A page and forum to discuss all things Roger Federer.
52 Comments on Roger Federer
My fanbase continues to grow.
Thanks to Jeff Sackmann and his illustrious ELO analysis thateasily shows that pederer is no defacto GOAT and honourable mention to Bill Smith who shows how the lack of competition since 2017 is the reason for Federer’s recent success, and not to some racquet change.
It’s sad in this day and age that any old Joe can’t see how referring to a male cricket player without even a mention of Serena as part of an “all sport GOAT” is denigrating Serena’s incredible achievement during her career spanning a 23 grand slam winning period from first to most recent of 18 years to date.
More impressive than any other tennis player in the modern era.
In general, there are two ways of explaining exceptional results. One is a weak-field. The other, of course, is exceptional performance.
Since a weak-field has been eliminated as a possible explanation for Federer’s exceptional results from 2004-07, the obvious alternative is that he was really that good at that time, better than any male player has ever been for a four year period in the last fifty years of the open era.
How do Nadal and Djokovic compare? As we’ve seen, when not playing on his beloved clay, Nadal has shown a susceptibility to losing to weaker players at big tournaments throughout his career. Since winning his first slam in 2005, most of Nadal’s losses at slams are to players other than the big four (many losses were to players outside the top 50). It is Nadal’s weakness against also-rans which best explains why he’s never put together a multi-year performance like Fed from 2004-2007.
Djokovic of 2011-16 is a different case. Like Federer, and unlike Rafa, the Novak of that era consistently beat weaker players at the slams, and the large majority of his losses during that period were to the big four. The ELO numbers do support the claim that he faced a level of competition that was stronger overall than Federer faced from 2004-07.
However, we must enter the caveat that this is entirely due to the stronger level of competition Novak faced on clay. On HC and grass, there is almost nothing between Fed of 2004-07 and Djokovic of 2011-16.
The main difference is simply that Federer was a bit better: in a four year period off clay, he won 11 slam titles to go with 2 finals. By comparison, in a six year period off clay, Djokovic won 10 slam titles to go with four titles. That is one reason why Fed is the HC GOAT, with 20% more GOAT points than Novak.
Er… Joe made a serious mistake, how could there be no difference in competition on HCs, when Djoko had to beat Fed a multi slam winner on the HC several times, whilst Fed during 2004-2007 didn’t have to beat someone like himself, a multi slam winner on the HCs?
I asked the question about the difference between losing to a big four and beating a big four, how does that affect one’s ELO. Djoko lost more matches per season during his 2011-2015/2016 than Fed did during 2004-2007 but he lost in the major events mostly to his fellow big four members, and yet he had his ELO rating as high as Fed’s if not higher; had he won those encounters against the big four and lowered the number of losses per season, wouldn’t his ELO ratings move even higher than they were?
Like I mentioned earlier, Djoko wasn’t as dominant (on the HCs) in 2011-2015/2016 unlike Fed during 2004-2007 but that’s down to stiffer competition he had to face vs his big four members. Not forgetting the ELO’s of his fellow big four members during that period were high too – Fed’s for most of 2011-2012, then 2014-2015; Rafa’s during 2013 to early 2014 and parts of 2011; Murray’s from mid 2011 till 2013 before he went for his back surgery and then played well during 2015/2016 to get his ELO up again.
I don’t think we’re saying Fed wasn’t great on the HCs, it’s just that he didn’t have to beat opponents in the league of the big four during his heydays, the fact that he’s able to play and survive a long time in the tour and outlasting most players and maintained a ELO ratings above 2300 most of the time since reaching his prime (compared to his peer and fellow slam winnrers Hewitt, Safin and Roddick) spoke volume as to his greatness.
Well, Lucky, more carefully: there is virtually no difference in *relative HC performance level* -which is what ELO is supposed to measure- between 2004-07 Federer and 2011-16 Djokovic. Performance, of course, crucially takes into account whether a player wins or loses.
Now, I’ve already showed that neither Djokovic’s nor Nadal’s HC ELO between 2010-13 isn’t as high, either in terms of peak or average, as Federer’s between 2004-07. In a word, Federer’s HC performance level is relatively higher than Novak or Nadal during those respective periods. Please note that this is supposed to take into account strength of competition: if Novak/Nadal’s competition were so strong so as to outweigh the fact that they didn’t win as much as prime Fed, this woudl be reflected in the numbers.
