated, often baseless and unproven accusations against him: 1) "Negative publicity". Do you even know what the term means? Evidently not. Perhaps you are referring to all the hate he gets from fedtards on various ridiculous fan forums and such. Fedtard opinion hardly adds up to "negative publicity". You need to work on your vocabulary.2) "Strategic medical time outs". You have no proof, so basically that's just your own subjective, very fedtardian interpretation of what transpires on the court. The fact that Nadal has had many injury breaks which ranged from several weeks to half a season must have escaped your tiny brain somehow. If you want to look at fake injuries, you can make a much better case against your other "big foe", Djokovic, who is a proven injury cheat.3) "Gamesmanship". Your Swiss idol often moans to the referee about his opponent whenever he is down in the score, and he always does this in a low voice so that the audience don't hear what an asshole he is. He also uses press conferences to psyche out opponents that have less experience. Perhaps we can talk about that. Nadal isn't innocent of this, but neither is your beloved effeminate hero. Besides, if you want a champion who is morally as pure as Buddha, you shouldn’t look for idols in professional sports.
4) "Complaining about not enough clay courts". He has a right to an opinion. In what way does this impede your own existence? Personally, I don't agree with this because I prefer hardcourt events, but frankly I've never heard him bitch about a lack of clay courts, and even if he did I doubt he did it dozens of times as you imply. Again, you are exaggerating his behaviour. In other words, if he complains once you make it seems like he does that 100 times every year.5) "Complaining about the rankings system". I don't know when or whether he ever complained about it, but if he did, it's small wonder considering that rankings have been controversial in one way or another since the rankings system started, and that many top players have suggested changes to it over the decades. Nothing unusual about that. Again, he is voicing an opinion, but that somehow translates into Nadal impeding your own "personal growth" or whatever. I think you might be a stalker.6) "Bumping into players." That's plural. There was only one tiny bump in the 2012 Wimbledon match.Yet again you are misusing one statement or incident and multiplying it by 100 to make it seem as if it's a regular occurrence. You are of course referring to that over-dramatized barely-bump in the match against Rosol in 2012. "Bumping into players when they are beating him". Well, Rosol and Nadal were 1-1 in sets when this "huge" bump happened, so yet again your information is biased, flawed, and untrue i.e. Nadal was not losing the match at that point. Nevermind the fact that Rosol is well-known for being an asshole, but I can’t blame you for not being an insider like me.7) "Outright cheating". You must be referring to Nadal beating Federer every time, right?Just because he beats your idol every time in the crucial matches isn't cheating. YOU feel perhaps as if you'd been cheated by rooting for alleged GOAT and having him lose every time in a slam against Nadal, but that's a very far cry from concluding that Roger is losing because Nadal is somehow "cheating". How do you cheat in front of 1000 spectators, a dozen cameras, and several referees? Nadal would have to be the new Houdini or David Copperfield in order to do such amazing tricks.Yes, you are just another frustrated fedtard, and yes, you hate Nadal with the burning passion of a confused zombie. That is YOUR problem, not Nadal’s.
This is a formidable (and hilarious) rebuttal in the Federer is GOAT debate. For me, tennis is first and foremost a mental and physical contest that becomes epic & gladiatorial when the stakes are high. Where greatness is concerned, you’ve covered most of those occasions already where Federer has allowed himself to be denied when the history book was waiting to be re-written in his favour. On many of these occasions when the chips were down, Federer capitulated to reveal a recurring lack of mental fortitude where the opposite should be true for anyone to be considered a GOAT. Here are a couple more missed opportunities to re-write the record book where each one was on a preferred surface but Nadal wasn’t the spoiler: 1. Most US Opens wins (in the Open era)Federer had a chance to stand alone from Connors and Sampras with 6 titles in 2009 when he faced a 20 year Del Potro who was playing his first slam final. The run of play should have resulted in Federer leading by 2 sets but a couple of clutch forehand DTL passes allowed Del Potro to break back in the 2nd set that Federer eventually lost in a tie-break. Although Federer managed to regain the lead by winning the 3rd, the seed of doubt was already sown as it was obvious his opponent wasn’t going to rollover and, more importantly, continued to believe in his haymaking forehand even though for most of the first 2 sets it had pretty much been letting him down. Federer went away in the final set to lose his serve at the first time of asking to stay in the championship. What is interesting for me is how Federer serves in a final set, especially when he doesn’t serve first as was the case in this final. Unlike the Wimbledon final earlier that year when Federer won 16-14 in the final set having served first, breaking Roddick’s serve just the once in the very last game of the match, Federer didn’t serve well at all this match. Maybe sometimes the tennis gods can be fair and just after all.2. Most Wimbledon winsFederer had a chance to stand alone from Sampras with 8 titles this year and further push out his lead on the all time slam winners list when he faced Djokovic, who up till then had displayed as much mental fortitude in recent slams as a chocolate teapot. Federer also knew he would be the sentimental favourite and could count on practically the whole of the Centre Court’s support and having enjoyed great success against his opponent already this year on surfaces not called grass, must have thought the title was in the bag (along with, maybe, a jacket with ‘8 & 18’ embroidered in gold but alas we will never know). Djokovic in the 4th set reminded us again what his teapot was made of but at least he would serve first in the final set. I bet I wasn’t the only one who thought Federer would have won had he served first. Instead, again at the first time of asking to stay in the championship his serve that up till then had been magnificent went AWOL and he gave up the match with an unforced rallying backhand that was dumped into the bottom of the net. Incidentally, the lack of mental fortitude displayed by Federer in this match serves also to give an indication of the size of Nadal’s cojones. After the heartbreak of the 5 set 2007 Wimbledon final loss, to lose a 2 set lead in the 2008 Wimbledon final having failed to convert 2 MPs in the 4th set tie-breaker but to come back from behind and win 9-7 in the final set with Federer having served first, almost defies belief. Disbelief I mean not only in the context of this singular victory but of completing his first Channel slam by beating Federer in both finals after a beat down at the French with the loss of only 4 games when Federer was in his prime. Cometh the hour, cometh the man but where was THE man?
Terrific text, I fully agree with every point you make.Yes, Federer may play like a Prima Ballerina will all his elegant moves that would get him a series of "10" grades if tennis champs were decided by a jury concerned only with "aesthetics", but when it comes to his gladiatorial abilities he is only tenth the man Nadal is - and after all, sports (and especially alleged GOATs) should be about men being men, not chokers and whiners.I am mystified how fedtards imagine that a player can be GOAT while displaying such tiny balls in crucial and tough matches against tough opponents.
You may be mystified (as am I) but you've answered several times over why the elephant shouldn't be in the room. I hope you'll continue to update your blog till Federer and Nadal hang up their racquets.
I'll keep this short and simple. If you look at 25 years from now, where lets say the top 10 are much stronger than now, then you would say federer, nadal, djokovic and nadal won their slams because there was no competition to match them apart from competting between themselves for the slam titles? my thoughts are the competition now is weak compared to what it was 10-15yrs ago. Hence why federer, nadal, djokovic and murray are exploiting it. I doubt 25 yrs from now you would have the autumn sweep, summer sweep and players winiing 4-5 masters 1000 in a year. No up and coming teenagers either(although kygrios at wimbledon was sensational. Too early to call him a future no.1 but he definitely has potential). Thoughts?
It is impossible to assume anything about how the ATP will look in 25 years, that's sheer speculation. Perhaps there will be even more domination because the competition will be even weaker, and some players might then win more than 20 slams.I do agree that the current Big 3 domination is mostly a result of weak competition. In fact, I advocate this opinion EXTENSIVELY on my "101 Things You Need To Know About Pro Tennis" list, which was posted last year on this blog.Look at this list in order to find out more. The link for it is on this page.Kyrgios most definitely will be no.1, simply because he is one of very few up-and-comers of quality. He might have to fight it out with Borna Coric, Alexander Zverev and Bernard Tomic over who wins the slams, just like Djokovic. Nadal and Federer are doing. But who knows whether they will dominate for a decade or whether the next generation will be better. I don't see a positive future for the ATP simply because the talent is drying up and that's the result of increasing costs for juniors to become pros.
This is basically me looking at the mirror. Did I write these? Just to add: Its an insult to Nadal to just overlook all these statistics and proclaim Fed the GOAT...that's what Fedtards seems to imply
They take everything so literally, fedtards. It is more than obvious that Nadal is modest, and prefers to keep a lower profile as a great champ - hence the compliments targeted at Roger's pink door. Federer is a narcissist of the highest order, on the other hand, and if Nadal had the 17-14 edge (which would have been more fair) I doubt Federer would ever give Nadal such compliments. Federer is a sweet-talking phony, insiders and and the more perceptive, less gullible people know this.Besides, Nadal had said those things largely many years ago, before he had half of Roger's slams. Fedtards love taking things out of context.Thirdly, Nadal might be doing it to take some pressure off himself. Because if he ever said he was on an equal footing with Federer he would only place unnecessarily more pressure on himself. He is smart.
Totally agree. People always underrate Nadal and his team but in reality, this team is a strategist. They have maintained a low profile for a long time that when people wake up and finally realize, Nadal is already on par with Federer's overrated accomplishments. If there is such an award for the most blinded followers, fedtards takes the cake. Federer can take all his fans and start a cult, all of them will follow even if he drinks the kool aid.I know you dont believe in GOAT...I dont either. But given all these numbers and stats, it seems to me Nadal has more case of being the GOAT than Fed does...
Well, yes, I agree. If I had to choose between the two of them, Nadal would be more deserving as GOAT, easily.As for fedtards and their religious, fanatical devotion to their Swiss god, they are a very amusing bunch. The level of sycophantic idolatory given to a mere man is comical and rather pathetic at the same time. I suspect that most fedtards are mental cases who struggle with all sorts of self-esteem issues, plus who knows how many of them have been under heavy sedation in various psychiatric units across the world. I have always maintained that people who attach themselves only to the top players and teams in sports are usually losers, misfits, loonies, nerds and other strange individuals.The only reason most fedtards are fedtards in the first place is because Federer dominated so completely during 2004-2007. Once that was over and Federer's myth started getting punctured by Nadal and Djokovic, they started getting resentful, hateful, outright hostile even toward anyone who would even dare question their hilarious claim that Federer is Best of all Time.Their unbridled hatred of Nadal is partly proof of that.
Sir/Madam, having read your original post with interest, as a tennis fan..(.not a feltard...not a Rafa hater)...the conclusion that I have come to is that you are just Anti Federer! The quote about 'test tube' (do you think Fed's sister went to the test tube as well?), the quote about Fed being 'Gay',well call me old fashioned but I have never seen anybody but anybody squeeze a backside with so much enthusiasm as Nadal did to Juan Monaco on greeting him at one of the tournaments, do think Nadal is gay...don't know I'm not interested. Do I think Nadal is a great player yes I do. But the Nadal question is , not as black and white as is Nadal or Federer the best, surely Nadal's lenghtly injuries have to be suspect especially when he comes back right out the blocks so strong!!! Never beenseen before and believe me I've been watching tennis for a long time. So I think with all your knowledge about numbers etc., you have let your argument down badly when you allowed it to become so personal against Federer.
PART 1There's one born every minute... Fedtard, I mean. A goofy little fedtard created every minute. Specifically, an angry fedtard posting silly comments on my blog.Rule 1 About Fedtards (from the "International Guide To Fedtard Behavior"): "Fedtards will always deny they are fedtards, despite their full and religious loyalty to their Swiss god. Because deep down they are embarrassed about dedicating all their time and effort to worshiping a tennis player."Your post is very typical of a fedtard, in so many ways. First you say "I am not a fedtard and I don't hate Nadal" and then you proceed to show your infinite love for Roger and hatred for Nadal. It would be almost comical were it not frightening - that millions of fedtard zombies are roaming the Earth right now, looking for Nadal with a baseball bat. The stalking is getting a bit much. Rafa will start needing heavy security because of you stark-raving-mad zombies.Secondly, you fail to address ANY of the points on the list and go straight to some silly comment about test-tube babies. It would seem that the truth about Roger possibly being gay hurts fedtards even more than the truth about him not being GOAT. Besides, you have no valid counter-arguments left, after I DEMOLISHED in the text all of your standard/silly/absurd/flawed/moronic anti-Nadal pro-Fed arguments.Thirdly, projecting Fed's gayness onto Nadal is a cheesy, predictable, transparent and even childish tactic that simply won't work. Just like all those gay Nazi Party members accusing their enemies of homosexuality when in fact gayness was ripe within the Nazi world itself.
PART 2"I've been watching tennis for a long time." No, girl, you've been watching Roger's BUTT for a long time. That isn't quite the same. Try focusing on the ball and the events on the court from now on, and you might just make a few valid observations for once.I am astounded that fedtards constantly accuse Rafa of doping - on the basis of "incredible comebacks" - instead of marveling his ability to come back after such long breaks and to actually win. If doping could do this, this would have happened zillions of times before because there HAVE been dopers in tennis since the 80s, you know. It's another case of fedtards spin-doctoring a Nadal positive into a perceived negative. Any rational human being says "wow, give him respect for coming back after all these injury breaks in winning form, without having had any real match practice for months". Instead, a fedtard concludes that "he is cheating!".So silly. Speaking of suspicious, fedtards never wonder how come Roger has NEVER pulled out of a match from exhaustion, how he NEVER comes to the November Masters Cup exhaused from a long season - like most other players, how he NEVER seems even mildly tired even in the 5th set of a finale, and fedtards NEVER wonder how come Federer can still be so quick at the age of 33.Fedtards dismiss all this by believing naively that "Roger doesn't waste energy because he is so energy-efficient due to his elegant motions". Yes, well, tell physicists and nutritionists about this amazing theory how a marathon can be run ELEGANTLY, in such a way as to PREVENT any loss of energy. I would love to hear their reactions to his hilarious nonsense.Perpetum mobile? Damn, Roger must really be superhuman. He has actually devised a way to beat the laws of physics!After all, Roger's parents worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, If Nadal's parents were pill-salesmen you'd be all over him, screaming "Rafa's parents are drug-dealers and dope-peddlers!".Which brings me to Rule 11 from the "International Guide to Fedtard Behaviour": "A fedtard applies a double standard in every situation, blaming Nadal for every perceived injustice or cheating, whereas ignoring the same symptoms when Federer exhibits them."Hypothetical situation: Rafa was never injured throughout his career whereas Roger had multiple long injury breaks. In this case, this is what fedtards would be saying:"HOW CAN A HUMAN NEVER BE INJURED IN SPITE OF PLAYING SUCH LONG SEASONS??? ROGER PROVES THAT HE DOESN'T CHEAT BY BEING HUMAN, BY GETTING INJURED WHICH PROVES HE ISN'T A CHEAT LIKE THAT NADAL WHO IS SOMEHOW ALWAYS HEALTHY AND FIT!"See what I mean?I doubt that you do. It was just a rhetorical question.
I’ve commented previously finishing with the tweak of the cometh the hour saying. Up till now, I’ve pretty much resisted the temptation to add my tuppence worth of opinion to the GOAT debate but as I’d like to comment again, I thought rather than post anonymously again I may as well use my blogoshpere alias if only so I can find quickly what I’ve spouted on about, as opposed to some Johnny Come Lately wanting to claim the, er, terrific text.Anyway, regardless, where was I…The Federer is GOAT belief (cult) has been part of common consciousness for many years now, cemented in place by a number of powerful factors… yadayadayada. Bestowing GOAT status on a player allows all interested parties to maximise the monetisation potential of that very tennis player. In many ways, Federer is using and is being used by these interested parties in what could be observed as one of the most perfect of symbiotic scenarios with the result that what was originally an arbitrary anointment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, although to be fair to Federer he still had to continue with the winning even if the winning was made tons easier because most of his opponents gave him a set if not two even before stepping onto the court. After all, “The GOAT (sic) can have a strong influence on the weak-minded”. And not just those who play professional tennis…With the emergence of spoilers like Nadal, Djokovic and to a large extent Murray (and it’s a real shame he couldn’t do it in a GS final) who were consistently unwilling to rollover for Federer in a lovefest and allow him to take bread from their table along with Nadal’s recent 14, I’d like to think we have reached the tipping point in the Federer is GOAT debate. Maybe your eyes are rolling right now. Regardless of its legitimacy, the existence of the GOAT can’t be denied as the forces that lead to its proclamation are inexorable. That said, any attempt at GOAT revisionism is going to require so much humble pie production and consumption by so many with vested interests I wonder what will trigger the appetite? Is it going to require screenwriting as brilliant as Pam waking up from her dream (nightmare?) to see Bobby step out of the shower? Remember, Federer has been a Gillete ad pony… but I digress.The totemic power of standalone 17 is so blinding I suspect even if Nadal was to reach 17 it would not be enough in the minds of, er, Federer fans given the clay concentration in his numbers, not that 9 hard 7 grass 1 clay is well balanced either but there we are. Assuming Federer stays at 17, I wonder what Nadal’s got left in the career tank starting with this year’s USO, assuming he’ll be fit to compete. There’s no point speculating how many he will end up with but the question that’s tantalising is would even 18 be enough given the entrenchment? I noticed in one of your replies you said you’re an insider (Federer’s pillow plumper?) so I’d be interested in your take on how the GOAT debate will go although this is probably best left till after the USO at least.
First of all, you make an excellent point about the commercialization of the GOAT image, from which Federer and many of his sponsors have profited - financially. I've missed this aspect of the debate. So, yes, a lot of the hype isn't coming just from braindead fedtards (and I am not saying all Federer fans are fedtards, coz they're not, some of them are only semi-retarded or merely infantile) but from corporations pushing the RF brand name. I shall in fact include this excellent point in the text at some point, and will have to mention you of course. (Aren't you flattered?)As for public opinion, who gives a shit about it? If 90% of Germans supported the Nazi Party in the 30s doesn't mean I would have had to as well had I been a beer-guzzling German voter in that era. (Yes, the example is retarded, but so are the fedtards reading this.) Majority opinion in such complex matters don't matter 3 shits to me. This text expresses the LOGICAL, mathematical viewpoint regarding the GOAT debate, based on facts and data, not an emotional teeny-bopper opinion. If Roger truly were Best Ever, I'd say it. But it simply isn't the case. Not even close - I'd say.The 17 isn't a totemic number at all, as I've explained, because it wasn't all EARNED. Not only did he profit from a Power Vacuum Era, but he was handed 2-3 slams on a plate in 2009-2010 when Rafa's unbeatable and total dominance was cut short by injury. The same guy whom Federer could not beat since 2007 in a slam match.Simple maths: 14 + 2 more that he would have most likely won in 2009 = 16 for NadalMore simple maths: 17 - 2 slams Roger got for free mid 2009 = 15 for RogerSuch a scenario, and similar scenarios, were prevented by Nadal's monumental bad luck i.e. Roger's monumental luck. If luck shall be a VALID reason for any player to be considered GREATEST of all time, then OK, Federer is GOAT. But I don't subscribe to that point of view, much too idiotic and shallow for my rational approach.To ignore these obvious facts - and many many others I mention here - is to be retarded. Or fanatical. As if there's a difference betwixt the two.As for whether Rafa will win more, I very much doubt it. But it matters not. He has so FORCEFULLY denied Federer the GOAT title that no matter who wins what from this point onwards, the damage to Federer's GOAT ambitions has been made. Nadal has so convincingly dominated Federer and exposed him for the Paper Tiger champ that he is (to some extent), that only a fool would be oblivious to the implications from all the data I have offered in this text.
