Federer is the GOAT!
The question of the status of Federer in the all time ratings generaly raises it's head this time of the year. Another question is Federers all court game and how it compares with other great players.
Federer has won the French once in 13 attempts, the year Nadal was injured, and of his first 6 attempts he was knocked out in the 1st round 3 times whereas Nadal first played in the French when he was 18 and won on each of his first 5 visits.
4 of Federers slams have seen him beat Roddick in the final. Other notable slam final opponents were such greats as Mark Phillippoussis and Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Fernando Rodriguez. Marco Baghdatis was just 20 when Federer beat him in the Oz final and Andre Agassi was well into his 36th year whe Federer beat him in the US.
Federers early championship wins included victories against such household names as Julien Boutter and Jan Michael Gambill neither of whom have I ever heard of.
I am bemused as to why people are so keen to misrepresent Federers achievements. He has won 16 slams but surely the merit of that is qualified by the players he beat.
He has a career head to head against Nadal of 8-17 in the spaniards favour. The head to head in the slams is 2-6 and he hasn't beaten Nadal since the 06 Wimbledon when Nadal was still only 21yoa.
Federer is still capable of winning a slam but I wouldn't think he will and his only chance of being the winner of most slams when the current players have retired would be if Djokovic can stop Nadal or if Nadal get's injured again because I don't think Federer would have won his last three if Nadal had been fit.
surely no-one can still think....
posted on 4/7/11
federer 16 slams
rafa 10 slams
yep fed is still the goat
posted on 4/7/11
talking of head to heads, isnt rafa 0-5 to djokovich this year? maybe we shouldnt be comparing rafa and fed but rather djok and fed because according to you slam total doesnt count.
posted on 4/7/11
federer is not the goat because of the 16 titles. it is because of the way he plays is the greatest of all time. the dancing feet and BEST FOREHAND IN TENNIS HISTORY and the great one handed backhand. so don't try and say he's not the best because clearly you don't watch tennis and nadal is just a fast runner.
posted on 4/7/11
SdotD - whilst everyone has their own view on who is the goat, to day 'clearly you don't watch tennis and then say nadal is just a fast runner' questions how much tennis you watch
It seems difficult for people to appreciate the skills of Federer and Nadal without slagging the other one off. And with both players still to finish their careers, who really knows which one will end up with the most slams? For what it's worth, I don't think Federer has more than a couple left in him,maybe only even one more, it's amazing how in all sports that a player goes from regularly winning to suddenly not winning very often at all. It's also a lot to ask of Nadal to win about 2 a year for the next 4 years, but we'll just have to wait and see.
posted on 4/7/11
what i was meant to say is that without speed. nadal would not of won as much as he has done
posted on 4/7/11
It seems difficult for people to appreciate the skills of Federer and Nadal without slagging the other one off.
==============
Agree completely with that. It really is unbelievable how some people can behave. Frankly, I believe these two will be looked at as the greatest in history, they've been so dominant (26 majors between them!!), yet people still slag one or the other. It's crazy, just be grateful for what you're able to watch.
posted on 5/7/11
what i was meant to say is that without speed. nadal would not of won as much as he has done
--------------------------------
That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
Might as well say if Sampras didn't have the greatest serve ever he wouldn't have won as much as he did or if Connors didn't have tenacity he wouldn't have won as much a he did.
Heck if Murray wasn't such a choker he'd have won about 4 slams by now.
Players strengths and weaknesses make them what they are.
posted on 5/7/11
Apart from the final 3 sets against Tsonga I thought this Wimbledon Fed Played as good if not better than he ever played.
I was a real Federer fan until he came up against Nadal and he hadn't a clue. I hated the way Federer buckled when he came across this guy who didn't have half the skill that Fed had been blessed with and the more he played him the more he lost the more I was dissappointed with Feds lack of bottle.
My son-in-law is an ex pro and we often discuss the game.He tells me of Feds natural skills that make him good at whatever he chooses to do. He's fit , strong, still a great athlete so why doesn't he win?
My theory is the guys he did beat were so inferior to him that he cruised through but he hasn't got what all winners are born with, the refusal to accept defeat and that is why he's losingand now djoko has got his Rs in gear he's got more natural talent than Nadal and more fight than Fed so Fed is finished. He won't win another slam
If your a champ like McEnroe you'd tear someones throat out before you'd let them beat you and Fed just whimps and trails off. I hate it and hate him for doing it and I definitely wouldn't want him at my side in the trenches.
posted on 17/7/11
Someone on this forum summed up the Federer/ Nadal rivary thus:
Federer is an exceptional tennis player and a good athlete;Nadal on the other hand is a good tennis player and an exceptional athlete.
Could not put it better.
posted on 18/7/11
ub..You missed the key! Federer has more talent whereas Nadal is a winner so the old adage applies. When the going gets tough the tough get going and Nadal wins.