It isn’t until 2015-16 that Djokovic really reaches Federer’s best ELO on HC, both in terms of peak (Novak very slightly higher) and average (Fed I think very slightly higher). However, we have to note an important point: that peak HC ELO is based primarily on Novak being able to beat a 33-34 year old Federer in four straight slams and other big HC tournaments.
But then, Novak of 2015-16 can hardly complain about his relatively tougher competition (as compared to 2004-07 Fed), when that tougher competition mainly consisted in beating an aging ATG at 4 straight slams (3 finals) and other HC tournaments.
Similar to what we’ve seen before in the case of Nadal’s impressive H2H on clay against Fed, this actually says more about Federer than it does about Djokovic. If Federer had not been so good for so long, then Novak’s (presumed) slam and other HC titles in 2014-16 would have come against weaker competition and his HC ELO would be lower than Fed’s from 2004-07.
*That* is the key point, and it again shows why 2004-07 cannot be labelled a weak era on HC; the same point holds even more strongly for grass.
The point is, Djokovic can hardly complain that he had to beat an old Federer in 2014-16, when Fed was beating young Novak and Rafa in 2006-07. Neither of the players in the losing group were at their best at the time, and ELO reflects this.
Rafa and Djoko had some royal battles that did them more harm than just losing a match, particularly during USO2011 and AO2012. What we saw from the ELO was a drop whoever lost, but the subsequent events that followed would be affected too – in Rafa’s case, leading to retirement/withdrawal in 2012 and then prolonged injury break; in Djoko’s case, he missed the entire Asian swing due to injury in 2011 and he losing more matches during indoor swing when he came back from injury to play. The ELO reflected the loss and so dipped, however it won’t tell you whether one missed a tournament or two due to injuries or lost a match due to injury.
Djoko might not suffer a dip in his ELO had he not been injured during USO2011 final and might start his 2012 on a better note and hence had a better 2012. As I mentioned earlier, Djoko wasn’t as dominant as Fed, and in 2013 he lost more matches on HCs (5 compared to Fed’s 2 in 2006 for example), losing two HC matches to Rafa, then no.2, when Rafa was also playing his best HC tennis in that stretch of the season.
Of course whether Djoko would’ve done better or not (if not for his injury) was just speculation, not fact, but his battles vs Rafa, at USO2011, AO2012 (and also at the clay slam FO2013) when both were near to or at their peak certainly had taken a physical toll on him to some degree.
Lucky, you’ve often talked about the longer-term effects of those battles, and let’s suppose you’re right. But I don’t see how that should affect our overall assessment of their career performance.
As many others have observed, playing style is a choice. You yourself have noted that Rafa started out a more attacking player, and might have had a very different career (perhaps including injuries?) had he adopted a less punishing style.
In any case, those 2011-12 matches were a result, in large part, of the grinding style of tennis that both men played -to an extremely high standard, it goes without saying. Had either one decided to shorten the points and go for more winners, the matches would almost certainly have been shorter and less punishing.
In short, our assessment of their relative performance -from 2010-13 or at any other time- is in part a reflection of what style of tennis they decided to play.
Not so easy to hit winners against either of them; just ask Fed! If it’s that easy, Fed won’t be dragged into a dog fight vs Rafa at AO2009/Wim 2008, or against Djoko at USO2010/2011!
No doubt, but that’s part of the game, isn’t it? Players always have to decide how much energy to expend and how much to hold in reserve.
Rafa is finding that out once again at the present time. If he had been more judicious in his scheduling in the last six months, perhaps he wouldn’t be injured right now.
Well that’s true about Rafa where scheduling is concerned. Djoko is better at managing his schedule that’s why despite winning so much, he rarely gets any injury (except after USO2011 vs Rafa) and then in 2017, and that’s why he has 223 weeks at number 1!
Serena says:
“I’ve never been the right kind of woman,” Williams says in a voiceover. “Oversized and overconfident. Too mean if I don’t smile. Too black for my tennis whites. Too motivated for motherhood. But I’m proving time and time again, there’s no wrong way to be a woman.”