As you ask, flattered no but decent of you yes not that it matters anyway as all great writers steal. Will keep this short.If you think it’s just down to Federer’s sponsors then you’re still not seeing the bigger picture. The other powerful factors are legion. Starting from the top are the myriad forms of star making media channels with global reach that need a star to fixate on and their announcers and commentators who should know better but know even better not to bite the hand that feeds. Quite possibly, the majority of Federer fans that you berate, and not just those that have stuck their heads above the parapet to comment on your blog, are more sinned against than sinning given the amount of BS they’ve had to swallow over the years. Now there’s a thought. I know 17 is not totemic and not just because I’ve read your text. The majority of Federer fans, however, including the ones that have stumbled onto your text, do not know that 17 is not totemic so for them it is. That was my point and back to my original question regarding the catalyst to bring about GOAT revisionist change in public opinion (it’s admirable that you don’t give a monkey’s about it but I do), this will be best answered one way or the other by the smoking gun (for now) in your text. There’s a lot of doom & gloom surrounding Nadal right now and since this years AO final, but it’s not like he’s not been here before. Nor not heard the count before. Cometh the hour…
"If you think it's down JUST to the sponsors."I think you have completely misunderstood me. Read this new point 14 again. It says quite clearly that fans and the media are part of the hype as well as the sponsors. Where did I write that the sponsors are the ONLY ones perpetrating the myth, or that they even started the hype? Nowhere. You do need to read a text - thoroughly - before you make comments on it, positive or negative.As far as "the bigger picture", I have written a huge article on the GOAT issue, covering all the possible angles that there are, so if there's anyone who does see the WHOLE picture, not just the BIGGER picture, that must be me. I said IF there is anyone...Besides, you seem to be again hammering home your point about truth being decided by majority opinion - rather than being dictated by empirical facts. Since the Nazi example (which was admittedly somewhat silly) wasn't enough, I shall give you another one. In the Middle Ages 99.999% of the population (at least those who had even an opinion on the matter) thought the Earth was flat. Point? The fact that the majority is deluded about something does not make that delusion real. Capiche? Ergo, I am not interested in majority opinion at all, only in rational arguments, whether they be observed by 1% of 100% of the population. What fedtards and some of the media believe in as regards the GOAT debate is utterly irrelevant. One doesn't make the sky purple by claiming it is purple.As far as fedtards being the butts of jokes or whatever, 3 things: 1) I don't think they get nearly enough mockery as they deserve, not even close, 2) I don't give three shits about whether fedtards have given or received more BS. That aspect of the GOAT debate - if I could even call it an aspect - is utterly irrelevant. 3) Retards and fools should always be mocked as much as possible, because if society's fools aren't put in their place they will only get worse.As for Nadal, yes, he has been written off before, but EVENTUALLY every written off player who keeps coming back stops coming back - and I believe that time has come for him. He has injuries left and right, he has been playing fairly poorly for his standards this year when not injured which is sort of new for him, and he is pushing 30. At some point, even that incredible will power he possesses will not be enough to outweigh the plethora of bad luck he's been having with injuries. Also, the WAY he won the French this year suggests strongly that this was his last French title. He struggled mightily to win it.Btw, the way Djokovic struggled to win Wimbledon this year (losing as many as 6 sets) suggests to me that Novak won't be winning Wimbledon ever again. But that's an entirely different topic, not really GOAT related.
nice i'am data researcher and i'm add this article to my list of favorite also you can check me up here at my site ‘for more details, kindly visit http://www.unemployedpinoys.com/ thank you
My comment was purely in relation to your previous reply where you mentioned only sponsors. I hadn’t at the time refreshed your blog to see Point 14 as I had no idea when you’d be updating and given that you had failed to spot this point altogether, I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to think that you might still be missing some of it. Still, my bad for not re-reading your text before commenting and props on reaching your 14.As for the hammering home, I’m surprised you’re still not getting my point, so here’s my last attempt. I know who isn’t the GOAT based on empirical facts and I hope a lot of other people do, too. However, until an understanding of these empirical facts is MANDATED for everybody let alone Federer fans before they are allowed to express a GOAT related opinion, they will continue to talk nonsense. As this isn’t ever going to happen by itself, these empirical facts may as well not exist and your text (amongst many others) are like trees falling in a forest that no one hears.You said correctly that historically there was a more than widespread belief that the world is flat. However, what you failed to say was that there were massive real world ramifications with holding that particular belief that wasn’t true and sooner or later, it WOULD be overturned with the truth. The GOAT belief is not like that. At best, the GOAT debate is just intellectual masturbation. If Nadal hangs up his racquet today, and the incontrovertible empirical facts stay the way they are, the court of public opinion will continue forever to proclaim Federer as the GOAT. The fact that it is delusional doesn’t make a blind bit of difference. And I’m willing to bet this point is not lost on Nadal, either.As for the valid points you make about Nadal, for now they don’t lead me to the same conclusion. There’s just too much at stake for a true great not to show up in the final act, just like what the greats in other sports did in similar situations. Ultimately, you may be right about Nadal (and Djokovic) so based on your last reply, I wonder why you continue to finish your text with ’The gap is closing…’ More bait?
This is becoming philosophical almost, just what I was afraid of. The matter of whether empirical truth disappears into thin air once nobody is there to acknowledge it or whether it's always there regardless of whether anybody is aware of it, is a philosophic issue and can't be proven either way. I have my stance, you have yours. There is no "winner". It's that old "tree dilemma" or whatever it's called, in philosophy, where a tree's existence might depend on whether there is a sentient being to see it or not, and whether a sentient being is necessary to notice the tree for the tree to even have a "valid" existence. I forgot the details, but that's the gist.I tend to think that the empirical truth is always out there, regardless of whether it is common knowledge or not yet discovered by the majority or even totally unknown. That fedtards will be parroting the same bullshit text until they croak is a given, hence not of interest to me. I am not here to inform fedtards, the text is here to ANNOY them. There's a difference. The text is meant to inform the more intelligent, unbiased tennis fans, not fedtards who as far as I can tell are mostly retards - just as their name correctly suggests.OBVIOUSLY, the importance of whether the Earth is flat or triangle-shaped or round is infinitely more relevant than the silly GOAT debate. I clearly state several times in the text and in the comments section that there is no such things as GOAT, anyway, and that this topic can only be brought up as a silly pastime, not as a serious academic issue. Nevertheless, because I am a fetishist when it comes to statistics, I decided to do this the proper way, in detail - as opposed to simply throwing my subjective 5 cent's worth of what I think. The text isn't what I think - it's facts that speak for themselves."The gap is closing" was written more than a year ago, when Nadal was still looking like a potential slam champion. And indeed he won 3 slams since I started writing the text. However, I don't want to delete it just because I believe that Nadal won't win any more slams. He might, I didn't say I am 100% sure he won't. Plus there's always the bait effect, as you said, yet another little jab at all those silly and mock-worthy fedtards out there who are reading the text in droves and fantasizing about taking my head and serving it to a shark on a plate. It's fun to annoy them by reminding them that it used to be 17-11 just 15 months ago, but is now 17-14, which of course changes things drastically.I am however convinced that Djokovic's Wimby champ days are over. Grass is his weakest surface, and it speaks tremendously for his fighting spirit and determination that he won this slam twice. Realistically, he is better on clay, but at the French he has no titles because of you-know-who. Both 2011 and 2014 Wimbledons were won with a lot of lost sets and tight matches, lots of struggle, and he will be 28 next year. He simply does not look to me like a future Wimbledon champ, although I can see him winning several more hardcourt slams, and perhaps the French as well.
Respect, peace & good health.
If you are talking about the best of this era, i don't think Nadal or Federer would have it. My finger would point to Djokovic. Let me give my reasons why. Before Djokovic's domination from 2011 until now, Federer had a 13-6 H2H advantage, Nadal a 16-7 advantage. From 2011, during Nadals best years, Djokovic has limited Nadal to only 1 Grand Slam outside the French Open which came during the 2013 US Open and Federer to just 1 Grand Slam. The fact that both Federer and Nadal have allowed Djokovic to dominate them to such an extent since then speaks against both(for supposedly 2 GOAT players). As a result of this domination, he's stopped Federer's Slam count at 17(Nadal did before but Djokovic has for good in my opinion) but has made sure Nadal does not defend a title outside of clay which Nadal is yet to do. Before that, Djokovic was still developing as a player whereas both Nadal and Federer where at their peak and enjoying a great rivalry. Once Djokovic developed(around 2009-2010), he hasn't allowed either player an inch of further success before he achieves 2011-current dominance. In 2011, Federer was 29, Nadal 25. Both still in their prime years. Come forward Djokovic. He has since dominated Federer 12-5 in H2H and Nadal 12-7. Their current rivalry is almost even against both. Furthermore, the success Djokovic has achieved has been against much harder opposition whereas Nadal only had Federer and Federer had no one. Having said that, lets look towards the future. As mentioned earlier, Djokovic H2H rivalry against Nadal and Federer is almost even. Out of the big 4, I only see Djokovic sweeping up the majority of the future Grand Slam events. I no longer see Murray as a genuine threat to his chances. Federer has 2 yrs left in the top 10 then he's out for good in my opinion. Nadal will no longer be the player he was prior to Djokovics dominance(yes he came back strong and dominated 3/4 of 2013 but djokovic found a way to beat him again). By the end of their carriers, I see Djokovic having a positive H2H against both Nadal and Federer as well as similar Grand Slam success. Federer and Nadal can't be considered GOATS when there is a guy called Djokovic who is the best of this current era. And I don't hate Federer nor Nadal. I admire both their great achievements. I don't want to be called a partypooper either but the truth is there.
PART 1Very interesting post.Depends what you mean by "this era". Djokovic has been the somewhat best player OVERALL in the 2011-2014 period, but only by a small margin. You can hardly argue that he was THE dominant player even during this period, which is why the 2011-2014 era is the Rafa-Novak era, not the Novak era. Whenever Novak plays Rafa I feel as if Novak should win because he seems to be the slightly better player. Novak does have a huge game, perhaps even bigger than Rafa’s or Federer’s at their best. However, fact is that he doesn’t beat them as often as he should.There are some problems with your facts and claims. Here are some corrections of the claims you make.1) Nadal's inability to defend a non-clay slam has as much to do with his injuries as Novak. Even before Novak’s 2011 resurgence Rafa was prevented from defending AO 2009 and W 2009 due to injuries, not other players beating him. In a sense Rafa DID defend Wimby 2008 when he won it again in 2010 coz he missed out on W 2009. Novak did beat Rafa as a defending champion of Wimby 2011 and USO 2011, so there is some truth there. On the other hand, Rafa beat Novak 6 times at the French, including 3 times during the 2011-2014 era, preventing Novak from completing the Slam, time and time again. Since Novak never won the French nobody can say that Rafa prevented Novak from defending those titles – but that’s of course due to Novak’s inability to win the French in the first place.2) Nadal actually has a POSITIVE H-to-H against Novak in slams during the 2011-2014 period, not just overall. 4-3 for Rafa. Overall, it’s 8-3 for Rafa in slams, which is a huge number in Rafa’s favour. Novak has failed to win a number of slams recently because Rafa has been beating him - 4 times in a row, from 2012-2014. In order: FO, FO, USO, FO. Just as Rafa prevented Roger from becoming GOAT, he is now diminishing greatly Novak’s status as dominant player.3) Djokovic's reputation as a no1 has been tarnished by his many slam finale losses from 2012-2014. He has even allowed Rafa who had a 7-month injury break to take his no1 position from him - for nearly a year. Unprecedented in the Open Era.Novak lost 4 of the last 5 slam finales before winning W 2014, and 3 slam finales in a row from 2013-2014. He went from 5-2 in slam finales (AO 2012) to 6-7 (FO 2014) i.e. from very positive to negative, the only male player to achieve this negative record in the Open Era. This, and other things, puts into question his dominance of 2011-2014.Djokovic was truly dominant only in 2011. 2012 was an open year with 4 different slam champs, and 2013 was Rafa’s year. If Novak wins this USO, THEN he could be considered the dominant or best player of the 2011-2014 era. If he doesn’t, then 2014 will be the third year in a row that Novak has won no more than one slam per season – and that isn’t dominant enough to place himself high enough above Rafa, who has also been winning at least a slam per year since 2011 (and in fact since 2005 even).4) You say Rafa won “only” one non-clay slam during 2011-2014. First of all, one isn’t little, especially since he won FOUR clay slams as well, which means he won 5 slams altogether, and unlike retarded fedtarded fedtards I don’t count certain slams as being more relevant than others: ALL slams are equally important. Winning 5 slams in 4 seasons is a great achievement for anyone.Novak won 6 slams during this period. That’s “just” one more than Rafa. 6-5 in slams for Novak in 2011-2014. Better – yes – but not dominant. Especially when one considers that Novak missed NO slams in this period, whereas Rafa missed playing several slams due to injury. THREE, to be exact. So percentage-wise, they are probably about equal.Not to mention the fact that Novak had failed to win a non-Aussie slam in 2012 and 2013, in a span of almost 3 years, from USO 2011 to W 2014 he only won Aussie Opens. Does clay count as less than hardcourt? Not to me.
PART 25) Djokovic beat Federer during 2011-2014 in slams 4 times. He lost to Federer 2 times. 4-2 is a good score but not dominance – especially not against a player he lost often to in slams before hitting his prime. Overall they are 6-6 in slams.6) Djokovic dominated Federer since 2011 – but Nadal has done that to Federer even more. Rafa lost ZERO matches in slams to Federer since 2007, whereas Novak lost two very important slam semis to Federer since 2011.7) Novak has a very positive H-to-H vs. Rafa since 2011 – as you said – i.e. 12-7, but since Monte Carlo 2012 they have been 6-6. Even.8) The argument that Djokovic had tougher competition has some truth to it, but what prevented Djokovic from winning a slam at age 19, as Rafa did? Rafa is only a year older, yet Rafa was a top 3 player in 2005, whereas Djokovic in 2007. Rafa won his first slam in 2005, Djokovic in 2008. Rafa peaked earlier than Djokovic, age-wise, and nothing prevented Djokovic from peaking in 2006 instead of 2007 or winning his first slam in 2006 instead of 2008.
PART 39) I agree that Rafa will never be the same player again, but to say that Novak has “found a way to beat him again” is only semi-true. After all, Rafa has won their last 4 slam meetings, which actually means that Novak has LOST his way of beating Rafa - outside of Masters 1000 events where he is much better than Rafa. Nevertheless, your point isn’t without merit.10) I don’t agree that Novak “developed in 2009/2010”. Quite to the contrary, those are his years of stagnation. He won no slams from AO 2008 to AO 2011, and in fact didn’t even win any Masters 1000 events in 2009. He developed in 2007 already and had a great 2008 but then fell back until 2011.11) Neither Nadal nor Federer are GOAT, but that has nothing to do with Novak. He hasn’t ruined it for either of them because in slams he doesn’t dominate either of them. 6-6 against Roger and 3-8 against Rafa are solid numbers but not party-pooping ones. Federer fans can thank Novak for taking away 3 slam titles from Rafa in 2011-2012 – 3 slams that would have equaled him with Roger. But since then and before then he had always lost to Rafa in slams.12) 2011 onwards are not Rafa’s “best years” as you claim. His best years are 2008-2013, and 2009 would have been as brilliant as 2008 and 2010 had he not been injured. 2011-2013 are Nadal’s prime years, for sure, but not just those.Overall, 2011-2014 gives us the following:Novak – Rafa in slam titles: 6-5Novak – Rafa in M1000 titles: 14-9Novak – Rafa in Masters Cup titles: 2-0Novak – Rafa H-to-H: 12-7Novak – Rafa H-to-H in slams: 3-4So arguments can be made that Djokovic was the more successful player, but not enough to call it HIS era. It’s a dual domination.HOWEVER, if we extend this era to 2010-2014, Rafa has much better numbers (8-6 in slams for Rafa). If we shorten the era to 2012-2014, Rafa again has somewhat better numbers (4-3 in slams for Rafa). The year 2011 is key in this, the only year that Djokovic TRULY dominated whereas Nadal dominated 3 seasons: 2008, 2010, and more-or-less 2013. So it depends a lot on which years you pick to group together to represent an era.However, I also agree with some of your points.I do agree that Novak might have a positive H-to-H against both Rafa and Federer in a few years. Overall he is a better player than both, certainly now he is, and perhaps even from 2011 onwards but that’s debatable, but variations in form and highs and lows in matches have cost him some crucial wins against these players even during 2011-2014.
PART 4I also agree that Novak has a much better chance of increasing his slam tally than either Rafa or Roger. However, I doubt that Novak will win more than 2-3 slams more. He won Wimbledon this year with huge struggles and that’s always an indication that a champion’s slam career is coming slowly to an end. I am not sure about this yet. I guess this year’s US Open will answer a lot of questions, including whether Novak is ready to drastically increase his slam tally or whether his form is becoming increasingly unpredictable. Certainly by Aussie 2015 we shall know where we stand with Novak and his slam count. If he wins both USO 2014 and AO 2015, or either, things are looking great for him. If he fails to win either then he might end his career with no more than 7 slams or perhaps 8.But whether Novak will have “only” 7-8 slams or 10-11, one thing I am certain of: he will never come anywhere close to 14 let alone 17 slams. Why? He has squandered some of his prime years (age-wise), namely 2009 and 2010, years in which he should have won several slams. If he had not wasted those years he would have had now maybe a two-digit slam tally, and trying to reach Rafa and Roger would be much more possible. But there’s no chance of that because of this. He can’t go from 7 slams at age 27 to 14 or 15. That’s just highly unlikely. Then again, who knows! Maybe he is the new Agassi. Though even Agassi won not more than 5 slam past the age of 28 – and Novak would have to win 7 or more. Do I think Novak will become a new “best veteran ever”? I doubt it. But that’s what is needed of him in order to catch up with Rafa and Pete. To catch up with Federer is like science-fiction.I also agree that Murray is not a threat to Novak anymore. Nor is he a threat to any top 5 player anymore. Now and then perhaps, but not in slams, and certainly Murray’s slam-winning days are over. He has completely dropped in quality.Whatever the case may be, Djokovic has no chance of ever entering the GOAT discussion. He would have to win as many as Sampras and Nadal for that to happen, but this is highly unlikely. The first thing he has to do to qualify for the GOAT debate is to win the French Open. And then he needs to win at least 14 slams. If he does those things, only then will he be on equal footing with Nadal and Federer. But better? No, because there is no such thing as GOAT. The only way you can convince me that he might come close to GOAT is if he wins 16 or 17.
From 2003–08, Federer won an all-time record 65 consecutive matches on grass courts before losing to Rafael Nadal in the epic 2008 Wimbledon final. He was extended to five sets only twice during this streak and lost a total of 16 sets (170–16)From 2005–06, Federer won a record 56 consecutive matches on hard courts before losing to Nadal in the 2006 Dubai final. Federer also holds the second longest streak on hard courts of 36 consecutive wins (2006–07). Over a period of 25 months (February 2005 – February 2007), Federer went 111–2 (98.2%) on hard courts.
Yes - because during much of this period he either had no Nadal and no Djokovic to contend with, or with a very young Nadal and an even younger Djokovic.I don't understand what your point is. All that proves is that Federer was the best hardcourt player of that era. A great achievement for sure. But we're talking about Best Ever, which he is not.I think fedtards simply get confused between Federer the Best of His Era and Federer the non-GOAT. I can name you just as many impressive records by Nadal, plus some by Laver, Borg, and Sampras. Fedtards think that only his achievements somehow count, and that they are enough to place himself ABOVE players he never played against - or above a player from his era - Nadal - who dominated him. Retarded.
What do you think about the idea of Djokovic, Nadal and even Federer playing and winning slams till their mid 30's? thats about 5-6 years left of more Slam trophies for Nadal and Djokovic and about 2-3 years left for Federer. My reason is because of the lack of youngsters in the ATP Tour to challenge the Big 3 in Slams. Kygrios, Tomic and co still need an extra 3 or so years to start challenging the big 3 in Slams and another 2-3 years to finally overtake them. Dmitrov, Nikishori and Raonic look the goods but I don't see any of them beating a member of the Big 3 in a Slam Final in the next few years. So the thought of Nadal hitting 20 Slams, Federer 1-2 more Slams and Djokovic hitting 15 Slams seems a good possibility in my eyes. But with Djokovic being the best player of the trio in the last few years, he can even catch up to both Nadal and Federer. Bear in mind Djokovic has won 6 Slams in the last 4 years and Nadal 5 Slams in the same period. At that ratio, its a good possibility. What is your opinion on this?