If you didn’t get chills from that, you might want to check your pulse. The message is a strong one for all women out there, even if you haven’t won 23 Grand Slam singles titles.”
Nike certainly doesn’t think Federer is the greatest athlete of all time:
“As we approach International Women’s Day, Nike wanted to recognize and celebrate the contributions and achievements of women everywhere and share our belief in gender equality, in this case, delivered by Serena Williams, the greatest athlete of all time.”
TWD, you say: “…maybe just ask Joe Smith ‘How do you consider Serena/Graff in the context of the greatest tennis player debate?’”
I’ll take the opportunity to say ‘thanks for asking,’ even though you didn’t, really.
In my view, it makes less sense to compare Roger Federer to Serena Williams or Steffi Graf than it does to compare him to William Renshaw. In other words, it makes no sense at all.
Of course, one could ask the question: are Federer’s accomplishments vs. his peers more or less impressive than Serena’s vs. her’s?
One could also ask the question: are Federer’s accomplishment’s more impressive than my friend’s son’s 12 year old cricket team (which hasn’t lost a game in four years and now has to play 14 year olds to find a competitive game).
I really don’t see the point of asking any such question. At least when we’re comparing Fed to Nadal and Djokovic, we’re comparing contemporaries who have competed against each other for many years.
Comparing Federer to Borg is stretching it; to Lew Hoad is almost pointless; and to Serena is totally pointless.
Admittedly, I was the one who posted the link to a story asking whether Federer was the greatest athlete of all time. That was simply to show that people are asking the question, indicative of just how great his accomplishments are. Above, Hawkeye ventured that in his mind, Fed has passed Brady in football, Jordan in basketball, and maybe Gretzky in hockey. Imo, it’s hard to see the point of any such comparison.
Until then, you remain as characterized above at 10:56 (along with another regular). And agreeing with TWD about making things personal from you is a bad joke at best and quite shamelessly hypocritical to say the least.
(I don’t want to know anymore about what you venture in your mind in addition to endless cheap strawman arguments.)
At least you reached your stated goal of “shaking things up here”. Congrats. Well done.
Some people here have a difficult time with the difference between opinion and fact. Here’s are two facts:
If the question of GOAT is mere opinion, then so is the question of clay GOAT.
If the question of clay GOAT is (partly) based on fact, then so is the question of GOAT.
My view is that both questions are largely a matter of fact. Indeed, there isn’t *that* much disagreement about which factual considerations are most important to deciding both questions:
1. Number of big titles (slams, WTF, masters)
2. Number of weeks @ #1.
3. Relative performance compared to other players, insofar as this can be quantified, e.g. ELO.
Of course, subjective elements enter into the question how much weight each of these factors should be given, and what the other (less important) relevant factors are.
Bearing these points in mind, those who would maintain that the question of clay GOAT is a matter of fact, but overall GOAT is not, are rather confused.
Undoubtedly the question of clay GOAT is clearer, because Nadal’s relevant achievements are so far ahead of everyone else. However, this is perfectly compatible with saying that the question of overall GOAT is also quite clear, because Federer’s achievements, overall, are clearly superior to all others. That is why he is so far ahead in the GOAT race:
Andre Agassi gets it and I agree 100% with him (especially his comment on GOAT debate being completely subjective – as any rational person would).
Andre Agassi believes Roger Federer cannot be considered to be the greatest of all time (GOAT) due to his losing head-to-head record against his long-term rival Rafael Nadal. The eight-time Grand Slam champion currently coaches the pair’s regular foe Novak Djokovic, with the Serb boasting winning records against both players.
Federer leads the all-time Grand Slam charts, with a men’s record of 19 majors – ahead of Nadal’s 16 – and is widely labelled as the GOAT for his remarkable achievements. But Agassi believes that Nadal’s one-sided head-to-head (23-15) damages Federer’s claim to be crowned as the greatest in history.
However, while he thinks Nadal’s record over Federer would give him the advantage to be crowned as the GOAT, he pointed out that all these distinctions are arbitrary. ‘My choice is purely arbitrary,’ he added. ‘I could just as easily defend the opposite view and prove to you that Federer is the best. ‘The debate has no rational basis, it comes down to ‘and if …’. It’s just a debate.’
I generally agree, but I think focusing only on the slams shortchanges players from earlier eras, who didn’t put as much emphasis on all slams, and in many cases (Connors, Borg, McEnroe) barely played some at all. Even Agassi didn’t play the AO until 1995 (won it the first time he played) and Sampras skipped a couple early on (didn’t even play the AO right after he won the USO in 1990).
So I think slam count is the most important factor in comparing the current generation, but in (trying) to compare them to earlier players, it can be a bit misleading.
Connors, for instance, missed 5 FOs during his absolute prime (74-78) and 8 more AOs between 76-83. Had he played all of those tournaments, he could easily have several more slams than the 8 he ended up with.
Fed showing he still has the drive to win, also admitting that Rotterdam was all about reclaiming #1. Hard to believe he’s 64-5, 92.75%, since returning.
Tennis is headed toward eliminating lines-persons, probably (imo) on all surfaces eventually. Even if the margin for error is higher for machines than human beings on clay, taking the human element and possibility of bias out of the equation is worth it.
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Rafa Nadal
4. Pete Sampras
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Ken Rorewall
8. Ivan Lendl
9. John Mcenroe
10. Jimmy Connors
“The girls didn‘t like the game too much earlier, they often didn‘t want to practice but now they enjoy it as well, but the boys are definitely much more into it, my mother says that they remind her very much of me when I was at their age.“
It’s looking more and more likely that Federer will play Roland Garros this year. He’s made a few things clear:
1. Whether he plays or not doesn’t depend on what Rafa or Novak are doing, whether they are playing, in good form, etc.
2. Fed still regards Rafa as the man to beat on clay and doesn’t necessarily think his chances are any better than they’ve been previously to beat him on that surface. Specifically, Fed is not sure his improved BH has improved his chances of beating Rafa on clay.
3. Nevertheless, he wants another crack at winning the French. Imo, Fed’s preference would be to meet Rafa in the final.
This is an April Fool’s Day joke.
But, even its April Fools’ story, the newspapar doesn’t forget to make pro-Fed propaganda and his sponsor. The newspaper remembers that the Swiss won Olympic Gold in doubles in 2008, but “forgets” that Rafa won it in 2016.
Stats padded by the Weak Era augmented by what looks to be another.
Sampras and Laver were better grass court players arguably. Sampras never had the luxury of the weak era in his prime on grass and laver won more grass slams than Federer despite being deprived of competing in slams as a pro for over five years of his prime. And laver won two French opens missing all of those years as well
My fanbase continues to grow.
Thanks to Jeff Sackmann and his illustrious ELO analysis thateasily shows that pederer is no defacto GOAT and honourable mention to Bill Smith who shows how the lack of competition since 2017 is the reason for Federer’s recent success, and not to some racquet change.
It’s sad in this day and age that any old Joe can’t see how referring to a male cricket player without even a mention of Serena as part of an “all sport GOAT” is denigrating Serena’s incredible achievement during her career spanning a 23 grand slam winning period from first to most recent of 18 years to date.
More impressive than any other tennis player in the modern era.
#DontBelieveTheHype
#RacquetRuse
#RememberSerena
In general, there are two ways of explaining exceptional results. One is a weak-field. The other, of course, is exceptional performance.
Since a weak-field has been eliminated as a possible explanation for Federer’s exceptional results from 2004-07, the obvious alternative is that he was really that good at that time, better than any male player has ever been for a four year period in the last fifty years of the open era.
How do Nadal and Djokovic compare? As we’ve seen, when not playing on his beloved clay, Nadal has shown a susceptibility to losing to weaker players at big tournaments throughout his career. Since winning his first slam in 2005, most of Nadal’s losses at slams are to players other than the big four (many losses were to players outside the top 50). It is Nadal’s weakness against also-rans which best explains why he’s never put together a multi-year performance like Fed from 2004-2007.
Djokovic of 2011-16 is a different case. Like Federer, and unlike Rafa, the Novak of that era consistently beat weaker players at the slams, and the large majority of his losses during that period were to the big four. The ELO numbers do support the claim that he faced a level of competition that was stronger overall than Federer faced from 2004-07.