That's a tough one.On one hand, you are right about the youngsters. On my "101 Things You Need To Know About Pro Tennis" list I go intro great detail about why young players in this era are the worst up-and-coming generation in the Open Era, so obviously I agree with you. I don't agree about Raonic though; he has NO CHANCE of winning a slam. Guys that tall very rarely win slams, he doesn't seem to be cut out for the big matches mentally, and his game while improving all the time doesn't seem slam-worthy to me. Dimitrov and Nishikori have the games to win slams, but the Japanese seems to be plagued by injuries and he is already in his mid-20s. He may be too physically weak for the modern ATP tour, and perhaps even too short. Dimitrov is a huge question mark when it comes to playing a Slam finale: will he chicken out or will he play the best he can in a big finale? We just don't know. As for the unlikable, self-obsessed Aussies, Tomic and Kyrgios have huge games. I don't think many people even realize what a talent Tomic is. They seem to think because he is currently lacking in ambition or because he's a moron that he is without potential. In fact I believe he can win many slams and dominate. But only if he becomes a pro, rather than a hobby pro. Kyrgios will win slams for sure, no question about it but he needs to develop his game for slower surfaces as well. Personally, I dislike both of these idiots and hope they start winning slams in their late 20s.On the other hand, the notion that injury-stricken Rafa, a wobbly Novak, and an aging Federer can dominate another 5-6 years as a triumvirate doesn't somehow seem realistic, not even with these new loser players.Rafa is now missing 1 or more slams PER YEAR. That's not a formula for winning slams, I assure you.Novak definitely won't win more than 10-11 slams, and even that number is debatable. He seems to be becoming mentally weaker with age, not stronger.As for Federer, well he WILL win this damn useless US Open into which nearly all the top players are either going in poor form or are absent (Rafa, Delpo - THREE winners of the last 5-6 titles are not playing, which makes this US Open a bit of a joke).The problem with your assumption is that there are only the veteran trio and the new kids. There are also players like Wawrinka, Ferrer even and a few others who will be only too glad to snatch an opportunity to win a slam if there is an opening available. Even Tsonga might suddenly mature and win one the way Ivanisevic and Korda did. I wouldn't bet on it, but it is a possibility.Essentially I don't have a strong opinion either way. The US Open and Aussie Open will answer a lot of questions. If Novak fails to win either, to me he is pretty much done winning slams. If Rafa can't play more than 1 slam a year totally fit, he is also done winning slams. Hopefully this doesn't leave us with the Swiss dominating once again - as this would be the ultimate embarrassment for a sport that's already on the verge of becoming a joke, precisely because of the extreme domination in the past decade i.e. its very under-achieving young players.
How important are H2H statistics in a GOAT discussion? Back in the 80's and 90's Becker had a 25-10 H2H rivalry edge over Edberg yet Edberg led 3-1 in Grand Slams. Edberg also finished yr end #1 twice and Becker none. I think both these players are a great representation of the H2H rivalry between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Both finished with 6 Slams. Does that make Becker greater than Edberg because of a lopsided H2H? Or Edberg greater than Becker because he dominated Slams and finished the yr #1 twice? Becker also led McEnroe 8-2 in H2H. Does that make him twice or thrice the player McEnroe was? When it comes to a players greatness, I think its difficult to measure H2H as a statistic in a GOAT discussion. Would a 24yr old Djokovic dominate a 24yr old Nadal and a 24yr old Federer? We wouldn't know which is why H2H stats can't determine if one player is greater than the other. Djokovic trails both Nadal and Federer 23-19 and 18-17 respectively. Despite being the best player in the last few yrs, he still trails both. When all three players hang up their racquets, I am almost certain Djokovic would have a greater H2H than both Rafa and Roger. Would that make him greater than both? I don't think so. Which is why H2H statistics shouldn't carry a lot of weight when it comes to a GOAT discussion.
You seem awfully confused, and I see it as my moral duty to alleviate this problem for you.First of all, who said anything about Nadal being BETTER or more GOAT than Federer? This text clearly states that it's not about Nadal being better or being GOAT but about Federer NOT being GOAT - precisely because of the PLETHORA of very irrefutable arguments I have offered.Nadal ISN'T a greater player than Federer, a claim I never make in the text (which you either haven't read properly or failed to understand because of your religious fervour), But neither is Federer a greater player than Nadal Nor is he greater than Borg, in my opinion.If you are going to seriously argue that the H-to-H between Nadal and Federer - which happens to be quite extreme - has NOTHING to do with the GOAT debate then you must be a religious fedtard who prays to multiple personally built shrine of your Swiss idol. For most NEUTRAL tennis fans, the H-to-H between Nadal and Federer is reason ENOUGH not to consider Federer GOAT. And yet, I have gone a step - or many steps - further, and offered you many more reasons why Federer does not deserve that title at all.I have given you TONS of different arguments here, and yet all you talk about is how the H-to-H does not determine who is a greater player - which I never claimed in the first place.You fedtards are very silly creatures.
it's not an excuse that because one good player in this case nadal was injured you will not count to the other player federer or djokovic that he got the title or the slam. just because nadal was injured at that time that federer won, it does not count, WHAAAT? as a pro, you need to take care of your physical health and if not you are a lousy one. you are not a great player of all time if in one season you got most slams and the next you one or two season you cannot join because you are injured because of what kind or how you played in the previous season/s. C'MON, that's one simple logic.
Not really "simple logic". More like fedtard logic.Utterly retarded post. You haven't read the entire text, you haven't understood anything from what you did read, and your reasoning is fedtardian. To go into any more detail would place me in your IQ bracket.
After the seasons four Grans Slams are finished, I thought I would put a comment up. I would like to start off by saying my heart goes out to Nadal. Another injury in another Slam. Thats 2 out of 4 Slams he has been injured. This year has been a rather open year compared to other seasons. Who knows maybe players are developing later(Cilic, Nishikori, Wawrinka anyone?). I would also like to add that I believe Rafa would have won 3 out of the 4 Slams this year. If it wasn't for an unlucky injury in the Australian Open Final, He would have won against Wawrinka who had a 12-0 record against Rafa before the Final. And Rafa would have won the US Open that just went by. Yes you heard me right. Even with being 50% fit and on one leg, he would of won. I doubt he would have allowed Nishikori and Cilic to beat him convincingly in a Slam. Djokovic's form is now becoming difficult to predict. Lots of High's and Lows. At his best, no one can beat Djokovic. At his lows, he loses quite frequently. And Djokovic blew a chance at winning this years US Open. No Nadal and he didn't take his chances. The same can be said of Federer. Federer is starting to show a rather pussy like side of his in crucial matches. When rivals lose, Federer begins to crumble for some odd reason. Djokovic loses earlier in the day at the US Open this year and all of a sudden, instead of manning up, Federer crumbles in straight sets. I noticed this in last years Wimbledon, Nadal loses and Federer loses the next day. Same thing happened in 2012 Wimbledon. Nadal loses and the next day, Federer almost loses. Although that time, he escaped in 5 sets in the third round against Benneateu(who is also weak in crucial matches 0-9 Finals so Federer got lucky)and was 2 points from defeat. I'm sure there are more examples of this. Therefore I have no doubt this years US Open would have gone to Nadal and neither Nishikori or Cilic would have beaten Rafa. I'm sure Rafa would of toughed it out against Nishikori like he did in the Australian Open earlier in the year. He also leads Nishikori 7-0. And Rafa also leads Cilic 2-1 and I doubt someone as inconsistent as Clic would of beaten Rafa in a Slam Semi/Final. So that would have made Rafa winning 3 out of the 4 Slams and have 16 Slams in the cabinet and one short of Roger's 17 and further diminish Roger's so-called GOAT that people give him these days. And people would be asking when Rafa breaks Roger's record rather than question Nadal's ability to win more Slams. I know many people don't share my views on this so I thought I'd write to someone with common sense like yourself who accepts all sides to an argument. To finish off my post, I believe Nadal is the most unluckiest tennis player to have played the game. Because had he had many more opportunities to win more majors, he would be ranging somewhere in the late teen mark, even 20 Slams. And an injury free year this year at the very least, he would have come closer to Federer's 17 Slams and have the tennis world and journalists at his feet. Best wishes to Rafa and I hope he pulls off a comeback like he did last year. After all, he deserves to be the holder of majors than someone who won them through lack of competition and then his #1 rivals injury curse.
PART 1You are absolutely right about Nadal being extremely unlucky, certainly the most unlucky no. 1 player in the Open Era regarding injuries. How many slams would Federer have won with so many injuries? 11? Sampras? 5-6? Borg? 5?I don't think people realize how difficult it is to come back from so many injuries and consistently win at least a slam per year for a record ten years. Only retards fail to appreciate how monumental this feat is. Healthy players haven’t done this, let alone someone who is struggling with injuries almost every year. It is one of the biggest accomplishments in the sport.There is absolutely NO DOUBT (no pun intended to Roger's best female pal) that Nadal would have had MORE slams than Federer now had he had just half of his lengthy injuries taken away. Without any injuries Nadal most likely would be leading Federer right now, possibly 18-14 or something like that.The most crucial year in making the unfair 17-14 tally is 2009. That year and that injury took away a couple of slams away from Nadal and gave those to Federer. That injury alone prevented Nadal leading Federer now in slams, not to mention last year and 2012, or this year.Yes, people who OBSERVE what's happening in men's tennis - rather than get lost in their fanboy passion and zealotry - have noticed how often Federer choked in crucial moments. I submit to you that Federer was a choker back in 2002 when he struggled to realize his full potential. He was 21 and couldn't do much apart from get into the Top 10. Just compare that to what Nadal was doing at this age. The turning point for Roger was not only a weaker men’s tour in 2003, but the LUCK of getting two CHOKERS in the semis and finales of Wimbledon 2003, namely Roddick and Philippoussis, two guys who combined have 1-6 in slam finales, not to mention have inferior games to talents such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi etc. And they both weren’t slam champs. You don’t get more lucky than that – unless your name is Federer. Did Murray have any such luck? Murray had the opposite - bad luck with slam draws i.e. his SF and F opponents.
PART 2Had Federer had a TOUGH opponent in the Wimby 2003 finale I am sure he would have lost, and he might have turned into another Ivanisevic, Lendl or Murray, losing slam finale after slam finale. His mental weakness took him a while to fix – with a lot of luck, whereas Nadal was mentally stable from the very beginning, from his mid-teens even.The next slam finale Federer played was against Safin who was EXHAUSTED at the AO 2004 after having won THREE 5-setters out of his 4 previous matches (against Martin, Roddick and Agassi, plus a 4-setter against Blake - a ridiculously tough draw back then no matter the seeding). Again, a lot of luck for Federer. By the time he played his third slam finale he had finally built enough confidence to actually believe he was invincible – which he was at this point coz all the other top 10 players were either aging legends or zeros.And then came Nadal and poked holes in his bubble in 2005, and then burst it totally by 2008.After Djokovic won Wimby this year everyone was predicting a bunch of slams for him, except me. I was telling everyone that this one is either his last slam or he might win 2-3 more at most (which of course isn’t bad at all). The way he lost to Nishikori at USO this year makes me think his slam-winning days are over. He seems to have many up-and-down matches in the crucial stages, i.e. QFs, SFs and Fs in slams recently, and these low points cost him many matches and titles. Very simply put, if Djokovic fails to win the Aussie Open next year - his best slam by far - I will be almost convinced that he has only one more slam in him, probably one on hardcourt, or that he will stay at 7. I used to be sure he’d win the FO eventually until this year. Now I am not so sure anymore. He seems to also become mentally weaker with age.Cilic will stay a one-slam player. Nishikori blew his only chance, so he will most likely not win one.Wawrinka just like Cilic is definitely a late bloomer but he won the AO due to Nadal’s injury, period. The fact that Nadal still managed to win a set, and lead their H-to-H 12-0 without a lost set speaks volumes about how easily Nadal would have won that finale.Cilic played brilliantly, but got lucky: no Rafa, and a weak Djokovic that he didn't have to play. Novak would have beat Cilic in the finale, I have no doubts at all, just look at their H-to-H and how afraid of Novak Cilic is, which might have a bit to do with the added pressure of having to play a Serb in a huge match. He grabbed his only ever chance, and also helped us understand that Kei isn’t slam-champ material – at all. I always suspected that Kei can't do it, especially due to the many injuries. Neither is Raonic capable of winning a slam, while we’re at it. If he wins one then even Donald Duck can do it. Dimitrov will win one eventually.Cilic also got lucky for not getting more than 3 months suspension. I don’t buy that bullshit about him unintentionally taking that substance, at all. Rusedski got off that way as well. These guys have EXCELLENT lawyers, the best money can buy. If Cilic was innocent, WHY did he quit Wimbledon 2013 the moment he found out he was caught? Innocent people don’t react that way.The USO has also showed us once again that French players - whether ethnically French or black - are mentally the weakest on the tour and that will never win a slam. I don't see a French player winning a slam for another 100 years, that's how hopeless they are. Like all people who boast, they have very little to back it up with. They have the talent and plenty of it, but are metal weaklings like no other.All in all, this year was totally perverted by Nadal’s injuries. I.e. the slam winners could have looked a LOT different. I don’t think he would have won 3, but he would have won 2 for sure.In any case, 4 different slam winners in a year is essentially what the ATP needs, but not in this way, through Rafa’s injuries. And certainly not by having a caught DOPER winning a slam.
There's no denying the fact that Nadal is one of tennis all time greats. But a close analysis at his career shows the bulk of his success have come on clay. He's won 5 Slams outside clay and 8 Master 1000 outside of clay which is a great achievement. But 9 French Opens and 19 Clay Masters 1000 show an imbalance of success achieved on clay compared to the other surfaces. One of the main reasons Nadal has won a Grand Slam and Master 1000 for 10 years has been due to his incredible ability to win trophy after trophy with very few loses coming on clay. That is 70% of his overall trophy collection coming on clay. Outside of Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid and Roland Garros, he has failed to defend any hard or grass Slam or Master 1000. If Nadal skipped all tournaments and only played Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid and Ronald Garros each year, he would have enough points to qualify for the World Tour Finals. Thats how impressive he is on clay. Now lets look at his Davis Cup Singles Record. Nadal has a 21-1 record which is unheard of. But of those 21 Wins, 18 have come on clay. Outside of clay, it seems Nadal doesn't bother playing when it comes to Davis Cup. Take all his titles outside of clay and he still would have more Slams and Masters 1000 than most tennis greats. Of Nadals 64 titles, 45 have been won on clay. In fact he has a 45-7 winner-runner up record on clay title matches and 16-18 winner-runner up record of hard court title matches which in fact is a Negative. He also owns a 3-3 winner-runner up record on grass title matches which is even. Nadal has also lost 4 times in the Miami Master 1000 title match. Nadal has not lost that many title matches on any clay tournament. If Nadal wins more Slams, I can see him winning a few more French Open Titles but probably only 1 Slam outside of the French Open.
Your point is utterly pointless, because you are treating clay as if it isn't tennis, or as if it's fake tennis, pseudo-tennis or semi-tennis. I've already covered that particular fedtardian logic flaw in the text. Re-read it, and try to understand it this time around.
There's no denying the fact that Fed is one of tennis all time greats.But a close analysis at his career shows the bulk of his success have come on hard.He's won 1 slam outside hard and grass and 6 master 1000 outside of hard which is a bad achievement.But 9 hard hard slams and 17 hard masters 1000 show an imbalance of success achieved on hard compared to clay carpet and wood.One of the main reasons Fed has won so many trophies due to his incredible ability to win trophy after trophy with very few loses coming on hard.THAT'S 75% of his overall trophies collection on hard.Outside of hard,he has faild to defend any clay or clay slam or master 1000.If Fed skipped all tournaments and only played clay each year,he wouldn't have enough points to qualify for the what the fuck [WTF] finals.Take all Pederer titles outside of hard and he has 1 clay slam and 6 masters 1000.Of Pederer 82 titles,56 have been won on hard.In fact is a negative.Pederer has not lost that many title matches on any hard tournaments.How u feelin now?
Federer dominated 2004-2007. Nadal 2008 & 2010. Djokovic 2011, 2012 and probably this year too. How Nadal best of this era? And Nadal has been getting a lot of injuries because of poor physio or whatever reason. No one can get injured that many times. Just look at the Arsenal football team. Players injured from Day 1. And team like Bayern Munich, no injuries. It comes down to poor player management. Just like Nadal.
Do any of you fedtards ever READ anything you criticize?For the BILLIONTH time: I never said Nadal was the best of this era or any era. This text is about your God Federer NOT being the Best Ever. Is that so difficult to understand? No wonder populist politicians are on the rise again - just look at the masses of asses who get to vote in every election. It's a safe bet that most fedtards vote for them.Love the retarded Arsenal/Bayern analogy. So stupid it's almost funny.
I never buy the scenario that Nadal would have won more slams if he hadn't withdrawn from majors due to injury. I've always seen his playing style as unsustainable and his injuries are self-inflicted. It is definitely is not 'catastrophic bad luck' (other than at the AO final last year). Its unfair to say Federer got lucky to win some of his slams and clay tournaments because his most competitive rival was out of form/wounded. Federer preserved his body to play over 60 consecutive majors whilst his main rivals haven't been able to. The weak era as many call it is very interesting. Comparing it to the current state of tennis, consistent opponents are not necessarily more challenging. The more matches you play against an opponent, the more secrets about their weapons, weaknesses and shot selection trends are exposed. Federer and Nadal matches are more predictable now because they've been playing for over a decade. Nadal goes into every encounter against Berdych with a 99% percent chance of winning it. It is the same story with the Federer and Ferrer matchup. Federer's era had a range of different players with different playstyles, so it's fair to say he's been tested at every level.
Fair enough. Not everyone is able to draw obvious and correct conclusions from tons of evidence. It's this kind of rigid, biased mentality that gave OJ Simpson the "not guilty" verdict 20 years ago. You would have been a marvelous juror for any serial-killer, they'd just love you. I've only given you dozens of facts to support my claim, but if that isn't enough, more power to you. Delusion is a character trait like any other. Who's to say it's any worse than being rational?Evidently, you'd made up your mind before you even read this article, like so many others. If indeed you did read more than 15%.Your implication that style of play dictates longevity - as a rule - is asinine. Thomas Muster destroyed his body playing the way he did, and yet he rarely struggled with serious injuries brought on from tennis. On the other hand, Delpo plays with fluid, almost effortless strokes and yet a wrist injury has pretty much ruined his career. I can give you many other examples of "elegant" players being ruined by injuries and vice versa, rough-and-tough players being able to play for years without major injuries. If you truly think that there is such a thing as "elegant running" that preserves your bones and ligaments (and defies all the laws of biology and gravity) as opposed to "spastic running", then you obviously don't play tennis (or any other demanding sport) yourself on an even remotely serious level (or at all) hence you haven't got the sense of the game or a sense of athleticism. You only know what you read here and there - and voila! Another "expert opinion"is born. I've been following tennis for 30 years, I didn't just one day decide to write this text based on some hear-say or some fanboy nonsense.To actually believe that luck had nothing to do with 60 consecutive majors is truly mind-blowing. You actually believe that Federer had this master-plan of not getting injured, or at least you imply it. "Federer preserved his body" you say, as though there is some AMAZING PLAN you can develop to stay away from injuries. He would be the first to tell you that he was much luckier than the average player.Your "fact" that Federer had to play against a "wider range of players" is something you simply took out of your ass.There is no evidence for this, just a blatantly self-serving argument to "protect" Federer. Your silly argument that Ferrer and Berdych get beaten because they play so often, well I don't know what to say to that. Pretty silly. As if the advantage of learning about the other's weaknesses doesn't go both ways - or are you implying that Berdych and Ferrer and their coaches are utter cretins unable to learn from their mistakes? Or perhaps you think they lack the games to beat Federer and Nadal more often than once in a blue moon. They don't. They simply aren't mentally strong, that's all.As for the WEAK ERA being interesting, only a Federer fan could say that. You've given yourself away with that. I.e. you're just another fedtard, hence your opinion on this complex subject is meaningless, because devoid of objectivity. Still, it was fun responding to nonsense. There is a certain pleasure to be obtained from posts such as yours.
Well thank you for your reply, I don't like to stand strong on one perspective of a topic because I do hold many but it was interesting to read your reply. I confess I'm a Federer fan but no fanboy/Fedtard that takes their low spirits to Twitter after every loss. There is a difference and if my initial post gave you the wrong impression, that's my fault.What I should have should said is that multiple factors can determine longevity. Style of play can be an influence, but season scheduling is another which complements it. Have you noticed that Nadal's three major injury breaks in the past 5,6 years have all taken place right after Wimbledon? Why is that? My theory is that he overloads his schedule in the clay court season to the grass. Back to back Monte Carlo and Barcelona, back to back Madrid and Rome and then Halle straight after Roland Garros. No surprises when he lost against Kohlschreiber and Brown. You can't fault Nadal for overloading his clay season because it is undoubtedly his best surface and where he feels the most confident on. But it is the most physical surfance and his defensive play adds up to his body strain. It is not plausible to confirm his wrist injury last year was generated by his clay season battles. But his knee tendinitis from 2009 and 2012 definitely were. Tendinitis is not an injury that flames up suddenly. It develops as more wear and tear is produced. Ferrer has a similar clay court tournament appearance trend to Nadal - usually 4 in the lead-up to Roland Garros. Obviously he doesn't play as many matches as Nadal. But since when did Ferrer have to withdraw after Wimbledon? I don't want to draw a conclusion but I think his style of play doesn't exert as much pressure on his knees as Nadal.One of things experts have praised Federer for is his smart scheduling. That appends to his longevity. You could bring Agassi into the topic as Agassi skipped the Australian Open 9 times at the start of his pro career which isn't necessarily a determining element in his longevity, but it very well could have been. I'm interested to read your reply, as you seem like a person that knows his tennis and has been a 'verteran' viewer.
P1First of all, Ferrer plays just as "un-elegantly" as Nadal, if not more so. That's something pretty much everyone would agree on, including Ferrer himself. If you look at how many tournaments Ferrer - who is 3 years older - plays, and how many matches, he would have to get injured at least as often as Nadal, but he doesn't. It has nothing to with preparation, ALL top pros prepare very well, and have tons of experts around them. Nor can anyone manipulate the yearly schedule to suit them. When you actually compare Ferrer and Nadal's clay schedules, you will find that Nadal only plays a few matches more, hardly a huge difference in terms of time and energy spent on court. As for Nadal's injury breaks, of course many started after the FO - logical. But how many top players from the past (many of whom had grueling schedules) would have that many long injury breaks, while being top 3 players? You can't name any, because there weren't any. He is pretty much the only top player in the history of the game with this many setbacks. To imply that the reason for this is his schedule, or overplaying or whatever, is silly, because MANY before him had similar schedules. This is Nadal's extreme bad luck. As lucky as your hero Federer has been, that much unlucky Nadal has been, they're complete opposites in this sense - a huge factor in why your idol has 3 slams more than Nadal, which anyone with half a brain cell would notice would have been very different if luck had been split evenly between them.
P2To assign all of that to "smart planning" is silly and a typical over-simplification that true tennis experts don't deal with. People always prefer the easy and simple answers. Federer fans are so dashed by the fact that he speaks many languages (which is actually typical of Swiss people and also the Dutch, for example, not to mention people from mixed marriages who lived all over the world), and that he walks around strutting like a fashion model, and plays that whole charade/role of the sophisticated globe trotter, that they somehow start injecting other invented "superior" character traits into him, such as some fictional amazing ability to "plan" a schedule in such a way as to avoid injuries. If it were that easy everyone would be playing the same schedule as Federer. And let's face it, top players' schedules do NOT differ much since the 90s. Federer doesn't actually play Wimbledon in Winter.Lest we forget, during his "invincible" years (the WEAK ERA which you found so exciting) he played a gargantuan number of matches, in which he did actually run... with legs... for many hours, just like any other human. Yes, he IS human, not an alien, or some mastermind tactician who had devised a secret way to play 100 matches in a year and avoid injury. No, he's simply being lucky. What part of "luck" fedtards don't understand is something I don't quite understand. Even small children know what it means.Also, if you actually bothered to look at the entire text I wrote (as opposed to skimming through it) you would have noticed the large number of Australian Opens that Nadal either had to skip due to an injury BEFORE the event, or had to play injured or had to give up in a match due to injury. I won't tell you how many Aussie Opens were affected through his absence because I would like you to actually find that part in the text by yourself. Considering that he reached the finals there 3 times, won once (almost twice) should tell you how he could have caught up with Federer just by not being injured in that one slam.This neatly ruins your notion that all his missed slams were a direct result of dense clay seasons. As you can see, many of his injuries stemmed from right before the season started, when most players - in theory - should be fresh, and 7 months after the clay season.A player who held the record of straight slams played before Federer broke it was Santoro. A player who never made it into the top 10. Did he have a master plan? No. Yet I don't see people clamoring to talk about his "amazing schedule" mastermind plan.Additionally, it is MUCH easier to have a dense clay season than a dense hardcourt season due to the nature of these surfaces.may have ruined his legs even earlier. The fact that he played so much on clay may have helped him preserve his ligaments longer. In the 90s hardcourt matches were much shorter than in the modern era. The argument that hardcourt preserves the body compared to clay would only have logic if modern-era hardcourt matches weren't also extremely physical, only marginally less so than clay ones.
P3Agassi missing so many AOs is proof of his youthful stupidity, not an explanation of his longevity. If you actually followed Andre's career, you would have noticed that he basically ditched a lot of the 1996 season, essentially didn't play the 1997 season, and struggled with a back injury for the last few years he played, which is why he quit. He also had a serious wrist injury in 1993 which pretty much ruined most of that season for him - something we don't see in Federer's career. His longevity had more to do with those mid-90s when he essentially took one and a half years off, plus the fact that as a mega-talent he didn't have to struggle much to beat all those weak "top 10" clowns which Federer also easily beat during the game's ridiculously weak 2002-2007 era. Had Agassi been fit, he would have had even more success, because aside from Federer there were very few players worthy of mention from that period.
hey, please give me your thoughts on one of the highest quality Grand Slams Finals in history ie. Roland Garros 2015.i'm glad Wawrinka destroyd that shitty "wait for UE" game of djokovic's. don't get me wrong, djokovic can play offence but he is a more naturally talented defender in tennis. i don't think anybody wud put him in either Federer/Wawrinka's class of Attacking tennis.waiting for UE probably also explains his 8-8 record in Major Finals. if u r NOT gonna go for it, the opponent WILL!& what r your predictions for the Wimbledon & US Open?seeing how WEAK tennis is right now ie. nole winning Aus Open & 4 Masters, he will STILL get LIFELINES for the remaining Majors this year which is pathetic.
Do you even realize you’re asking a Serb to give you an objective appraisal - even a critical one - on Novak who also just happens to be the dominant no. 1 player in recent years?Just kidding. I will answer this as objectively as I can.I think you’re very mistaken about Djokovic and attacking tennis. I find both his offense and his defense among the best the game has ever seen. In fact, at his best, Djokovic is about as good as tennis gets, in terms of power, efficiency, speed, court coverage etc. He isn’t a ball-pusher by any means, and to pigeon-hole him into that would be insane. (I mean, have you ever seen Bruguera play?) In fact, steady defensive play is the norm in modern tennis. Even Federer plays very long rallies very frequently. I don’t see Federer having won many slams if he had been a Sampras-type player, not a chance. In fact, Wawrinka – two years older than Djokovic – has 6 slams less, precisely (partially) because his tennis is too offensive. Stan simply blasts away, almost like Blake or Gonzalez, and it either works or it doesn’t. He was fortunate to catch a good blasting week (2nd week of FO) and especially a great bombardment-day in the finale, otherwise he would have lost. He just hit every bomb and there’s nothing anyone can do against that when a bomber player reaches that sort of zone. He would have wiped off any other player that day. I’ve also heard that Novak was struggling with flu or flu-like symptoms during the 2nd week. Dunno how true this is, coz Novak has been known to play around with his injuries and whatever to throw off opponents.As for the 8-8, he used to be 5-2 in the early part of his slam-winning days (07-12), and has gone from that to 3-6 in the last 9 finales, giving him the – for his standards - fairly mediocre overall 8-8. So it can’t have anything to do with attack or defense, coz he’s been playing pretty much the same way during 2011-2012 (4-1 in slam finales) as he’s been doing since then – with much less slam-finale success, which has more to do with a resurgent Nadal and a peaking Murray (e.g. 2013) and flailing self-confidence in Novak.Nor is the win-loss ratio in slam finales any kind of ultimate judge of greatness or who “goes for it” in the attacking sense or not. Connors, one of the biggest fighters ever, has a 8-7, hardly impressive. Agassi, an aggressive baseliner, has also only 8-7. Becker, who attacked and attacked relentlessly, has a 2-4 in Wimbledon finales (back then the by far fastest slam). Edberg, who was arguably the most stubborn attacker ever (never had a plan B), has a 6-5 in slam finales, including a negative score of 1-2 against Courier who was a defender, compared to him at least. Nadal, who does play defensively or at least much more than Novak, has a 14-6 in slam finales which is a staggering ratio, including a 6-2 against the more aggressive Federer. So this theory about “going for it” by attacking more does not hold water at all.
Wawrinka has been “going for it” his whole career, but only now has he managed to put it all together into a superb winning combination. And even there he had a measure of luck that even Federer could envy him for (must be something in that Swiss water, or they just sign pacts with the Devil), coz the Aussie Open finale against Nadal saw Stan as a slam-finale rookie known for mental weakness play against a weakened opponent. Had Rafa been 100% fit that day, no way in hell would Stan have won that finale. And if Stan hadn’t won that, he would have gone into the FO finale with far less confidence and much more pressure to win, and we’ve seen Stan crumble under pressure very often. So, it’s important to put Stan’s 2 slams into perspective. Murray’s 2 slams are sort of much more worth, because there was bad luck on his side, and he had played shitloads of finales to finally get those, and none of his opponents were injured at all. One thing is for sure, Novak will never win the French. He is truly cursed. I thought he’d take it this year, and I’ve said if he doesn’t, he never will. Especially with a loss such as this. I’ve checked statistics, and it turns out that in the entire Open Era, no other player has been more deserving of a specific slam win than Novak being deserving of winning FO. Why? Because he’s now got 3 finales, 4 semis and 2 quarters. This is unprecedented in one single slam. Not even Borg at the USO (with 4 finales but not much else) or Murray with 0-4 at AO come close. Novak not winning FO will be his personal career nightmare – inasmuch as one can even speak of nightmares for a man who’s won literally everything else (we won’t count that US M1000, coz he’s likely to win that eventually anyway, nor do I give Olympic gold any special status).Men’s tennis has been in the shits for over a decade now. Technically, it has improved a lot, but competitively it’s a dud. To say it’s “weak” is an understatement. I’ve compiled a shitload of statistics comparing the competitive 90s with the uncompetitive 00s/10s, and the difference is staggering. Some of that data you can find on my “101 Things You Ought To Know About Tennis” list. Novak broke several new records this year, and this in spite of the fact that nearly EVERY men’s tennis record has been broken since around 2005. I’ve always said that records get broken easily when the competition isn’t there. Records means domination and domination means too few players playing on a high level.
I have no clue about Wimbledon and US Open. Novak has a pitiful 2-4 slam finale record in the middle slams, so he isn’t a shoe-in for Wimby at all. In fact, he struggled to win both his titles there, more than he usually does. He is the favourite, but having lost the FO finale will damage his confidence for sure. Can Federer do it? Let’s hope not. He’s been lucky enough to win 17 instead of a more realistic 10-11, and to have a winner aged 34 would be insult to injury to this pathetic crop of new players. Well… “new”. Nishikori and Dimitrov are hardly spring chickens, are they? In the ATP a spring chicken used to be a player aged 18, but now even 24 year-old talents can’t achieve shit. Again, more on that on my “101” tennis list. Murray? This time Andy has to be taken seriously at Wimbledon. I don’t think he will win it, but he does have a chance. Rafa has absolutely zip chance, as indeed I’d predicted after his 14th slam title that he would never win another in his career. I don’t even expect him in the semis. The others? Forget it. Stan is at his best on hardcourt, to a slightly lesser extent clay, but grass is not his surface, despite his attacking game. The younger players who never even won a M1000 as usual won’t achieve much, other than one or two QFs.The US Open is a tough one, simply because Djokovic SHOULD be winning it every year, and yet he somehow always fucks up. 1-4 in USO finales speaks volumes, plus at least 3 semis. And yet, he has to be the favourite there again, simply because men’s tennis is so poor at the moment. Murray seems to be becoming his old self, but only playing-wise. Mentally, he doesn’t seem to be ripe for a 3rd slam win yet, or in fact maybe ever. Federer is weaker by the year and his 2nd ranking is only due to Rafa’s injuries, Delpo’s absence, Murray’s drop in form etc, and Rafa, as I said, won’t win any more slams. Cilic will lose early probably, Nishikori will get to the semis or something etc.
If people think I'm better at tennis than Roger Federer, they don't know anything about tennis. -Rafael Nadal
I forgot to include this quote - much beloved and often mentioned by fedtards - in the text, as one of many desperate fedtardic arguments that "prove" that Roger is GOAT.Nadal was just being humble. He is well-known for that. Federer isn't. He's too busy printing "RF" caps, shirts and coffee mugs, the self-obsessed, greedy egomaniac that he is. Nadal is the opposite of Sereno Williams. Figure it out, read between the lines. If we were to judge Rafa by his non-boasting, we'd come to the conclusion that he is less relevant than Davydenko in the history of the sport.And then read the entire text. I am sure you merely skimmed it as most fedtards do.
People can hate and analyse all they want. Federer is 1 of the best in history due to the way he plays the game which brings audience and money to the game coupled with amazing consistency. Without him not many people will watch tennis after Sampras era.He promote healthy sports and class.He beats his generation of rivals and plays the game 5 years older than his new rivals.
Bryan, much of this text is about you.You have pretty much ignored everything I've written, religiously "defending" your idol/messiah as only a true fedtard would.It's a good thing to have people like you leave comments such as this, which only goes to prove what kind of a legion of fans he cultivates.
Hello, I really enjoyed reading this article.As for fedtards, I must say that I agree with you completely. They are so toxic for the tennis community. The mighty RF cult made around Federer is so awful.I read above, that you were saying after USO 2014 that Novak would win only one more slam maybe. That seems wrong at this point. He dominated very hard this season, aside of his loss in Paris. So, what are your thoughts after this Wimby? What are his limits? He stated that he can endure physically for many more years to come, it's only question of motivation for him.
Part 1Fedtards aren’t really interested in tennis. If Murray had 17 slams, they’d all be murritards instead, or if Gasquet had won 17 slams they’d all be gasqtards. They’re the sort of people who simply look to latch on to the most successful player – whoever he may be. They don’t give a shit whether that player is likable, or interesting or talented, as if they even knew the difference between a talented stroke and an average stroke, they’re clueless to the most part. Of course, there are also the normal Federer fans, which I do not consider fedtards, who appreciate and respect the talents and achievements of Novak, Rafa, Andy and others. But most Federer fans are deluded lunatics who behave and think more like religious fanatics and hysterical teenie-boppers. Just check out the many comments they posted here, not to mention their YouTube comments and forums nonsense, and you’ll see how disinterested they are in facts i.e. the game itself. They have no interest in the history of the game – yet they claim that their darling is GOAT. Ironically, they live in the past, focusing only on Roger’s 17 slams, and ignoring current achievements of younger slam champions.As for Novak, I was obviously wrong. I predicted one more slam at the most, and yet already he’s got two this year alone. I can’t remember whether I explained why I thought he wouldn’t win more than 7-8 slams in his career. I think it’s because he has the tendency to lose slam finales often, to underperform in them, and the fact that approaching 30 I thought he’d start slowing down with the domination. Maybe also because I was baffled that he’d failed to win yet another USO, losing to Nishikori of all people, a tournament that he should have won several times by now. Evidently, even though I have the highest respect for his talent and professionalism, I underestimated him – or perhaps overestimated his opponents.Some journalist wrote recently that Nadal and Federer combined only won 3 slams once they reached the age of 28 – Novak’s current age. Certainly it looks 90% as if Nadal will never pick up another M1000 title, let alone another slam. I don’t even see Nadal reaching any more slam semifinales, he’s become that weak. Federer I hope doesn’t win any more precisely because he’d won so many in the Weak Power Vacuum Era, i.e. he has already won way more slams than he deserves to have.As for Djokovic’s limit, who knows. The young crop of players are still showing no signs of becoming full-fledged professionals, nor do I see many huge talents there, or at least players being anywhere close to being as complete as he is. If Djokovic stays uninjured and motivated, he truly could stay no. 1 for another 2-3 seasons, which could mean anywhere from 2-3 additional slams to maybe as many as 5 more.
Part 2Can he reach 14? Very doubtful, on one hand, simply because he is not efficient enough in slam finales – although, he has now won 3 of his last 4 slam finales, i.e. perhaps he is now hitting a groove and is about to reach Nadal-like levels of slam-finale efficiency, which he definitely needs in order to reach 14. On the other hand, let’s not forget that Agassi won 5 out of his 8 slams at the age of 29 and later. If Agassi could win 5 slams in a tougher era than this one, and an era in which players aged 30 were washed-up and very rarely won anything big, then why shouldn’t Novak achieve something similar in an era in which guys aged 28 or more make up most of the top 10?Nick Bolletieri, who’s opinions I respect, has stated a few weeks ago that Djokovic is the “only complete player” he’s seen in the last 5 years. And I agree that Novak “has no weaknesses” in his game. He practically plays perfect tennis and at his best he is simply unbeatable. If his confidence rises due to the 3rd Wimbledon title, he might become unstoppable.But the question remains, which and how many slams can he win per season – assuming he maintains this level a few more years? AO is almost a shoe-in. Being 5-0 in AO finales gives him such supreme confidence that I would bet on him every time, against any opponent there. I assume he will win at least one more title there.FO is the complete opposite, in a sense. Until this year, I was convinced he would eventually win it. But after a 3rd finale loss there, I don’t think he will complete the Slam. If he doesn’t, his place alongside Nadal and Federer is questionable, even though Federer won his FO through Nadal’s injury, not because he deserves it.W is a slam he can win again, for sure. Being 3-1 in finales there, and having beaten the Fed two years in a row, his confidence there will approach AO levels. Another W title is quite likely.USO is the big question mark. Can he finally break his string of near-hits and win there this year, or will he screw up yet again in the semis or finale? He’s been reaching at least the SF at the USO since 2007 – yet only won it once. To me, this USO will be a big indicator as to how far he can go with his slam wins. Should he win it, then he could become a monster who destroys everyone in his path and starts winning slam after slam. Should he not win it yet again, then I see “only” AO and W as potential trophies for every season he plays henceforth. Although, I am sure he and his fans would be more than happy to “just” have him collect those 2 every year.So to me, the most interesting thing about Djokovic’s slam career is whether he will remain a player who wins AO and W, and almost never USO and FO, or whether he will finally break the barrier that makes him so much weaker in those two slams as compared to the other two. At the AO and W finales he is 8-1. At the FO and USO finales he is 1-7. This, despite the fact that he is an all-rounder who plays well in all slams.
I've seen Fed's fans that are really tennis fans and I admire them really, but thera are much more fedtards unfortunately.Aggasi won 5 slams after he turned 29, which is quite remarkable and I dont think that era was stronger than the current one. Those were the years 1999-2003. You said that had been the mini weak power vacuum era. Those were the years Sampras and Agassi dominated the youngsters and the years when Hewitt won slams and finished at the rank 1 twice. Honestly I am Novak's fan, I've been watching him from season 2005 but I try to be objective. And I have to agree on those Bollettieri's words that Novak is the most complete player. He has no obvious weakness. It's quite extraordinary that he had such a good record in Ausie and Wimby finals, but such bad record in USO and FO. One thing that doesn't work for him are weather conditions. In Australia, finals are played in the evening session. In London the temperature doesn't go above 25 degrees too often. In New York, conditions can be tricky, either high temeratures or strong wind. Let's remember 2012 finals versus Murray, if wind didn't blow so hard the outcome of the final would be diffirent probably. French Open is totally sad story for him, although I believe that he will win it someday. Next year, or the year after, who knows...He broke the curse of the Nadal, and honestly I think he can win against Nadal in every tournament right now. Even if Nadal rises his form, Novak will be overwhelming favorite in this matchup. Even if Novak doesn't win FO ever, that will not change his status as one of the greatest players ever. But yeah, he would be probably the best clay court player not to win FO, which is very sad to me even to think about. I don't know what is up with USO, he has been in 8 semifinals in row so far, but only 1 title. In 2007-2009 he was losing to Federer, who was in the best shape, while Novak was very young and not good enough (but matches were close). In 2010 he lost to Rafa who was in amazing form, he was serving best in his life, and defeat was expected, but the fight was good too. 2012 as I wrote above, he lost to first time slam champ Murray, wind was big factor in this match (many tennis experts would agree with that conclusion). 2013 was really year that Novak should have won the USO. He lost in mental approach. Novak was in slump after that heartbreaking loss in FO. Really hard loss. That's the main reason he didn't finish the year as number 1, or didn't win another slam that year. But he rose again and returned to his place as the best in the world. 2014 cannot be explained really easy, even I don't know to say what happened vs Nishikori. Although I admire Nishikori very much, he is so talented, but Novak shouldn't afford to himself to lose so big match. Shit happens. As for future, I don't think AO is sure win, he has to work hard to win there again, though he will have enough confidence to do it again. Many people expect to see his decline right after he turns 29 or 30. I really don't know why that age is so important. Novak said many times, how professional he is. Even Miljan Amanovic, his physio, recently said that Novak has left 3-5 years on top of his abilities. If all that is true, and he stays healthy, we can expect that he holds number one for 3 more years (I think noone is consistent enough to challenge his number 1 spot). Realistically speaking, he should continue winning 2 slams per average for the next 2-3 seasons, and he could potentially catch up Rafa. But that's all future and we cannot know what will happen. Maybe Rafa comes back stronger than ever (I doubt it). I think Rafa will come back to top 5. I would love to see face expressions on fedtards if Nole or anyone else catches up Fed's mighty record of 17 slams. We'll see what happens next. I'm really hyped, I cannot wait for the USO.