However, we must enter the caveat that this is entirely due to the stronger level of competition Novak faced on clay. On HC and grass, there is almost nothing between Fed of 2004-07 and Djokovic of 2011-16.
The main difference is simply that Federer was a bit better: in a four year period off clay, he won 11 slam titles to go with 2 finals. By comparison, in a six year period off clay, Djokovic won 10 slam titles to go with four titles. That is one reason why Fed is the HC GOAT, with 20% more GOAT points than Novak.
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
Er… Joe made a serious mistake, how could there be no difference in competition on HCs, when Djoko had to beat Fed a multi slam winner on the HC several times, whilst Fed during 2004-2007 didn’t have to beat someone like himself, a multi slam winner on the HCs?
I asked the question about the difference between losing to a big four and beating a big four, how does that affect one’s ELO. Djoko lost more matches per season during his 2011-2015/2016 than Fed did during 2004-2007 but he lost in the major events mostly to his fellow big four members, and yet he had his ELO rating as high as Fed’s if not higher; had he won those encounters against the big four and lowered the number of losses per season, wouldn’t his ELO ratings move even higher than they were?
Like I mentioned earlier, Djoko wasn’t as dominant (on the HCs) in 2011-2015/2016 unlike Fed during 2004-2007 but that’s down to stiffer competition he had to face vs his big four members. Not forgetting the ELO’s of his fellow big four members during that period were high too – Fed’s for most of 2011-2012, then 2014-2015; Rafa’s during 2013 to early 2014 and parts of 2011; Murray’s from mid 2011 till 2013 before he went for his back surgery and then played well during 2015/2016 to get his ELO up again.
I don’t think we’re saying Fed wasn’t great on the HCs, it’s just that he didn’t have to beat opponents in the league of the big four during his heydays, the fact that he’s able to play and survive a long time in the tour and outlasting most players and maintained a ELO ratings above 2300 most of the time since reaching his prime (compared to his peer and fellow slam winnrers Hewitt, Safin and Roddick) spoke volume as to his greatness.
Well, Lucky, more carefully: there is virtually no difference in *relative HC performance level* -which is what ELO is supposed to measure- between 2004-07 Federer and 2011-16 Djokovic. Performance, of course, crucially takes into account whether a player wins or loses.
Now, I’ve already showed that neither Djokovic’s nor Nadal’s HC ELO between 2010-13 isn’t as high, either in terms of peak or average, as Federer’s between 2004-07. In a word, Federer’s HC performance level is relatively higher than Novak or Nadal during those respective periods. Please note that this is supposed to take into account strength of competition: if Novak/Nadal’s competition were so strong so as to outweigh the fact that they didn’t win as much as prime Fed, this woudl be reflected in the numbers.
It isn’t until 2015-16 that Djokovic really reaches Federer’s best ELO on HC, both in terms of peak (Novak very slightly higher) and average (Fed I think very slightly higher). However, we have to note an important point: that peak HC ELO is based primarily on Novak being able to beat a 33-34 year old Federer in four straight slams and other big HC tournaments.
But then, Novak of 2015-16 can hardly complain about his relatively tougher competition (as compared to 2004-07 Fed), when that tougher competition mainly consisted in beating an aging ATG at 4 straight slams (3 finals) and other HC tournaments.
Similar to what we’ve seen before in the case of Nadal’s impressive H2H on clay against Fed, this actually says more about Federer than it does about Djokovic. If Federer had not been so good for so long, then Novak’s (presumed) slam and other HC titles in 2014-16 would have come against weaker competition and his HC ELO would be lower than Fed’s from 2004-07.
*That* is the key point, and it again shows why 2004-07 cannot be labelled a weak era on HC; the same point holds even more strongly for grass.
The point is, Djokovic can hardly complain that he had to beat an old Federer in 2014-16, when Fed was beating young Novak and Rafa in 2006-07. Neither of the players in the losing group were at their best at the time, and ELO reflects this.
Rafa and Djoko had some royal battles that did them more harm than just losing a match, particularly during USO2011 and AO2012. What we saw from the ELO was a drop whoever lost, but the subsequent events that followed would be affected too – in Rafa’s case, leading to retirement/withdrawal in 2012 and then prolonged injury break; in Djoko’s case, he missed the entire Asian swing due to injury in 2011 and he losing more matches during indoor swing when he came back from injury to play. The ELO reflected the loss and so dipped, however it won’t tell you whether one missed a tournament or two due to injuries or lost a match due to injury.
Djoko might not suffer a dip in his ELO had he not been injured during USO2011 final and might start his 2012 on a better note and hence had a better 2012. As I mentioned earlier, Djoko wasn’t as dominant as Fed, and in 2013 he lost more matches on HCs (5 compared to Fed’s 2 in 2006 for example), losing two HC matches to Rafa, then no.2, when Rafa was also playing his best HC tennis in that stretch of the season.
Of course whether Djoko would’ve done better or not (if not for his injury) was just speculation, not fact, but his battles vs Rafa, at USO2011, AO2012 (and also at the clay slam FO2013) when both were near to or at their peak certainly had taken a physical toll on him to some degree.
Lucky, you’ve often talked about the longer-term effects of those battles, and let’s suppose you’re right. But I don’t see how that should affect our overall assessment of their career performance.
As many others have observed, playing style is a choice. You yourself have noted that Rafa started out a more attacking player, and might have had a very different career (perhaps including injuries?) had he adopted a less punishing style.
In any case, those 2011-12 matches were a result, in large part, of the grinding style of tennis that both men played -to an extremely high standard, it goes without saying. Had either one decided to shorten the points and go for more winners, the matches would almost certainly have been shorter and less punishing.
In short, our assessment of their relative performance -from 2010-13 or at any other time- is in part a reflection of what style of tennis they decided to play.
Not so easy to hit winners against either of them; just ask Fed! If it’s that easy, Fed won’t be dragged into a dog fight vs Rafa at AO2009/Wim 2008, or against Djoko at USO2010/2011!
No doubt, but that’s part of the game, isn’t it? Players always have to decide how much energy to expend and how much to hold in reserve.
Rafa is finding that out once again at the present time. If he had been more judicious in his scheduling in the last six months, perhaps he wouldn’t be injured right now.
Homophobe joe smith……
https://tenngrand.com/roger-federer/comment-page-27/#comment-296027
Well that’s true about Rafa where scheduling is concerned. Djoko is better at managing his schedule that’s why despite winning so much, he rarely gets any injury (except after USO2011 vs Rafa) and then in 2017, and that’s why he has 223 weeks at number 1!
Serena says:
“I’ve never been the right kind of woman,” Williams says in a voiceover. “Oversized and overconfident. Too mean if I don’t smile. Too black for my tennis whites. Too motivated for motherhood. But I’m proving time and time again, there’s no wrong way to be a woman.”
If you didn’t get chills from that, you might want to check your pulse. The message is a strong one for all women out there, even if you haven’t won 23 Grand Slam singles titles.”
Nike certainly doesn’t think Federer is the greatest athlete of all time:
“As we approach International Women’s Day, Nike wanted to recognize and celebrate the contributions and achievements of women everywhere and share our belief in gender equality, in this case, delivered by Serena Williams, the greatest athlete of all time.”
https://www.realsimple.com/work-life/entertainment/serena-williams-nike-ad
TWD, you say: “…maybe just ask Joe Smith ‘How do you consider Serena/Graff in the context of the greatest tennis player debate?’”
I’ll take the opportunity to say ‘thanks for asking,’ even though you didn’t, really.
In my view, it makes less sense to compare Roger Federer to Serena Williams or Steffi Graf than it does to compare him to William Renshaw. In other words, it makes no sense at all.
Of course, one could ask the question: are Federer’s accomplishments vs. his peers more or less impressive than Serena’s vs. her’s?
One could also ask the question: are Federer’s accomplishment’s more impressive than my friend’s son’s 12 year old cricket team (which hasn’t lost a game in four years and now has to play 14 year olds to find a competitive game).
I really don’t see the point of asking any such question. At least when we’re comparing Fed to Nadal and Djokovic, we’re comparing contemporaries who have competed against each other for many years.