Excellent analysis, I would agree with at least 90% of it.You made a good point about the wind, except that it can only be used as an explanation, not as an excuse. I believe Novak wouldn't have 5 Aussies if it weren't for the night sessions which he nearly always plays. If every slam were windless, night session and not hot, Djokovic would have 15 slams by now.As for FO, he doesn't have to win it to be one of the greats - he already is, regardless of what fedtards claim - but if he stays no1 for a couple of seasons more he may have a small chance of winning it. I say small, because he seems to tighten up at that major in semis and finales.The 1999-2003 era was not as strong as the Big 4 era AT THE TOP. But when one looks at the density of quality players in the top 100, it was a stronger era than everything after it, especially the last 5 years which seem to feature the worst generation of young players in Open Era.For more details about how bad these young players are, go to my 101 Things You Ought To Know About Tennis list.
You could also use the example of Tommy Haas while explaining your "Federer had luck" and "Power Vacuum" theories.I've always used David Nalbandian as a prime example of how that era's top players were weak, despite being talented. I chose Nalbandian over Safin, as Nalbandian was way more versatile and less of a bomber than that hot-headed Russian politician. I usually demonstrated how Nalbandian was basically Federer without the physical discipline. (Physical discipline is another crucial factor in gauging the strength of an era of top players, especially in one which is so homogenized and attritional)Anyway, to my point: I didn't know that there was another one as talented as Nalbandian/Federer, and less prone to physical and mental meltdowns like them, until I read an article on Haas today In mid-2002, he was ranked no.2 in the world behind Hewitt, and was probably on the cusp of slam glory, if he had stayed with his momentum.Unfortunately, and rather tragically, he almost lost his parents in a motorcycle accident in July 2002, and took the next 12 months off to take care of them.When he came back, he promptly injured his shoulder because it was probably too soon for his body to get used to top-flight tennis., and never regained his consistency. And as it went, the "great" Federer's master evil plan to dominate all life on the ATP, while keeping superior fitness levels to his peers, was complete.
A decent analysis, but I would also add that Haas has shown mental weakness throughout his career, including the pre-2002 period. And that's a major point. Not only did Federer's generation (plus minus 2-3 years younger/older players) not have many truly great players, but those that were talented weren't anywhere nearly as committed to tennis perfection as Federer - and later Djokovic and Nadal. Also, many of them were chokers, nowhere nearly as confident as Rafa or Novak.More and more people are realizing that Federer's 2004-2007 reign is overrated for this very reason. And many have realized that there is no such thing as the GOAT. It's an absurd concept.
It is very irritating that people don't get this, and harp about "17" with such mind-numbing absolutism. Like they even know how much more diifcult it was for Agassi to achieve his Career GS than it was for Nadal and Federer.I'd still like to point out that Haas had a 2-1 record over Safin, 3-0 over Roddick, and a 5-5 on par with Sampras, and most importantly a 2-1 over the Ballerina. Though these can be construed as an impotent "weak vs weak" non-issue, it could indicate that Federer wouldn't have had it as easy if Haas had stayed on the ATP, or his parents had not got into that accident. I was impressed by how Haas made a late comeback in 2012-14, so I'm, rather sympathetically, giving him points for "potential tennis perfection". Beating Federer at the fastest surface on Halle, past your prime, is not indicative of mediocrity.(But I admit, I haven't seen much of his earlier matches, like his Olympic final loss to Kafelnikov, or his losses at the Aussie, so you must be right about it)
Haas lost to Gonzalez and Kafelnikov in straight sets in his Aussie semis (plus the 5 setter against Safin in another), and lost his Wimbledon semis also in straight sets. That's 3 out of 4 GS semis in straight sets. Was Kafelnikov that much better than Tommy? No. Let alone Gonzalez. Haas simply didn't have the ability to kick ass when it was most important, namely deep into the majors. I think his H2H against slam champs in slams is quite poor, if I'm not mistaken. So while the overall H2Hs may be impressive against certain slam champs, he failed to beat them often when it mattered most.Also, to show you how mentally weak Haas was, he lost his first 3 tour finals, to players of lesser caliber, which isn't exactly the hallmark of a future majors champ. He only managed to win the 4th because Jim Courier was injured in the finale, otherwise he may have waited even longer for his first finale win.But I do agree that he is amazing, i.e. the many comebacks he had made. That takes resilience and toughness.Agassi collecting all 4 slams was much more difficult than Rafa or Roger doing it. McEnroe put it well when he said that "nowadays, the slam surfaces are homogenized, much more similar speed than before". And this is why the Big 4 are so consistent from slam to slam, or at least one of the reasons. In the 90s FO and W were like two different games. But do fedtards know or understand this? They don't.
When Haas beat Courier to win his first trophy, he was 1-3 in finals, and then proceeded to lose his 5 next finales, making it 1-8. At that point he didn't look like a future slam champ. But interestingly enough, he then won 12 out of the next 13 finals, beating Sampras, Djokovic and Federer in the finales, which is impressive and speaks for his talent. So this shows that it took him a while to become confident, he doesn't have an innate confidence the way Rafa or Novak do.
Well... Articles like this one are the only reason why I am (in your words) "fedtard". Until I started reading them, he was just in my top10 after ones like Roddick, Novák or Berdych, thanks to you is now #1. You're doing great job man!I don't have time nor energy to argue with you, so just two things.Federer reaching GS final must be in his prime (because he is reaching GS final), however Agassi reaching GS final is old, close to retire and no force at all. Really?And most importantly: When you are arguing that Fed is not the GOAT, you have to say who is. It is not enought to say he cannot be goat because... GOAT does not mean perfect player, player without flaw. It means only better, greater than others. Is Nadal better than Fed? In your opinion? If so, is there anybody better than him? If not, he is your GOAT and you should rather defend him then assault Federer.If you want to prove Fed cannot be GOAT, you have to find better choise and defend it. It is only way you can deny Fed's claim for GOAT. This whole article says nothing at all about it.
Part 1I love posts from fedtards who pretend not to be fedtards. My favourite type. Please send me another text, but this time pretend that you’re a Rafa fan as well.Of course you loved Roddick and Berdych far more than Federer before you read this text. Everyone reading your rant will believe it, surely. After all, the number of people who supported Roddick and Berdych over Federer ran and runs in its trillions, as we all know. Claiming this text convinced you that Federer was GOAT is like saying “after analyzing the history of Europe, I am more than ever convinced that there were no wars there ever”. You reek of desperation, fedtard, and you’re fooling nobody here. Your belief system has been shaken, and you hate me for it. Right? Losing your religion? You should be. Fairy-tales are for kids, not adults.“I don't have time nor energy to argue with you, so just two things.” So how long are your goofy, angry rants when you DO have time?Now to the Agassi issue. If you look at Agassi’s last few years on the tour, you will see that he missed FOUR slam events due to injuries between 2004-2006, whereas Fed missed none – so far in his entire career. I addressed both these points, btw – Agassi missing slams and Fed never missing them and being no. 2 - but typically you didn’t really read the text but merely SKIMMED through it – as fedtards tend to – and then decided to post your butthurt for everyone to see. Agassi was ranked only 7th and 8th in his last few “full seasons” (not really full due to injuries) and lost twice in R1 in slams during that period. So no, he was not in his prime, was he. Meanwhile, Fed is ranked no. 2, has no injuries, reaches at least the semis or quarters in nearly all of his slams recently, gave Novak a tough match in the finales of Wimbledon, hence 2015 is still part of his prime.
Part 2By definition, fedtard, you cannot be ranked 2nd in the world yet be “way past your prime”, as you fedtards like to so dramatically describe it. It’s not my fault that you fedtards think that if Roger isn’t no. 1 that he MUST be past his prime, as if Novak and especially Rafa haven’t already proven that when they play their best tennis, Roger has almost no chance against them i.e. that he is not the best of his era, and certainly not of all eras.Of course, fedtards want to have their cake and eat it too: if Roger wins then it’s “look at him, still playing amazingly at this age!”, but when he loses it’s “this doesn’t count, he is way past his prime, too old!”. Well, I’ve got news for you. Fedtards don’t decide what counts and what doesn’t count, because fedtards aren’t real tennis fans, but a cult-like religious society of misfits and losers who only root for Federer because and when he started dominating in 2004. Where were fedtards in 2003 after he won Wimbledon? Nowhere, because that was “just” one slam title and he didn’t dominate that year (in spite of the fact that he should have, considering how weak the competition was that year), hence fedtards weren’t interested in Federer then. Only when he started raking in slam after slam in the WEAK ERA, did suddenly millions of idiots who otherwise had no interest in tennis suddenly start rooting for this Swiss man. Perhaps you too recognize yourself in this description, which describes at least 80% of his fans.“When you are arguing that Fed is not the GOAT, you have to say who is.” More proof that you didn’t read the text. Admit it, you didn’t read even 5% of it. You most likely just read the title and then posted your comment.I address this issue in this text. I very clearly state that THERE IS NO GOAT in tennis. I also clearly explain that Rafa is NOT the best player ever, either. Nobody is, nor will anybody ever be. For reasons that I explain – in great detail – in the text. The same text that you didn’t bother to read – because fedtards don’t want to learn. They only want to scream and shout out their idol’s name and the number “SEVENTEEN!” like deranged tennie-boppers.But your punchline wins the SILLIEST FEDTARD ANNUAL AWARD easily. "This whole article says nothing about the GOAT debate". Priceless.
Well, Roger Federer is by far my favourite tennis player of all, but there are many other players I like to watch and admire.After having read almost the entire article, I would say that there are several of your arguments which I don't agree with.Though the important thing is that I totally agree with you in the very bottom line: there is no way to tell who is the GOAT and right now there is probably no one who could really claim that title.I enjoyed reading this and I must congratulate you on having written such a thorough and accurate article, and mostly for having gathered so much data and interesting statistics, also the things to know about tennis list is pretty nice.About the so called "fedtards", as about everyone who acts like that on something else, don't take them too seriously, just take it easy :)
There you go. Fedtards say "biased text" all the time, but here's a RF fan - a normal one - who liked it. That goes to show that the text can be appreciated by all tennis fans, even RF fans, just not fedtards, because to them it's sacrilege to declare Roger not GOAT (the way they gang up on ever former pro who says it is proof), and they hate being called fedtards.
VjetropevThe efforts you have gone to whine about something that a majority believe and the insulting language you use show you are not unbiased but deeply scarred by Federer’s status. I pity you.Some quick points:1. As of today, Federer is GOAT. For three simple reasons. He’s stats + longevity + aesthetics. There might not be points allotted to beauty, as in gymnastics, but it touches the hearts of people and elevates the game. He is like Barcelona. Nadal and Djokovic are like Chelsea. They park the bus and helped by modern strings, scramble their way to survival. 2. I admire Nadal, but his Slam record is lopsided. FACT.3. Nadal has played almost the same era as Federer. 4. FEDERER WAS BEATING, EVEN THRASHING, DJOKOVIC TILL 2012. It’s only after that Djokovic stole a march over him. And HE STILL LABOURS TO WINS OVER FED. A prime time Federer would have beaten him in their last three Slam finals.
See what I mean, dear readers? This is why I do this (among other reasons). To show you comments like these from religious fundamentalist fedtards. There are no words that I can use to convey to you what how confused and childish fedtards are - compared to how much they to this to themselves when they do the talking.He is angry, he is frustrated, perhaps even PMSing, he didn't read the text, and he doesn't have the facts. He says I am biased - but then goes on to spill hate on Nadal and Novak. Amusing, those fedtards.Love the football comparison. Glad he didn't compare them to Stalin and Hitler, which is how fedtards usually see them.
Please continue to respond to these comments - you are hilarious !- I know you get told all the time but you really should do stand up - a brilliant mind... LMAO - you such a waste of a tennis fan... Its really embarrassing for you - Im sure your response will be award winning and unbiased - oh gracious one..- you're an absolute joke. Mayb try and suck it up - or don't . either way it will be funny.
You alright?Here, have a glass of water. I imagine the frustration of watching Roger lose his third consecutive slam finale is still making you a little schizo. Be brave.
Fed's 5-set record is the worst among all time greatshttp://www.menstennisforums.com/2-general-messages/698553-proof-federer-less-fit-than-nadal-djokovic.html#post31536345
number #3 [about surface speeds] pretty much tells the whole story.how sure r u about CLAY being quicker due to lighter balls?i remember only one such year when they decided to use lighter balls & it was 2011 at R.G..
I am not too sure about clay, but from what I've read from various sources, I'd say they probably did something to alter play on clay as well. But the focus must have been grass and especially hard surfaces coz that's where the servebots were destroying the game.And you're right, point 3 about homogenization makes a huge case for nobody being GOAT. The other facts just make the case against GOAT even more unassailable. Of course, fedtards would differ, because they need to believe their idol is best ever, as indeed they only have interest in superlatives and not the game itself.
I took the time to read the entire article. I am more a fan of Federer than Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray, but have been so since 2004 when I saw him play live at the US Open that year, when he was still well short of Sampras' record and no one knew he would break 14. So to characterize all 'Fedtards' as bangwagoners is incorrect. We appreciate the beauty and elegance of his groundstrokes, smooth footwork, and his exceptional shotmaking ability. It can't be denied that no one else can pull off backpedaling inside-out forehands turned into dropshots, tweeners, half-volley return of serves, dropshot returns, smash-winners of smashes, backhand flick passing shots, on anywhere near as consistent a basis, and not just at minor events, but the Grand Slams in semifinals and finals such as vs. Murray at Wimbledon 2015 and Djokovic at US Open 2009. That to me seems like a very legitimate reason to be fan of Federer. I agree that we can't be so reductionist as to narrow the entire discussion to one number - 17 vs 14 vs 10 - and that to compare the achievements of Borg, Laver, and even someone like Connors who was barred from playing all four Majors in a year he won the three others, to those of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are impossible.However, I think you have been reductionist yourself and made a few straw-man arguments. I don't believe anyone ever said Rafa's legendary 9 wins at Roland Garros is anything but legitimate. 5 Slams off clay is an incredible achievement as well. I only give Rafa full credit for all his accomplishments. The argument that Nadal isn't as great off clay as he is on clay doesn't diminish his greatness at all in my opinion. However, it seems very suspect that you would say Federer's favorite surface is hardcourt, instead of grass. Even within hardcourts, there are distinctions and sub-classifications. The Australian Open is Plexicushion while the US Open is DecoTurf. So the point that Nadal "only" has Roland Garros and the 3 Masters 1000 is supposed to be valid, yet you deliberately don't address the fact that Federer has only two possible opportunities every season to play Nadal on his best surface? Halle and Queens happen concurrently, so if Nadal plays Queen instead of Halle, he automatically never gets to face Nadal there his whole career. If Nadal DOES play Halle, he still has to reach Federer in the final, which he couldn't in 2014 due to his early loss to Brown. They've met on slow hardcourts the same number of times as they have on indoors and fast hardcourts, but 15 times on clay and only 3 on grass...? That to me doesn't seem like a balanced surface distribution. Nobody expects a literal even split of surfaces, but the H2H is heavily influenced by the fact 46% of their matchups have occurred on clay and less than 10% on grass for Nadal fans to just sweep under the rug. 17-14 doesn't tell the whole story, absolutely, but neither does 23-10. And age differences will be remembered, as 17-14 certainly will. Connors-Becker was famously 0-6 in favor of Becker, but the age differentially undoubtedly played a role in that.
1. I wrote in one of the points that not all Fed fans were fedtards. You read that as "all". This makes me suspect you are not paying attention to the wording in the text which is very intentional and carefully chosen. After all, I am not a fedtard but a serious journalist blogger of the highest possible quality, just as infallible as RF the God-man-messiah.2. Maybe YOU don't denigrate Rafa's 14 count because 9 are from FO, but many fedtards do just that, all the time. They consider clay inferior, grass superior, which is typical of their extreme bias and religious zealotry. 99% of all fedtards never played tennis beyond the level of a retarded 5 year-old snail, hence have no conception of why and how FO is more difficult to win than other slams.3. The dominant surfaces are hard and clay. I don't like focusing too much on grass because a) NO amateur ever plays on grass, or maybe 0.0001% of them do, the rich ones, and b) the grass season is so small it essentially consists of Wimbledon and nothing else. Of course grass is his best surface, but that's an outdated surface due to the MUCH quicker game that tennis has become and because it's so difficult and expensive to maintain. If it weren't for the English and their autistic traditionalism, we would not even HAVE grass events at the tour.4. You can't compare 3 matches on grass and 15 on clay. The clay season is huge and essentially goes on for most of the year whereas grass is a couple of weeks. Even if Rafa always did well on grass, they'd still have a LOT more matches on clay. This is related to what I wrote in point 3 of my response here. Grass is outdated. Every kid in Europe plays on clay, NONE of them play on grass. THAT should be a factor also - or do you want the tour to be totally alienated from how regular amateurs play tennis and what they play it on? Besides, didn't I show you numbers that prove that even without clay matches Fed doesn't come CLOSE to dominating Rafa?5. Considering how outdated grass is - barely played - and how widespread clay is (covers all of Europe almost), don't you think it's unfair that there is an EQUAL number of slams on clay and grass? 1 on clay, 1 on grass. This also proves that slam-wise RF is NOT put at a disadvantage to Rafa because each have an equal number of slams on their favourite surface - and the fact that CLAY is THE surface in the world (next to hard) whereas grass is NOWHERE, how fair or representative is the tour?5. To me, the homogenization and Old Eras arguments are ENOUGH on their own. Whoever isn't convinced by that alone has no business participtaing in the GOAT debate - as indeed there shouldn't even be a GOAT debate because there is no GOAT and never will be, but since the masses are so hell-bent on superlatives (because they think like children) I needed to write this article up to teach you all a thing or two about facts, history and common sense.
That 5 should be a 6.Not that most fedtards would notice it.Thanks for your comment. It was more intelligent than most RF fan comments.
What are your views on Djokovic's 10 slams as well as beating Federer at the US Open, his second multislam season of winning 3 majors and whether he can reach 14 - 17 slams. I must admit I did not think he would reach double digits this year, I thought he would have burned out after Wimbledon and especially since he lost two m1000 finals to Murray and Federer. How do you see his career panning out and where would you rank Novak in the all time list, personally for me he is a top 5 player due to what he has achieved and how he has achieved it.
I think for one thing it is fascinating that he has FOUR years of a gap between his two 3-of-4 slam years, 2011 and 2015, which is an Open Era first, while managing to maintain a one-slam-per-year constant in-between. To peak in such a way so wide apart is an achievement few discuss. Federer did something similar by holding 3 slams in 2009-2010 but that was purely a result of Rafa's 2009 injury. As usual, Novak gets his records by beating opponents rather than waiting for them to get injured and then rule for a while.I am not really interested whether he reaches 17. He won't and he doesn't have to. He might reach Rafa, but even that is quite difficult, because 4 slams don't just fall from trees, especially for a guy approaching 30. We all know that Roger's 17 is a result of the WEAK ERA and Rafa's injuries, so it's a fake number that doesn't show the true quality of Federer and why he gets overrated by fedtards who obviously don't understand anything about tennis, numbers or logic, not to mention that their focus on just one player makes them seem like religious zealots and biased which is why they make up excuses and lie in such a childish manner.As for the two lost M1000s, he was playing averagely there considering his potential, yet still he reached both finales which was a good sign going into the USO. But I agree that he seemed tired. Apparently, he really did use those two "just" to warm up for USO, because that's when he stepped it up a notch. He didn't play the USO as well as Wimby, but it's encouraging for Novak fans that he can win a slam even when not playing too well. Imagine how good he could be early next season if he goes back to his top shape.Also, he lost to Murray who played great plus Murray started playing much earlier after Wimby. First DC and then Washington, so he was more ready. Losing to Roger was not a miracle, RF loves that quick Cincy surface plus Novak played twice as many matches going into the finale, and was not fresh, whereas RF conveniently skipped CO so he could win Cincy more easily. If Roger had played semis of CO the week before, the result may have been different. It was a bitch move by Roger to ambush his tired opponents like that, but legitimate.I don't like all-time lists much because of homogenization and Aussie Open not being a proper slam for many years etc. So I have no idea where Djokovic would rank. Certainly he is on the SAME level as Federer and Nadal despite having less slams. But in order for others to recognzie this, he needs to get to at least 12 slams and win FO which I doubt he will do. I believed he would win it this year and he didn't, so his chances of taking this slam are not great. He needs to reach full form in the clay season and hope that nobody plays like Wawrinka again. I don't really see who could beat him at FO though.I have no clue how his career will pan out, probably he will be no 1 next year but to speculate beyond that is absurd. The young players are hopeless but Federer will remain very good, as will Murray who can't win slams anymore but can always test Novak and Federer. Wawrinka is inconsistent and will not win any more slams. Rafa won't win any more slams or Masters. Cilic and Nishikori certainly won't be winning anything major.
I see you're pretty sure about Rafa and Andy not winning slams in the future.That seems very unlikely for Rafa, that's for sure, though I would wait for the next season to have a final say about that. I mean, he isn't close to be the player he was, but if he finds some confidence again, and maybe changes something like the racket (I don't know about you but I liked the racket he tried in Montecarlo) I think maybe he could snatch a 10th FO. Of course, right now he can't compete with the best opponents, but if he can raise his level a bit, he might be very difficult to beat at FO once again.About Murray, I think he has some chance to win a slam. After all he's been very consistent this year, and in the next two years it might happen he reaches a slam final with no Federer or Djokovic waiting for him.
I was sure about Murray not winning another slam as early as late 2013. His consistency means nothing. After all, Ferrer and Berdych are very consistent also but they never amount to much, and it's clear that Murray needed to reach his absolute peak in 2012/2013 in order to win his slams, which he barely did, a peak that can't be repeated. Sure he can win a slam if he gets someone like Cilic in the finale, but the odds of that are very small in the age of Djokovic.Rafa is obviously not the player he was and at age 29 I don't see that changing. I am doubtful he will win another M1000, let alone a slam. How can he win a clay M1000? Novak will be sitting in the finale, or will beat him in the semis. Novak's game is so advanced now that Rafa can't even win a set against him. Even Murray beat him easily in a M1000 finale.
Well, you say Murray needs to be at his absolute peak in order to win slams, and that 2012-13 peak can't be repeated, I agree on this one. About his consistency, I know it's not enough to win a slam, by pointing that I was meaning that he will be in the final stages of every slam in the near future, if he keeps this consistency. So I think he could beat Novak once to win another slam, even if he's not at his absolute peak, his level now is not much lower than that. Also, Novak will most likely drop his level a little bit, he'll hardly repeat a year like this one. Which brings me to my last point: I see you said you think that it won't be easy for Novak to win many other slams, that also reaching Rafa is quite difficult, and I agree with that. But you also say Murray most likely won't win any, and so Rafa and Stan, and Roger maybe one or two. So, in the next two years there will be 8 slams, and I don't really think that more than one will be taken by an other player from the 5 i've mentioned. If Novak won 4 someone has to win the others. Now, I know these predictions are very difficult to make and it might turn out being a completely different story, and I'm not saying I'm very confident about Murray winning another slam. All I'm saying is that I think is chances are not so little, as you state in that other article, the 104 things list, where you give him a 1% chance.Now to Rafa. I don't see him reaching the level of the old times, but I don't think the level he's shown this year is the best he'll be able to do till he retires, either. In the Beijing final last Sunday, he's shown great things, even if he lost 6-2 6-2 (also the score doesn't tell the whole story, and it's heavily influenced by the fact that Novak won all 5 games which went to deuce). Now I know this is far away from being enough to win a slam, but the signs are positive to me. Physically he's far from what he was, and he won't bring back that, but he surely lacks a lot in confidence right now, and that can be improved. When he decided to fire a dtl forehand he could do it almost like he did back then.So, I think it's very unlikely he'll win a slam, but I wouldn't say it's sure he won't. Also, he always had better chance to win FO than any other tournament, even if it seems absurd, I think he has more chances to win that than any clay M1000.
You make valid points here. Yes, there are 8 slams in the next few seasons, so SOMEBODY's gotta win them, right? If it ain't Rafa, Murray and maybe not even Stan, who then? If thinks stay logical, Novak should rake in several, and I believe that Federer - who just lost his 1st round to a Spaniard in Shanghai (just thought I'd mention it) - can still win a slam or even more. To do this, Federer needs a weak slam finale opponent, just like Murray. In fact, a Murray-Federer finale is not unlikely and is the best way for either of them to win another one. Although, in this match-up I 98% doubt Murray has the balls to win. That would be Federer's chance to win his precious 18th which would require all fedtards to change their diapers.Federer will piss his pink pants against Novak whenever they play in a slam finale, he might have better chances in the semis, and Murray is simply incapable of beating Novak in a slam semis or finale. Rafa can't do it either. The only one who is completely unphased by Novak is Stan, but he isn't very consistent. Novak and Stan are my favourites for AO 2016, they have played the best and most consistent tennis there.Maybe some new slam champs will emerge, although the signs for it aren't strong. Maybe that dipshit gangsta-wannabe clown Kyrgios? Stan has a chance, Roger has a chance, and Novak will win several. Rafa has lost his confidence and speed even, while Murray is a grade A choker, especially since winning Wimbledon. His performance at the AO finale 2015 proved to me that he isn't a slam contender. Someone who starts moaning in the 3rd set of a slam finale about the opponent seeming injured or slow hasn't got what it takes to win another slam.
Yes, I saw Federer lost just another match winning more points than his opponent. USO final hasn't been one of those matches for just two points.Anyway, I think he can beat Novak in a slam final, although many things would have to be going his way in order to do that. I totally agree that he'd have better chances in a semi, in fact it's good for him to be losing the 2nd place in the ranking.And yes, in a Murray-Federer final, I don't see Andy winning at all, considering also he's lost the last 5 matches against him, and the last 4 in straight sets.About Rafa, as I said, I think he might be very competitive at FO again, should he regain some confidence. If he doesn't meet Novak until the final I believe something similar to 2014 might happen again. Still, the chances of that happening aren't the best.About new slam champs, I think Kyrgios might win his first in the next two years, most likely at Wimbledon or AO (definitely not AO 2016, though). I don't know what you think about Dimitrov, I really liked him at Wimbledon 2014, at that point I was very convinced he was going to become a serious threat for the very best and maybe even win on the lawns this year, and we know what happened instead. I still think he has great potential, after all he's still young, and I believe he might as well improve to win a slam in the next two years. In fact I am quite tempted to think he'll win one in the next two or three years (and then some others, maybe) or he'll end up winning none.I really don't think Coric, Zverev, Kokkinakis and Chung will be competitive at the highest level before something like three years.Thiem is one to watch. I'd definitely not count on Raonic at this point, or Nishikori either (he might reach a final again but there'll probably be somebody he won't be able to beat), as well as I think Cilic won't win another. I like Goffin a lot and I wouldn't count him out, but a slam title for him is really unlikely.Paire maybe? Who knows. Tomic? He's got a huge talent, that's for sure, but I don't know, at least for the very next years.Vesely and Sock don't seem like future slam champions to me.And I think I've mentioned pretty much everyone.
As a Federer fan, I already had doubts about Federer being the greatest of all time before reading this article. Now it is clear to me, he isn't the greatest of all time, not even of this generation, but I still enjoy watching him struggle to reach the peak once more. However, I don't really think he will win another Slam, not after seeing him lose three times in a row against Novak, unless of course, he loses before reaching the final. One thing that kind of bothers me is those Federer fans who idolize him as if he paid them for advertising, or as if he was a demigod, it is somewhat unsightly. I'm a great fan of Federer, but he is no more than a human who thinks about himself, like normal people do.
During the "Power Vacuum Era" did you believe that Federer could have a chance to be GOAT or you already realized his opponents were fairly weak?
what a sad life you must have, dedicating all of your time to hating on Federer and fans of Federer.
Speaking of sad lives, there is a certain fedtard called F.P. (won't mention his name to protect him from humiliation) who wastes 4 weeks of his un-precious time reading this text (veeeryyyyy slooowlyyyy with the use of the index finger) after which he posts a comment on it. So obviously this fedtard must think the text is worth his time. Do you perhaps know the fedtard I'm talking about, Mrs. Piekarek?Of course this fedtard could try to provide some actual arguments about why the text is fallacious (which it of course isn't), but being fedtardically religious means never having to justify one's nutty beliefs.Namaste, fedtard! Oooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, fedtard.
Actually, you don't have to force your argument to the mouth of those who replies or comment to this thread. You're acting like your opinion is the truth, and any objection are met with like 'Yeah, you Fedtard', or whatever condescending and nonsense word that you just type. You're trying to prove something, but the only thing that you have proven is that you hate Federer. That's all there is. You're just trying to bash Federer and his fans, as I can see, and any argument made against your article will be met with insults, like, 'yeah, you reader cannot see the insight of the article', 'this article is only for intelligent ones', 'you don't understand this article and my logic because you're dumb and a moron', things like that. You're giving some good statements but there's always that tirade of badmouthing. How about being more formal?
Can I call you Xerxes? It reminds me of Monty Python.Honourable Mr. Xerxes, stereotypical representative of the fedtard religion, you offer absolutely nothing to refute any of the facts I've listed, dozens upon dozens of facts I've listed, facts that annoy you, facts that make you wish Rafa and Novak were invented in Hollywood rather than real people, facts that make you question your fedtardic religion. How is your hateful rant any different than my supposedly biased rant? At least I offer facts that are undeniable and unassailable, regardless of what you may think of the way I present them. How I present these facts is my style of writing, my choice. I could sugar-coat these facts, making Federer seem less overrated: is that what you'd prefer? You'd love that, right?I say unassailable because most comments that I get from fedtards are like yours: "you just hate Federer! you're mean and unfair!"That's hardly argumentation, right? You're merely giving me an emotional response to what is essentially supposed to be logical debate based on common sense and numbers.I also sense a chip on your shoulder. It's not my fault this analysis is perhaps too difficult for you to grasp. After all, there are so many numbers and facts presented, a fedtard is liable to get confused. Fedtards are used to dealing with only two numbers, 17 and 14, so to them this kind of approach that shows how complex the issue of GOAT is makes the fedtards shout out obscenities and reveals all their insecurities, and gets them to question their religion.How about you just lay aside YOUR fedtardation and read this text again, this time trying to actually understand what I am trying to explain. Be a human being for once, be normal, don't be a pissed off fanboy ranting and raving just because someone told you that Santa Claus doesn't bring gifts to all children of the world.
I'm assuming you are a Nole fan (more than a fan of any other top player) since you're a Serb.My question is, will you be weak enough to revise your "There will never be a GOAT" opinion, if Nole reaches 17 slams, 35 Masters, 7 WTFs and whatever....?I mean, I know it may sound a little too cheap for someone to do a U-turn, just because their favourite achieves the overrated statistical advantage, but you cannot deny the pleasure of finally having the armies of Fedtards/Nadaltards turning into Djokotards, and the majority opinion drowning out any noise that points to Federer/Nadal/Sampras/etc. being "better" than him.I hope you don't because that would destroy the credibility of this post, and ruin the rudely-funny-yet-true thing it has going on.
First of all, Novak won't reach 17 slams, not in a million years. I'd be very surprised if he got to 14 and equaled Rafa and the dull American servebot. So your question is deeply hypothetical, more in the realm of fantasy. Undoubtedly, there will once again be a dominator who never gets injured, while playing in an extremely weak era, as was the case from 2003-2006. And he will win more than 17 slams. (Of course, assuming that western civilization isn't destroyed by Islamic fanatics or by its own stupidity in the meantime.) But he'd need to start winning slams early, at an age of 19 or 20 to do it. Novak started amassing slams too late, at the age of 23/24. He pissed away valuable years, 2009 and 2010, when he should have been in his prime and winning at least a slam per year.Even if a UFO landed in Monte Carlo and gave Novak special powers that allowed him to win 7 or more slams on top of the 10 that he's got, there is no chance I would ever change anything about my views on GOAT. I've explained in detail why there is no GOAT, nor ever will be, and I cannot go against logic. Nor would do I do it just to piss of those easily annoyed, amusing creatures called fedtards. I believe I've already annoyed them enough as it is.As for fedtards turning into Novak fans, I am not sure this is happening in large numbers. Novak would have to equal Rafa's tally of slams, and beat Roger in another 2-3 slam finales for that to happen more frequently. In other words, every time Novak beats Roger in a major finale, fedtards lose their religion a bit more. Eventually, many of them will abandon the sinking ship because they're the profile of sports fans who only feel comfortable rooting for a player they consider to be "best ever", because fedtards are all about superlatives, just like little children.I do support Novak, but not any more than I do a bunch of other players. I don't ever root for a player purely based on his nationality. If Novak were an asshole, I'd call him out on it. Unlike fedtards, who only root for one dominating player and then turn to other sports when that player retires, I would prefer to see a tennis tour where a dozen equally strong players divide the loot between them. It would be a lot more interesting.
I noticed what seems to be an error in the text so I'm just telling you.At paragraph 3, when you talk about homogenization of surfaces, you write that no player could win both the French Open and Wimbledon from 1981 until 2008. If you're talking about winning them not necessarily in the same year (and I assume that's what you mean), then Agassi did it. Not that it takes any merit away from your point, obviously.
I changed that part just the other day, and evidently wasn't thinking in what context that segment was previously written. Thanks, I corrected that.
What an inspirational text - similar things I have been myself posting on ATP-Fedtards' page, that one player cannot be considered as the greatest when he has not beaten the other one in any GS since 2007...Only one thing - and you won't mind it - you far too often mention Rafa's injuries, although it is sad they have prevented him from conquering more titles, but by this one might say you open a Pandora's box - hadn't Rafa played that physical style and game which brought him so many big wins, he would not have been injured so often...or hadn't he played the way he did, he would not got so many titles...It is debatable, you see. Also, the only relevant negative H2H he has is the most recent one vs Novak, 23-24. With everything else you said, I could not agree more. A highly entertaining article, particularly on ballet and "look at them" Fedtards. :) Cheers and all the best.
Some people understand the text I've written, and they're usually not fedtards. Glad you found something useful in this very lengthy analysis - or rant. Depends how you take it.Rafa's injuries weren't a given. Look at Ferrer's style of play and how old he is, how many top 10 seasons he's had, how many matches he's played, yet he never had major injuries. There are many other examples. There are also players that didn't play that much in their careers, yet they simply had one injury screw them over almost entirely, such as Delpo. Or very talented players who had to quit tennis as juniors because of an injury. To say that "players bring about their own injuries always coz they play so much" is asinine and defies the random-chance universe we all reside in. I've written enough on injuries, don't want to repeat myself too much.Fedtards practically invented the "if you play a lot, and run a lot and hit the ball not like ballet is supposed to be then you must get injured" theory. Not so much a theory as just vague nonsense. Don't trust those fedtards. Nearly everything they invent is absolute drivel based on nothing but their religious affiliation to the Swiss man and all their theories are made up to make excuses for Federer losing so many key matches - or certainly a lot of key matches considering he's supposed to be greatest of all time. As if GOAT can afford to have someone degrade him time after time in key matches.Nadal Djokovic 23-24 or whatever it is right now, is essentially level. I find it amusing when fans go nuts over the fact that "my player is in the lead now! 29-28!". You need a bigger margin than that to start talking about H2H dominance or having a meaningful edge. In this particular case, Rafa still has a big edge, and that's their H2H in slam matches, which is the most important statistic between players. I think it's 8-4 for Rafa or something like that.
Salji link za ovu stranu dalje. Provociraj i edukuj fedtarde. I oni imaju pravo na obrazovanje.
It took me forever to read this but I stuck with it to the end. Great article and it obviously took you a long time to collect all this info. I assure you, I had never dabbed so deeply into the stats of Fed and Rafa's career like this article of yours allowed me to do. I suppose only once these two tennis icons finally retire, we will be able to scrutinize their careers and get to a more satisfactory result. At this point it's obviously not as clearly as straightforward as most people believe. I am an open and unashamed fan of Nole's and I truly hope that not only he will complete his career slam this year (2016), he will also get to at least 14 slams, or even 17, if not 20, in the end. Then he will most definitely be in the mix for this whole GOAT conversation. :) I suffered a great deal at the hands of Fedtards and Rafaholics on the old ATP comment forum and reading this article gave me an almost sense of revenge, lol! Highly entertaining! If there is any criticism I would make of your article is the "bellow the belt" punch at Serena. She may be very strong and not so beautiful as Sharapova, but she's got spunk and she is actually very feminine. As far as women's tennis go, she is better than Roger and like him, she is also extremely lucky as she's also had a "vacuum power era" for most of her career. Thanks for your article, cheers.
Most of the data listed here I knew from years of following tennis, that's why I started the text. The rest I had to get from the ATP site and Wikipedia. Speaking of which, the ATP comment forum is a waste of time, since you have to watch your language. I'd prefer to call a spade a spade, which in this case means that a fedtard needs to be called a fedtard. But that's not allowed. Screw them and their political correctness. Fedtards have been treated with kid gloves for far too long, they're almost a protected species, despite being in the majority.You sure are a Novak fan. Hoping for 20 slams kinda speaks for itself. He can reach 14, that's possible though far from easy, but he is highly unlikely to get to 17, whereas 20 is science-fiction. There is more chance that Hollywood's silver-spoon moron JJ Abrams makes a great Star Wars movie and then gets invited to become the first Earth-born Intergalactic Chairman of Planets than Novak - or anybody on the men's tour - winning 20 slams. I do agree that it'd be greatly entertaining to see Novak equal Federer's number or come very close to it, but I very much doubt it's possible. Just imagine Novak winning 17. Fedtards would be smashing up millions of monitors and computers. There'd be billions of dollars in damaged property all over the world, especially in the States, Britain, Switzerland, Germany, India and the Middle East, where he has the most fans. I think Switzerland would go to war with Serbia, and we know that the Swiss never want to fight wars, their own or any other ones.Sereno is an amoral bitch and a racist sectarian egomaniac. Those are the key reasons she or he gets treated like shit on this blog. There are uglier players than her, but none of them possess her arrogance, foul mouth, or lack of empathy. She or he is the only WTA player I've ever seen threaten so many players or referees with violence on court. In fact, I'd never seen one example of this before the Sasquatch turned pro. She's turned the WTA into a circus and the media pretends nothing is wrong because Sereno is black. I'd like to know how many sponsorship deals the gigantic cockroach would have if she or he were white. It's reverse racism of the dumbest kind and I refuse to be bullied by the Race Card into keeping quiet about it. The media have been covering her fat ass for very long, and anyone who is digusted by her behaviour is labeled a racist: pretty much a summary of modern American society anyway.