Comparing Federer to Borg is stretching it; to Lew Hoad is almost pointless; and to Serena is totally pointless.
homophobe misogynist joe smith
https://tenngrand.com/roger-federer/comment-page-27/#comment-296027
Admittedly, I was the one who posted the link to a story asking whether Federer was the greatest athlete of all time. That was simply to show that people are asking the question, indicative of just how great his accomplishments are. Above, Hawkeye ventured that in his mind, Fed has passed Brady in football, Jordan in basketball, and maybe Gretzky in hockey. Imo, it’s hard to see the point of any such comparison.
Then explain yourself if I interpreted your statement referenced:
https://tenngrand.com/roger-federer/comment-page-27/#comment-296027
Nah, didn’t think so. Cop out.
Until then, you remain as characterized above at 10:56 (along with another regular). And agreeing with TWD about making things personal from you is a bad joke at best and quite shamelessly hypocritical to say the least.
(I don’t want to know anymore about what you venture in your mind in addition to endless cheap strawman arguments.)
At least you reached your stated goal of “shaking things up here”. Congrats. Well done.
Some people here have a difficult time with the difference between opinion and fact. Here’s are two facts:
If the question of GOAT is mere opinion, then so is the question of clay GOAT.
If the question of clay GOAT is (partly) based on fact, then so is the question of GOAT.
My view is that both questions are largely a matter of fact. Indeed, there isn’t *that* much disagreement about which factual considerations are most important to deciding both questions:
1. Number of big titles (slams, WTF, masters)
2. Number of weeks @ #1.
3. Relative performance compared to other players, insofar as this can be quantified, e.g. ELO.
Of course, subjective elements enter into the question how much weight each of these factors should be given, and what the other (less important) relevant factors are.
Bearing these points in mind, those who would maintain that the question of clay GOAT is a matter of fact, but overall GOAT is not, are rather confused.
Undoubtedly the question of clay GOAT is clearer, because Nadal’s relevant achievements are so far ahead of everyone else. However, this is perfectly compatible with saying that the question of overall GOAT is also quite clear, because Federer’s achievements, overall, are clearly superior to all others. That is why he is so far ahead in the GOAT race:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
homophobic joe smith
https://tenngrand.com/roger-federer/comment-page-27/#comment-296027
Andre Agassi gets it and I agree 100% with him (especially his comment on GOAT debate being completely subjective – as any rational person would).
Andre Agassi believes Roger Federer cannot be considered to be the greatest of all time (GOAT) due to his losing head-to-head record against his long-term rival Rafael Nadal. The eight-time Grand Slam champion currently coaches the pair’s regular foe Novak Djokovic, with the Serb boasting winning records against both players.
Federer leads the all-time Grand Slam charts, with a men’s record of 19 majors – ahead of Nadal’s 16 – and is widely labelled as the GOAT for his remarkable achievements. But Agassi believes that Nadal’s one-sided head-to-head (23-15) damages Federer’s claim to be crowned as the greatest in history.
However, while he thinks Nadal’s record over Federer would give him the advantage to be crowned as the GOAT, he pointed out that all these distinctions are arbitrary. ‘My choice is purely arbitrary,’ he added. ‘I could just as easily defend the opposite view and prove to you that Federer is the best. ‘The debate has no rational basis, it comes down to ‘and if …’. It’s just a debate.’
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/13/rafael-nadal-has-better-claim-to-be-the-goat-than-roger-federer-says-novak-djokovic-coach-andre-agassi-7076109/?ito=cbshare
Another knowledgeable tennis writer selecting Federer as GOAT. His list is very similar to Tignor’s, though he puts Nadal at #2 ahead of Laver:
https://howtheyplay.com/individual-sports/Top-10-Greatest-Male-Tennis-Players-of-All-Time
That list is in broad agreement with the Slam count, which is the best way to judge GOAT IMO.
I generally agree, but I think focusing only on the slams shortchanges players from earlier eras, who didn’t put as much emphasis on all slams, and in many cases (Connors, Borg, McEnroe) barely played some at all. Even Agassi didn’t play the AO until 1995 (won it the first time he played) and Sampras skipped a couple early on (didn’t even play the AO right after he won the USO in 1990).
So I think slam count is the most important factor in comparing the current generation, but in (trying) to compare them to earlier players, it can be a bit misleading.
yes, that’s true, todays players have an advantage to win more Slams.