Well, last year at this time Nole had only 7 slams, now he has 11. He is making very fast progress towards the amount required to enter the conversation on GOATs. Who knows? Maybe science fiction will become a reality in this case. ;)If anything, his contemporaries who have more slam titles than him will be quite worried and the ones who have less will be quite despairing. I don't dislike either Fed or Rafa, but they have had their time in the limelight and it was a blast. I'm really happy that Nole is now dominating the field and the people who are unhappy about that are those whose favorites are just being threshed on a regular basis, instead of beating him as they used to. I don't stay up awake worried about this whole GOAT thing like others may do, as you already pointed out, comparing the eras is pointless. But I'm sure extremely happy that Nole crashed the party of the two expected and acclaimed GOATs and is forcing the whole world (media, experts and fans alike) to notice him, whether they like it or not :) To the ones who think tennis is now boring because Nole is dominating so much, I wonder what they thought of it when Fed was in complete control??? What goes round, comes round :)
Absolutely correct: most people who complain about tennis being now boring are fedtards who regularly ejaculated during Roger's extremely boring Weak Era 2004-2007 dominance (a period that would have been entirely worthless had Rafa not offered resistance). I have NEVER been a fan of dominance in tennis because it kills the excitement and unpredictable nature of tennis, and eras such as 1998-2003 were great because you just rarely knew who'd reach the semis, let alone who'd win a slam. Nor did I ever understand why sports journalists could possibly hail 3-slam seasons as good for tennis. That to me makes little sense. But sports journalists have never been a particularly objective or intelligent bunch.However, I don’t mind Novak collecting more slams at this speed, simply as SPITE (what Serbs call "inat") to the hundreds of pro-RF journalists that have been polluting international media, plus as a way to point a big middle finger to all the loud-mouthed, intensely stupid fedtards who'd been posting insults and outright lies about Rafa and Novak for almost a decade. Novak winning another 5-6 slams would be payback time, for sure. Fedtards are already foaming at the mouth in their millions, so a few more Novak slams might just send them into a frenzied zombie mass-rage stage, which would entertain the rest of the sports world.After that, hopefully we have another era such as the one around 1998-2003 when a bunch of different players win slams. I am more a fan of that.Regarding “Novak entering the conversation”, didn’t you know that he already IS in the conversation? I’ve even read an article recently that argues that Novak already is GOAT. The text makes some good points, even a few that I forgot to mention or didn’t know about (which I added in my text), even though it also makes some flawed observations, including the one that GOAT can exist. You already know my opinion on that. But in terms of how Djokovic might be judged in his OWN era, he might just turn out to be the best of the Big 3. He pretty much leads most of the statistics against Rafa and Roger, although Rafa still has some key arguments that put him on an equal footing with Novak even if the Serb does win a few more slams.
@Vjeropev O man Nole is dominating ruthlessly, another Australian Open, its 11 now!!!! I was not expecting this kind of dominance from him!! What do you think can he fly away with FO as well?
As far as I know (I'd have to check though), Jim Courier is the only player to win the first two slams in a row, and way back in 1992. Certainly he is the only one to win AO and FO back-to-back in the Open Era. I kept thinking every year that Novak will win FO but he never does, so I am not that sure. He should be the favourite but will he win, who knows. Murray choked in the finale. At 5-4 in the 2nd set he choked at a big point at 15-30 and then he choked again at 5-5 when he lead 40-0. It was a great match, the two of them played a better-quality match than Novak and Roger, better rallies.
Also, the fact that Novak now has three slams in a row will put extra pressure on him at the French Open to win 4 in a row which would be an Open Era first. He's already been in that situation in 2012 and failed to beat Rafa.People who think Novak - or anybody - can win the Calendar Slam are nuts. Nobody in the Open Era has managed more than 3 in a row, so if Novak theoretically won the 2016 Calendar Slam that would be SIX slams in a row, something I consider science fiction.If he wins the next FO that will put him on par with Nadal and Federer, for sure. But the fact that not even Nadal and Federer could not win 4 slams in a row makes me suspect that Novak won't either. What does speak in Novak's favour is that so many old records have fallen in the past 5-6 years.
As much as your text was very enlightening, and convinced me not to label any player as the goat I do feel that your blatant generalisation of tennis fans who support federer is pretty mislead. Certainly there is a toxic brand of sports fan which manifest themselves in every sport that are glory supporters, fans that join to be on the winning side and can't stand it they aren't. We see it in tennis with some federer fans and nadal and Djokovic fans( depending on who's winning) and in other sports such as Man U glory hunters. However, as much as its great to deride fedtards and I'm perfectly happy for you to, they're not true tennis fans, surely you have to realise that people can be federer fans and want him to win every time he steps on court? When I see you on the comments section demeaning people who show the slightest hint of preference to federer as a fedtard it hardly shows the unbiased and rational attitude you show claim to show through your analysis.Take my example, unlike the fed fans you quote and make an example of I was never a fan of roger when he was winning and dominating and actually only became involved and interested at all in tennis in 2012. Being a loyal Brit, i was a die hard Murray fan and was cursing federer's name when he won that years Wimbledon final. In contrary to your theories about why the majority like federer I only became his fan in 2013, his worst year in eleven years. The reason for that is I see tennis as primarily being about entertainment for me, and federer's struggles, his resurgence in late 2013 with highlights such as the amazing match with del Porto and his overall all court attacking style of play is really something that brought me into the game. And I don't think that you can dismiss this entire group of people who support federer by calling them fedtards, as whether you like it or not he has rejuvenated tennis"s popularity and brought a whole new sector of fans into the game. Your analysis was a very impressive read, and I'm sure there are many other decent federer fans who agreed with a lot of what you said, yet will still primarily support him simply because he entertains them more. I just don't understand what's wrong with having a favourite, what's wrong with agreeing that he's not the literal goat, but believing that he may very well be the closest we have ever seen to get to that status. I'm sure with every player in contention for goat status you would have to draw up an even larger list of their flaws. Now I have no doubt that if you respond you will call me a stereotypical fedtard in denial, but I hope you will show more perspective when talking about federer fans
I choose my words very carefully, so maybe I naively expect readers to scrutinize my texts with attention to detail. In at least one place in the text I stated that MOST Federer fans or MANY Federer fans are fedtards, not all. Of course there are people who'd root for him even if he were a one-slam champ like Delpo, his true fans. Although, that number would be a tiny fraction compared to the mindless multi-million zombie fedtard army we have with a 17-slam-winning Roger. I can remember CLEARLY how relatively little media attention Federer had when he had "just" one slam in 2003, let alone before that win when nobody outside German-speaking Europe gave a shit about him despite his game being just as fluent back then as it was later. Everyone loves a winner, that's human nature.The hype started when certain sheepy sports fans (who make up the majority of sports fans) realized that he was going to dominate for a while. Because, as we all know, regardless of how unlikable a person is, in sports that person or that team will have huge support as long as they dominate it. It's as simple as that. Sereno Williams is proof of that, LeBron James is proof of that, Marty Navratilov was proof of that, Cassius Clay also, Lance Armstrong too, and many other assholes and bitches, unpleasant or overly arrogant athletes. People will overlook all sorts of bad personality traits as long as the athlete wins all the time. Am I blind Novak follower? I am a Serb and yet I am critical of him too when he fucks up. Check out my "105 Things About Tennis" post.The only reason Novak isn't as popular as Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods (although I don't consider golf a sport) and the like is because he is constantly beating the guy that everyone fell in love with BEFORE Novak's dominance. We would have a VERY different picture if Novak and Federer were the same age: in that case their fanbases would be a lot more similar in numbers than they are in this scenario where a younger guy mops the floor with an established "legend", a guy who has the kind of media support - and media bias - that even US liberals can only dream about. It is kind of disgusting, don't you think? The media should be a little more fair in their treatment of players. Their influence on the sheep zombies is huge of course.You talk as if most sports fans can even DIFFERENTIATE between a fluent style and a grinder style. You'd be amazed how few people see the difference. Most tennis fans can't even hold a racket without tripping over themselves, they have no clue about technique. Most fedtards simply parrot away all that stuff about "elegance" and whatever else they'd read or heard in the media or on goofy tennis forums. Those aren't often their own conclusions, based on what they see, just as they don't have a clue about the statistics aspect of tennis which is, as I explained in the text, a very complex subject. They read that "Federer is GOAT" and then parrot away that as well and believe in it like religious zealots. It is mindless and it IS fanboy nonsense, and I am more than glad to call them out on it.And again, not ALL Federer fans are fedtards. That's obvious anyway.
What is your opinion now on Djokovic becoming the GOAT (just kidding :D) / winning most of GS titles in the next 3, 4 seasons? It seems to me that he can win 2-3 GS a year in that period, surpassing Nadal and maybe even Federer. The only thing that can stop him could be injuries (which i hope won't happen) as i see no competition from younger players.Great article btw, but I don't see a reason to call deluded fans retards, at least give them a chance to change their opinion before insulting them.
Some people think they can predict what happens in the seasons ahead. I am not one of them. Besides, I prefer to go slam by slam, rather than waste my time obsessing over whether player A will reach enough slams in 5 or 10 years in order to overtake player B and then a few more slams to overtake player C. I am more of a traditional tennis fan, which means that the issue of GOAT is not the reason why I follow or watch pro tennis. Many newer tennis fans think 10 years ahead because to them the issue of GOAT is all that has any meaning. They don't give a shit when someone wins their first slam - that to them is boring because that player is 16 slams away from the record hence to such "fans" that slam win is irrelevant and stupid. That sort of attitude is foreign to me. Every slam has a story, I don't give a shit if it's slam no 1 or slam no 29 for the winning player.But since you ask, I've always said that if Novak reaches Rafa's and Sampras's 14 that would be amazing enough for him. He doesn't have to reach Federer, because those 17 slams were won with plenty of fortunate circumstances, as I explained in the text. To win 17, Novak needs to be born again, this time to turn 22 just as there is a Power Vacuum, and win many slams before he gets serious competition. Then he needs to wait until his main rival gets injured and pick up a few more slams instead of him. That's how Federer did it, but that sort of thing is unlikely to happen again.I never called anyone a retard.As for changing the opinions of fedtards, if they're smart enough to laugh at themselves then they'll be intelligent enough to change their opinions as well - IF they believe in the GOAT fairy-tale, of course. There is no need for me to stroke their egos or pretend they're not insane. I tell it like it is. Many fedtards out there talk nonsense and spread disinformation, so I call them out on it. That's all. I didn't hang anyone or rape anyone. It's just a blog.If anyone feels insulted, then that's their problem. After all, here's the comment section, so fedtards who feel offended can feel free to post "insults" at me, if they wish to. Not that I give a shit about fedtards "insulting" me, but if it makes them feel better to try, they should by all means do it. Of course, I'd rather hear their arguments, but that rarely happens, because they have no valid counter-arguments to offer, only childish protests.
I would like to know your opinion on Raonic's recent improvements.I see you have always been very sure about him never in a million years winning a slam, and he had never really convinced me either.Now I'm thinking if maybe I should reconsider, as his AO performance really impressed me.Before his 4R match against Wawrinka I was absolutely sure the Swiss was going to win, in fact Milos had won just one set in four previous encounters, and Stan had played amazing tennis in Melbourne in the last three years. And yes, Raonic had already won Brisbane beating Federer in straight sets, but I still thought that wasn't enough to beat Wawrinka. Then he did just that, and maybe he could have beaten Murray as well, if it wasn't for that thigh problem.I read an interesting article about him - this one: http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/01/29/is-milos-raonics-return-game-improving/ - which basically brings up some stats to show how his return game seems to have drastically improved.He also surprised me for the confidence and patience he showed against Wawrinka, not choking in crucial moments and not breaking down in the fifth after having lost a two sets lead.Then of course, it's just a few matches, maybe not enough to make any valid conclusion. What do you think about it?
That's true, I thought Raonic had no chance at all. That's why I have changed his odds on my "105 Tennis Facts" list.He almost made it to the finales, so playing-wise it is clear that he can do it. But what will he be like in a finale? Will he choke like Nishikori? Raonic still hasn't proved himself in any bigger finales. He is 0-2 in M1000 finales and 1-5 in 500 events.What also speaks against him, at least statistically, is his height. Guys that tall very rarely win slams. However, we've had a few surprise wins in recent years by players of that height.He received more votes on my blog poll (upper right corner of the page) after the Aussie Open. But whether he can do it, I have no clue. If Tomic, Zverev, Kyrgios and the others quickly improve their games, then Raonic might find it tough to win a slam, because then he'll have a whole lot more players to deal with.
Well, I think he displayed great character in the match against Wawrinka, but a slam final is not the same, that's for sure.The height stat is interesting but I wouldn't really consider it, as there will most likely be a lot of very tall slam winners in the near future. In fact Tomic, Kyrgios, Zverev and Kokkinakis are all very tall.
The height factor is not very relevant because there seems to be a shift upwards in terms of average height of slam contenders, as you pointed out. Just as the average age of the top players has shifted dramatically upwards, all the way from around 24 in the 90s to around 30 in the modern era.Tennis is changing, which is why numbers aren't always a good indicator in making predictions.
You're absolutely right about everything you said here. A little decanting for Rafa, but nothing wrong about that, for me.By the way, how can fedtards say Roger is over, when just 2015's seasons was, i.e., the best serving season he ever had, and, yet again, lost to Novak in 2 GS' finals, and WTC's Final, as well???... Novak deserves the respect at least because of this 4 things:1. He had a time when injuries absolutely prevented him to develop farther yet, as a tennis player. Just as Nadal, but you didn't mention this on your post.I myself still remember him retiring from several matches, even in GSs.This, for me, makes his number one spot he has right now even more valuable, cause he overcame all this prone-to-injury times as a real champion should.2. He won the Davis Cup's title almost just all by himself when younger, he had no important partner to help him to succeed when a youngster, so that definitely gives him a whole bunch of points among his "Big Four's era" contenders.3. He won the (arguably) best GSs' final ever (longest, at least) at 2012's Aussie Open, even when knocking Murray in the SFs in a 4.30 hours' ressistance display (with a gap of 1 day between matches, winning, ultimately, a +6 hours' final, very demanding at it worst).4. Beating the so called "GOAT", A.K. Roger Federer, at the best serving season of his career (2015) 5 times, and twice of this in GS's finals (Wimbledon and USO).
Fedtards always put a spin on everything, just to make pathetic excuses. They have perfected excuse-making into an art-form. A shitty art-form that has no basis in logic, but their persistence in remaining blind to facts is truly impressive, in a sense. "We want to have our cake and eat it too" has always been their slogan when demolishing logic. They cannot accept the fact that Roger AT HIS BEST can often lose to Novak and Rafa, even Delpo. Because they never saw that happen during the WEAK ERA, they formed this ridiculous theory that Federer is invincible and can't be beaten unless he plays under par.1. You are right about this to some extent. I might include that in the text.2. This is mostly true and I addressed it. 3. Rafa's 2009 Aussie win is similar to that.4. Fedtards are not going to like reading this. They are still trying to convince themselves and others that Federer played awful tennis last year. They actually believe that if Federer doesn't win 3 slams a year and isn't no 1 then he must be "way past his prime", despite all the evidence to the contrary. That's why I consider them a religious cult, because they idealize a person to the extent where they see no flaws in him, not as a person and not as a player. Do we really need another religious sect? Fedtards would probably all join ISIS or Jehovahs Witnesses if they weren't busy kneeling in front of Federer's temple.Great comment, thanks for the tip. The text can always be improved. And keep sharing the link. Fedtards and non-fedtards alike need to read the facts about the GOAT debate.
Correction: I meant fedtards rarely saw Federer lose during the WEAK ERA. They saw Rafa beat Federer numerous times during 2004-2007.
Of course I'm gonna share this, it's an excellent article, unravelling most of RF's weaknesses.Another pretty telling truth, Novak vs Roger's match in this year's aussie open SF: in the 4th set of this match, RF did just one unforced error along all the 4th set, i.e. (same than Djokovic, in the same set), but still lost the set. How can we call that kind of player a "way past his prime" one? A player with those statistics???I read somewhere that Federer's backhand have been, along those last years, the best he's ever had (statistically, at least). How in the 9 circles of hell comes that relatively close to be playing "disastrously" as many fedtards claim??? It's just beyond words. Roger Federer is absolutely a cult (beside the brand he represents), and a myth himself won't stop feeding. I guess we just gotta grab a seat, then, and wait till history puts his name where it properly belongs. Not by any case saying Roger Federer is a "standard" player, by the way, since he's clearly over them, but saying he's the "GOAT - unbeatable - demigod", that would be, for me, just a plane stupid vision of all this.
That's the whole point of my text: that Roger is a great player but not GOAT, and possibly not even the best in his own era. But fedtards read the text (or just glance at it as they usually do) and think that I am trying to degrade Federer to the level of a standard player which is simply ludicrous. What credibility would I have if I argued that Federer was overrated as a talent? He is overrated in terms of his Weak Era successes - but that's an entirely different point. In terms of talent he is right up there at the very top. But as I explained, talent and ballet-like play do not define greatness, results do.Fedtards are hilarious, aren't they? Even when Roger loses a close 4-set or 5-set semis or finale match when only 2-3 points decide the match, they argue that he stunk, whereas if he had WON those 2-3 points they would have been celebrating and praising his "great performance". That's precisely the thought-process of little children.At the 2015 US Open, Federer played amazing tennis, INCLUDING the finale. He should have won it. But he didn't, because he choked on many break points. Hence "he played awful", according to fedtards. I honestly believe that one day there will be a Hollywood comedy about fedtards, when the Cult of the Fedtard becomes a world-wide recognized phenomenon. They will be mocked much as Justin Bieber fans get spoofed, the difference being of course that Bieber has nothing of quality to offer to his deranged, hormonally-challenged adolescent fans.As for history, Federer has already shown that he can't even be considered the best of the Big 3 era. Djokovic or Nadal will take that title - if there is a clear-cut "winner" in the whole thing.Considering the 2008-2013 era is now widely recognized as the Big 4 Era and the toughest era in a while, let’s look at who raked in the most slams during these six years and how they did in finales:Federer 5-5Djokovic 6-5Nadal 10-3Murray 2-5These numbers speak for Nadal, don’t they? So Novak has a long way to go before he can place himself above him. He needs to win the FO, and he needs to get to around 14 slams to be a clear-cut candidate as the best of the Djo/Fed/Nad era – if not exactly the best of the Big 4 era. Plus his H2H has to remain positive against Roger and Rafa, and if he breaks all M1000 and Masters Cup records, then that will be a big argument in his favour also.
Firstly, I have to say that you have done a great job compiling all these statistics and putting them all together patiently. Good job !I have to tell you that I am a huge Federer fan but not a 'fedtard' in the sense that I am also not a fan of the whole GOAT concept AND I respect both Rafa and Novak tremendously. However, I just have a few complaints about the article. As a federer fan, the overall tone of the article seemed a little disrespectful towards Roger and just gave a sense that you hate him (Again, I might be wrong). It is easy to list all the negative things about someone. If I had the time, I could write a similar article about how Rafa or Novak are not the greatest, for sure. BUT, I will not. Not just because I don't have that much time(which I don't), but because I do not hate those guys and I just look at all the positives in their game. Every player has his own style, every fan has his own taste. Yes, you are right in the sense that 'fedtards' have to be more open and respectful towards other players but your whole exercise to do that will be mostly in vain because those people won't even read your article or will write something random on this wall and leave. This proves the general principle that negative minded articles can never be successful beyond a certain degree. You have a lot of tennis knowledge and stats. I encourage you to write positive articles about Rafa(who seems to be your favourite player) or Novak rather than writing negative articles about Roger. Even you have to admit that there are some qualities in Roger which stand above everyone else. And when a man has been sincerely playing a sport for the last 18 years at the highest level, and a fan like me has been sincerely following him while not disrespecting other players, it hurts a little bit while reading your article. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Again, nothing personal, your stats compilation was great.Thanks !
There is a link on this page (from theultimatetennisblog.com) which explains wonderfully the difference between Federer fans and fedtards. Those two are definitely not the same, and that's why I posted that link. Read it. It's a polite text, so you will like it a lot more than my style of writing, which IS admittedly a bit on the extreme side sometimes. I don't mince with words. I don't write for Huffington Post so I can discard all that politically correct shit and be completely honest. It's a blog.Furthermore, I mention on several occasions in the text that not all Federer fans are fedtards. I'd be just as stupid as the fedtards I mock if I lumped normal, intelligent Federer fans with fedtards and claimed they were the same. Nevertheless, I get the distinct impression that fedtards are in the majority.Why did I write the text in such a way as to allegedly only reveal Federer's flaws? Some people complain about that. First of all, I DO mention Roger's great achievements: I've included how many M1000 titles he has, I've included his 6 WTC trophies, I mentioned his DC win, I've written numerous times that he won 17 slams, I've included his 300 weeks as no 1, I've stated that he is a huge talent, I've mentioned that he is always fit. I've done all that. Why would I go beyond that when the whole point of the article is to show that his successes are overrated. I don't have to prove that Roger is an average player because that would be idiotic. All I needed to do is show that he ISN'T GOAT, and I did that.Because fedtards are generally so immensely stupid, they believe the point was to prove that Rafa or Novak are GOAT. That's because, as you correctly pointed out, most fedtards don't read even 10% of the text, but skim over it because, let's face it, most of them are Warcraft-playing juveniles with zero concentration or people of low intelligence who can't read anything longer than instructions on how to turn on a DVD.But I have stated very clearly on several occasions that GOAT does not exist. I guess that statement also might annoy some Rafa and Novak fans, because most modern-era tennis fans are caught up in this whole "who's GOAT" frenzy. It's superlatives or nothing, which I find degrades tennis to being just about the big picture, the main 4-5 players of the Open Era, and makes people ignore all the guys who won a lower number of slams.I had to write a "negative" text about Roger precisely because thousands of fallacious, pro-RF, biased texts have been written over the years which exaggerate his greatness. I am not interested in writing fanboy texts praising one player. I want tennis fans to know the facts before they start parroting the cretinous writings of lazy, clueless sports journalists.
Cinjenica da se igra zahtevniji tenis mentalno i fizicki (samim tim zahtevaju se vece vestine) u odnosu na prethone ere cini stvar sa uporedjivanjem era bar donekle ispravnom. Ovakav Djokovic ili Nadal pobedili bi onakvog Lendla ili Mekenroua. To naravno, ne znaci da se neko od tih igraca ne bi snasao, tj uz vise napora stasao u konkurenta "velikoj trojci" i u ovom vremenu, mozda bi a mozda i ne bi, ali prosto poredi se tezina igre. U tom smilu, po tezini igre ovo jeste napornije, pa se iz prostog razloga ova era smatra tezom, a najbolji u ovoj eri boljim od prethodnika (sto opet kazem ne znaci da i neko od njih ne bi uspeo). Ovo sto sam rekao je samo delom argument za moguce uporedjivanje era, ali delom ostaje cinjenica da ne znamo kako bi se ti igraci snasli u ovoj eri, pa u strogom smislu reci ne znamo koliko bi bili konkuretni ovim igracima. Drugo, argument o ujednacenosti podloga malo nije konzistentan sa cinjenicom izuzetne dominacije jednog coveka bas na zemljanoj podlozi. Nadal je odlican na svim podlogama, ali neprikosnoven na sljaci. Ili si ostavio tu mogucnost, a ostale podloge smatras ujednacenim. Moguce da nisam pazljivo procitao, a sada, bez uvrede, ne mogu da trazim gore. Hocu reci, u najstrozem smislu reci naravno da ne mozemo SAVRSENO uporedjivati igrace razlicitih epoha, ali to ne znaci da ne mozemo uopste (jer bi i ociglednog majstora jedne ere ne bi mogli proglasiti boljim od loseg igraca druge ere, prosto zato sto su ere neuporedive. A ne izgleda nam da je to slucaj).
Sto se podloga tice, niko nije rekao da je homogenizacija UNISTILA mogucnost dominacije jednog igraca na nekoj od podloga. To sto je Federer dominirao na Wimbledonu je samo dokaz koliko je slaba bila njegova era, jer ga je jedan takozvani "shljaker" dobio u Londonu, a zamalo ga dobio i dva puta. Trava je i dalje drugacija od drugih podloga jer je trcanje i kretanje na njoj sasvim drugacije, ali je odskok daleko sporiji nego nekad. Ti na travi u 90im nisi imao razmene duze od 2-3 udarca.To sto je Nadal uzeo 9 Roland Garrosa (ili 9 garosnih rolandi) je dokaz njegove genijalnosti i fizicke spremnosti (a to sljaka najvise zahteva od svih podloga), a i dokaz da razlika i dalje ima. Niko ne tvrdi da su podloge sada SVE ISTE u svakom pogledu. Daleko bilo. Ali beton vise nije tako brz kao nekad, u hali lopta ne odskace ni priblizno brzo kao nekad, a i trava je usporena lopticama a mozda i malo drugacijom vrste travne podloge. Tu vec nisam ekspert, da idem u detalj.Dokaz da je homogenizacija uvela VELIKE promene u uspehu top 10 igraca sam vec opisao u tekstu. Na primer, do homogenizacije je bilo puno iznenadjenja u slemovima, a gotovo svako slem polufinale je imalo jednog un-seeded igraca, cak po 2-3 u QF-u. Un-seeded igraci su od pocetka homogenizacije postale retkost i to velika u zavrsnicama velikih turnira. Nekada je bilo sasvim normalno da u slem SF-u bude samo jedan igrac iz prvih 5. Mozes li to danas da zamislis? U 90-im je bila retkost da SF cine 4 igraca iz top 5 a sada je to gotovo normalno. To su drasticne razlike.Da se ne ponavljam. Sve ti je u tekstu.
Prvi deo odgovora ti je posle drugog.
PRVI DEOAnaliza ti nije logicna, da ne kazem poprilicno felericna. Pristupas temi s tacke gledista nekog ko posto-poto zeli da brani ideju da je GOAT inteligentan i koristan pojam. Kapiram da si Noletov fan pa se svojski trudis da verujes u nesto sto nije moguce, a to je da on postane GOAT. On moze "samo" da postane najbolji svoje ere, nista drugo.Svako ko smatra da pouzdano zna da li bi Connors ili Laver igrali odlican, vrhunski moderni power tennis ili ne, taj smatra da je neka vrsta gatare. Niko, pa ni sami Connors, Lendl ili ko vec ne mogu znati kako bi se uklopili u ovu eru da su rodjeni 20-30 godina kasnije. Odakle ti ideja da niko od njih ne bi prismrdeo Novaku ili Federeru? Iduci tvojom logikom, moderna era proizvodi BOLJE, snaznije i brze humanoide nego sto je to priroda radila pre samo 30 godina. Nebulozna teza, jer sve te generacije imaju veoma slican POTENCIJAL, samo sto su ove najnovije generacije u PREDNOSTI jer imaju bolju opremu i tehnologiju a i mogu vise love da se namlate.Umesto da shvatis da Connors i Borg nisu krivi sto su rodjeni 30-40 godina ranije, te nisu krivi sto su igrali sporiji, manje atletski tenis (i zaradjivali daleko manje), ti jos njihove rezultate OMALOVAZAVAS jer ih poredis sa tenisom koji se igra 20-30 godina posle njihovog penzionisanja. Fascinantno je da neko moze da veruje na NIKO rodjen par decenija pre Novaka ne bi bio u stanju da mu konkurise, od svih igraca proslosti - da su Novakovi vrsnjaci. Upravo zato je pojam GOAT jedna besmislica koja ne pije vodu kako god okrenes i obrnes.JEDINI nacin da poredis Nadal-a i McEnroe-a bi bio da se John ponovo rodio kao Nadalov vrsnjak. Da li je to moguce? Mozda ti znas neki nacin da ovo izvedes, mozda imas i vremensku masinu i neke sci-fi mochi. A dotle, dok ne podmladis Connors-a i sve ostale i das im reket u ruke da igraju protiv Rafe i ostalih, i dalje se ne mogu porediti igraci ove i one ere. Svako verovanje da moze je puka fantazija.
Jebem ti internet, nekako je prvi deo uspeo da postane drugi deo odgovora.
Staying fit is part of being a top athlete. I won't deny that luck plays a role, but to say that remaining free of injuries for your entire career is 100% luck is simply not true. For example, Rafa is a player with insanely intense training routines. He is known for always pushing his body to the limit, physical strength is essential part of his playing style. Having such a spartan training routine puts him in greater risk of obtaining injuries than players like Roger, who rely more on technique than physical strength. So luck is definately not the only factor in remaining injury free. I suppose I am at risk of being called a fedtard for saying this, but: Roger has far greater natural talent than Rafa, meaning Rafa has to work harder and dig deeper physically, oftentimes TOO deep. Which also explains why Nadal reached his peak at such an early age, and why Federer is able to still compete at high level despite being relatively old. So yeah, fitness and remaining free of injuries is definately a factor to consider when determining the 'greatest of all time', and it's a factor in Roger's favor. It is also one of the main reasons why Djokokvic is dominating today's tennis, and will probably beat Federer's grand slam record if he keeps this level up for a few more years.
Don't worry about being "at risk for being called a fedtard". You're definitely a fedtard, so no point in being unsure about this. You may not be in good company, but you're in plentiful company: there are so many fedtards out there, and they all need to be re-programmed. Or not. Perhaps fedtards are too amusing to have around.Who said anything about 100%? Nowhere in the text did I say that it's pure luck. Of course preparation and other factors are part of it, just as genetics and sheer random chance. As for Nadal's harsh regimen, do you really think Lendl or Ferrer trained less hard? Not really, yet they barely missed out on any slams due to injuries. On the other hand, there are very talented guys whose careers get crippled already in their late teens. So no, it's not as fedtardically simple as fedtards want it to be. Fedtards want everything to be nice and neat - they hate complexity because that forces them to abandon their lazy, self-serving black-and-white approach. They hate grey areas and proper, detailed analysis, which is why this text annoys them so much.You say Roger "relies more on technique". Yes, he does, but you need to stress the word MORE. In other words, he also relies on physical strength and fitness, for which you need to work hard to become and remain a pro. Without working hard for it, Roger wouldn't have reached the top 100, let alone won 17 (mostly Weak Era) slams. He'd be the first to tell you this. In fact, check out my latest post DE-QUOTING THE QUOTES: ATP where I analyze some of the things he and many other players said."Far greater natural talent than Rafa". You're joking, right? Then again, you're not: you're a fedtard. It's one thing to say that Roger has MORE natural talent than Rafa - because that is a fact. But to make it seem like there is a huge GULF between them, talent-wise, can only mean one thing: you're a 100% fedtard. I assume you never played tennis on any level higher than shoving high balloons into the air and then watching your opponent waiting for them to fall. Usually it's the rank amateurs who have almost no real personal experience playing the game who talk such rubbish. Playing tennis yourself, on some decent club level, might give you a much better sense of how difficult certain shots are. Just watching tennis on TV does not make one an expert.And no, Rafa "digging deep" has nothing to do with him peaking so early. That's utter nonsense. Thomas Muster, a famous ex-no 1 claycourter and grinder who had limited talent, reached his prime at age 26 - during an era when players started sucking at that age. Muster fought for every ball like a gladiator, form an early age, and yet he peaked very late. How would your "logic" explain that? He also trained like a madman, was famous for that.Federer just finished an AO where he reached the semis. THEN he got injured. Not BEFORE the slam. You wanna talk about luck? There's a great example right there. Some players get injured right before a slam, whereas his injuries are nearly always in less relevant parts of the seasons, such as February or October.You're right: Federer is "relatively old". For the modern era, being 34 is no big deal at all. I explain this in detail in the text.But you're definitely and very fedtardically wrong in thinking that staying injury-free is somehow a factor in the meaningless GOAT debate. There are far more important things to look at, such as H2H and homogenization than who managed to be luckier with injuries. You can lie to yourself, but then again that is what the Church of Fedtardology teaches you, right?Talking about my recent post, FEDTARDS - THE 10 COMMANDMENTS. Read it and learn more about the subject at hand.
This is a very charming little crusade you're running here, and I must say I admire the amount of time and effort you're putting into trying to dismantle this Church of Fedtardology, as you're calling it. You are also very quick to stamp the Fedtard label on anyone who does not completely agree with any part of your argument. I am placing question marks about one small part of your argument, which to you is immediate, undeniable, unfallable proof that I am a Fedtard. Being the Fedtard that I am, I want everything to be nice and neat, I hate complexity, I hate grey areas and any kind of detailed analysis makes my tiny little media-indoctrinated Fedtardly brain squirm in anguish. You may be a little disappointed to find out that I do not even consider Federer the greatest player of all time, that I do not think there IS such a thing as the greatest player of all time, that comparing players from different time periods is like comparing apples and oranges. You have also failed to notice that in my previous post I mention that I expect Djokovic to beat Roger's grand slam record if he maintains this standard for a couple more years. So I don't even think he is the greatest player of THIS time period. Does that sound like something a Fedtard would say? Aren't Fedtards supposed to worship their idol unconditionally and squirm at the thought that another player could possibly be superior to his Fedtardly highness? I happen to be a person who can stand in awe of the immense grit and determination of Nadal, the almost inhuman solidity in Djokovic's game, AND the graceful technique and shotmaking of Federer. Making a long story short: you calling me a fedtard does not bother me in the slightest, because I know for a fact that I am not a fedtard, at least not in the way you like to describe fedtards. I also know for a fact that there are a lot more tennis fans like me, that you would also call Fedtards, who greatly appreciate Federer's beautiful style of tennis, and are yet very capable of appreciating the achievements of Nadal and Djokovic as equal to or even greater than Roger's achievements. Somehow I have the feeling that nothing I could say will convince you that I am not a Fedtard. Your reply to this post will probably mention my membership to the Church of Fedtardism about four or five times. I would however like to invite you to take a little moment of introspection and look up the Ten Commandments of Rational Debate. Just google it, you'll find them. It is a list of common logical fallacies. Take a look at the list, think about your way of reasoning for a while, and try to find out if you violate any of these ten rules. I would be very interested in what you think. Or you can just keep on calling me a Fedtard ;)
There's a catch of course in all this: a fedtard doesn't know he is a fedtard. Just as a Neutral-Milk-Hotel-sniffing hipster doesn't consider himself a hipster. The fact you don't believe in GOAT is very commendable though, it shows that you're considering joining FA (Fedtardcolics Anonymous) or are perhaps even already involved in their 200-step program to de-fedtardize yourself. (Step 160 already perhaps?) Even many Rafa and Novak fans believe in the GOAT myth, so kudos to you, fedtard. You may yet step into a much bigger world.As for me being "on a crusade", you are right: the crusade of truth, love and peace. OK, perhaps not love and peace. And it's a bit of the pot and kettle thingy of you to use religious terminology calling me a crusader when it's your fedtards who formed a world church! I am simply a neutral observer, a bloggy journalist who listed their "10" commandments. They wrote them, not I.You seem to desperately want me to not think you're a fedtard - which is also commendable. It means you're trying - not a trait of fedtards. Thing is, you are one, or at least borderline. You're a class A fedtard, as one of my loyal, intelligent readers pointed out in the comments section of the FEDTARDS - 10 COMMANDMENTS post. There he explains in detail how he divides fedtards into classes A, B and C, sort of similar to eggs. Read it. Class A is the best quality class - or least fedtarded - although obviously none of the classes are something to aspire to.I am not saying fedtards have minds of eggs. I would never insult eggs like that. (I am pretty sure the political correctness police have already taken eggs under their protection so that any disrespect toward them risks getting one imprisoned or at least ostracized from society.) Besides, parrots also come from eggs and they're quite bright. Hear that, PC Police? I said a nice things about eggs now, so back the fuck off.Class A fedtards, as you will see, have a good chance of reversing their lobotomized state and going back to being normal Federer fans who have a realistic appreciation of all Big 4 players. In fact, you're borderline class A and regular Federer fan. All you need to do is stop believing that Federer's talent is the greatest and most miraculous event in all of sports. That kind of thinking always gets you close to religious zealotry. The Church of Fedtardology (which as you can see I mention only once in this reply) is like the Dark Sith Lord trying to lull you in with fantastic promises of a perfect player in a perfect world. Don't be a Commie, don't be a fedtard.Why did I call you a fedtard? What crucial detail gave you away, I am sure you ask yourself? The fact you parroted several arguments that come straight from the Fedtard Commandments. Also, the fact you stated that RF's talent is "far greater than Nadal's" which only fedtards believe. The belief that Federer is way, way, way (did I mention way?) more talented than all the other players combined is typically fedtardic. It's that ballerina style, isn't it? Fedtards think that the more effeminate and "elegant" the strokes, the more talent there must be, not realizing that tennis is a sport, first-and-foremost, and ballet only in 100th place. There is more to talent than just how "pretty" your strokes are, which is anyway subjective, as I mention in my crusaderish text. Speaking of which, a little quiz question for you: Novak makes 11 winners and 5 unforced errors with his backhand, while Federer makes 18 winners and 28 unforced errors with his. Who has the better backhand?The reply may seem a little harsh, but I am proud of ya. You're doing the right things. You're trying to get yourself out of the loony sect. I don't need to check out the 10 Commandments of Rational Debate. I wrote them myself, you see. Surely you must have suspected it?
Federer is the GOAT. Forget about 17GS; more importantly he has massively positive H2H against his main rivals (23-11 against Nadal and 22-13 against Djokovic).
You're right. I am a complete fan of federer although my favourite player was actually Lleyton Hewitt. The reason I believe a lot of fans mention federer is not in his prime is because we notice it in his tennis play. Not by the results he achieves. Him making the final of wimbledon 15 and us open 15 does not necessarily mean he is still in his prime. When you watch fed play, you'll notice that his foot speed is a step slower than before. When he is pulled crosscourt on the forehand side he is forced to bunt it up the line. His forehands these days are more timing based and not the lethal forehand it use to be. To be sure, federer has compensated for his lack of speed with more potent net play. There is no doubt federe can still play at a high level of tennis but based on observation, many people feel that federer is out of his prime. Also do you mention in your article, anything about racket size? Not that it matters that much but I recall watching federer 2009/10 onwards (when nadal and djok became top 2) and federer shanked every other ball. He just couldnt handle rallies and his backhand shanked all day long. I think in 2014, federer changed racket to a larger size which allowed him to add power to the serve and help is backhand a bit. I think since 2014, he hasn't lost to murray or berdych (whom he was always able to lose to). As for the federer and nadal debate. Its obvioulsy not the surface that makes nadal better. Sure they met on clay more times and sure on other surfaces it couldve favoured federer. This must have been brought up before but its probably due more to the playing style rather than the court surface. Besides, the courts are homgenized anyways. The tactical match up for federer is a nightmare against nadal. Even in 2015 when everyone seemed to be beating nadal, federer struggled to win against him in Basel. As for having unknown opponents in grandslam finals. I agree but I also disagree. Tennis is exciting to watch becuase a lot of the time it is momentum based. You could be like goffin at Indian Wells. Its momentum driven. Its unfair to say Gonzalez was an unworthy opponent in a grandslam final. If you remember watching him that year. He was playing nuts. He was on fire. I'm pretty sure he straight setted everyone including nadal in the quarters that year. His level of play was phenomenal. Also baghdatis run was also a giant killing run. Tennis is a game of confidence and anyone can make a devastating run.
Vjetropev you are full of hate man its a sport who cares and Novak Djokovic is my favourite since 2009 and I hate media who keeps saying he is not charismatic and boring and stuff, they are biased and everybody knows that Djokovic is really good on and off the court and hate him for being too good and not from west lol, but I think you are not right either because you seem to be insulting people in the whole article and your comments, if you had ignored stupid people, this brilliant analysis of yours wold have been even more appealing. You have great stats to prove that Roger Federer is not the best ever or anything like that. I personally think the trio is equally talented but Roger lacks in Mental strength.
I am as objective as I can be and have researched this stuff well because I rarely do anything half-way (plus I love statistics), but remember that this is just a blog, so I want to have fun too. If that means poking fun at people who take tennis and themselves too seriously (fedtards, usually), then why not? Whoever can't take a joke is far too sensitive; I have neither respect nor patience for such people. I am not concerned about offending people who are constantly whining about "being offended". Let them be offended. People who bitch about being offended are ironically the ones who need to be offended and mocked the most. Besides, it's only a game as you said yourself, it's not a political debate. It’s just a sport. I am never going to write about tennis as if it’s a religion, and be totally serious about it. Chill out a bit, heed your own advice.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/80930802/No-recognition-no-joy-no-charisma-with-Novak-Djokovic-and-Hillary-Clinton Sta mislis o ovome? Uzgred,svaka ti cast na tekstu i strpljenju,neverovatno! Cak su ti i komentari toliko detaljni trebali mi je 3 dana da sve procitam.Slazem se sa tobom u potpunosti,ne postoji istinski GOAT ali se nadam da ce bar po gs titulama Novak biti najbolji u istoriji.
The text in the link is the biggest pile of horseshit I've read in a while, and I see horsemanure on the internet more often than Obama smuggles ISIS terrorists into the U.S. I've read better theories from glue-sniffing amoebas. The writer is obviously a retard of SeanPennian proportions, both a fedtard and a libtard - a sort of universal all-purpose imbecile whose stupidity can be applied to any area of study without ever coming up with anything remotely true or intelligent. If Tom Cruise's diarrhea ever magically turned into humans... No, I insult farts and shit with this analogy.Svaka ti cast sto si sve procitao! To se ceni. Ko zna koliko ce jos slemova uzeti Djokovic? Zaista ne znam ali sumnjam da ce dostici 17.Siri link za ovu stranu, sto vise. Zajebavaj fedtarde, treba svi oni da vide ovu stranu.