Its the main way of judging GOAT, but not the whole story .
Exactly Big al. If it was just slam count, Agassi wouldn’t think Nadal was GOAT. Nor would anyone including me.
As he says, it’s arbitrarily subjective.
I’ll take that over any tennis writer.
But I respect the opinion that think Federer is goat even if I don’t agree.
Connors, for instance, missed 5 FOs during his absolute prime (74-78) and 8 more AOs between 76-83. Had he played all of those tournaments, he could easily have several more slams than the 8 he ended up with.
homophobe joe smith
https://tenngrand.com/roger-federer/comment-page-27/#comment-296027
What can compare to early prime Federer? Rather than look at other sportsmen, perhaps we should consider a great artist: early, prime Babs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbLz2DcxZEQ
Fed showing he still has the drive to win, also admitting that Rotterdam was all about reclaiming #1. Hard to believe he’s 64-5, 92.75%, since returning.
https://www.news18.com/news/sports/swiss-maestro-roger-federer-continues-to-drive-on-towards-perfection-1683811.html
You guys are clowning…the GOAT is clearly Paolo Lorenzi.
#Herbert
#OfCourse #AlmostSaidHerbertButDidntWannaStealYourThunder
Tennis is headed toward eliminating lines-persons, probably (imo) on all surfaces eventually. Even if the margin for error is higher for machines than human beings on clay, taking the human element and possibility of bias out of the equation is worth it.
http://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/52458/hawkeye-live-could-be-introduced-in-the-atp-tour/
2018 tennis.com GREATEST OF ALL TIMES
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Rafa Nadal
4. Pete Sampras
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Ken Rorewall
8. Ivan Lendl
9. John Mcenroe
10. Jimmy Connors
http://www.tennis.com/tags/50-greatest-players-open-era/
BNP Paribas Open 2018: Rod Laver, Pete Sampras Watch Roger Federer Match
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNSkslNp2y4
Rogi papy Lemonade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNSkslNp2y4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NFtKuTMSxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXHrBqVLDKY
“The girls didn‘t like the game too much earlier, they often didn‘t want to practice but now they enjoy it as well, but the boys are definitely much more into it, my mother says that they remind her very much of me when I was at their age.“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNepVlmjuhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-0ddSa5v3A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs4842on-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s6Z42d10t8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeU3bcX_vTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZK5mzj62Pk
It’s looking more and more likely that Federer will play Roland Garros this year. He’s made a few things clear:
1. Whether he plays or not doesn’t depend on what Rafa or Novak are doing, whether they are playing, in good form, etc.
2. Fed still regards Rafa as the man to beat on clay and doesn’t necessarily think his chances are any better than they’ve been previously to beat him on that surface. Specifically, Fed is not sure his improved BH has improved his chances of beating Rafa on clay.
3. Nevertheless, he wants another crack at winning the French. Imo, Fed’s preference would be to meet Rafa in the final.
Sorry, meant to include this link:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/15/tennis/roger-federer-tennis-clay-season/index.html
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/939889/Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal-doubles-Wimbledon
This is an April Fool’s Day joke.
But, even its April Fools’ story, the newspapar doesn’t forget to make pro-Fed propaganda and his sponsor. The newspaper remembers that the Swiss won Olympic Gold in doubles in 2008, but “forgets” that Rafa won it in 2016.
Federer named one of Time’s most influential people of 2018. Well done, Roger.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/23246072/roger-federer-kevin-durant-chloe-kim-adam-rippon-jj-watt-virat-kohli-100
Fantastic action shot of Federer’s first practice in London: https://instagram.com/p/vmRU3xKNv8/
Lol! Finally a great photo of the GOAT!
(Federer really does not photograph well. He’s much better looking in person.)
Some facts supporting Fed’s clear claim to being the best grass courter ever:
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/07/roger-federer-grass-10-things-know-about-eight-time-champ/74920/
Stats padded by the Weak Era augmented by what looks to be another.
Sampras and Laver were better grass court players arguably. Sampras never had the luxury of the weak era in his prime on grass and laver won more grass slams than Federer despite being deprived of competing in slams as a pro for over five years of his prime. And laver won two French opens missing all of those years as well