GBohannon wrote:
Nope wrote:
I think OP meant sports that people in more than one country have an interest in. That and sports where you don't need to stop every 4 seconds for a break.
I hate football as much as the next guy, so this doesn’t offend me. I do sometimes forget that 1/100 people who post here are not American. I will keep that in mind in the future.
Haha - typo. I meant 1/10. I was being sincere and the extra 0 makes it sounds like I was being facetious. Whoops.
Laughable--- wrote:
How can he be the GOAT in all sports if he's not even the GOAT in his? Look at his head-to-head against Nadal in Grand Slams. He's not better than one of his contemporaries.
Nadal has a losing record in 11 career matches against Davydenko (whom Fed leads 19-2), so I guess by your reasoning he must be a better player than Nadal? Guys like Karlovic (Fed leads him 13-1) have winning records againt Djokovic, so he can't be the greatest either...
Federer met Nadal disproportionately more times on clay since he had relatively more deep runs there than Nadal did on hard courts or grass. If Nadal hadn't lost to lesser opponents in earlier rounds, Federer would have had the chance to beat him in more hard court/grass semis and finals (as he did 4 times last year). Going back to 2015, Federer has won the last 5 matches and last 7 sets (all 6-2, 6-3, or 6-4).
rogerisjustsosensitive wrote:
Who is his competition? Jordan, Phelps, Carl Lewis, Messi, Pele, We're talking real sports here - (i.e. golf does not qualify).
Who?
Tennis? Is that a sport?
MFn Bo Jackson is the GOAT.
Period.
All second place contenders may line up to iron his jock strap.
Federer can should hand wash it first, IMO.
could be worse wrote:
Only number that truly matters is total Grand Slam wins:
Federer 20
Nadal 16
By your logic, Eli>Brady, since head to head in the Superbowl he's 2-0
No, by my logic if Eli had 16 super bowls and Brady had 20 and Eli had owned the head-to-head matchup in the Super Bowl then you wouldn't be so quick to automatically anoint Brady GOAT.
kartelite wrote:
Nadal has a losing record in 11 career matches against Davydenko (whom Fed leads 19-2), so I guess by your reasoning he must be a better player than Nadal?
No, that's retarded. However, if Davydenko had 16 grand slam titles then yes maybe.
Reality check... wrote:
Federer is real good but yes, he does have losing percentage vs Nadal.
It's the losing record in Grand Slams that is the real problem. Federer largely beats Nadal in the rinky-dink tournaments neither of them cares about. When it matters, Nadal has owned him.
In addition, if Rafa is a "clay court specialist" then Federer certainly is a "grass court specialist" and should be discounted as well. After all, if we're taking French Opens away from Rafa it's only fair to take Wimbledons away from Rog.
First of all, Federer is not a "grass court specialist. The Australia and U.S. Opens are not on grass.
Second of all, direct comparisons you're making with Nadal do not take into account the fact that while their careers overlap, they are not completely concurrent, and Federer's best and most dominant years were before the rise of Nadal
Third of all, tennis is far more of a global sport than most of you seem to realize
Fourth of all, elite tennis has an 11-month season.
Fifth of all, live long and prosper.
Of All The wrote:
First of all, Federer is not a "grass court specialist. The Australia and U.S. Opens are not on grass.
Nadal has won those as well. My point is that it is not fair to call Nadal a clay court specialist because he has won on clay. He's also won on the other surfaces. So just as it is dumb to call Federer a grass court specialist it is dumb to call Nadal a clay court specialist.[/quote]
Of All The wrote:
Second of all, direct comparisons you're making with Nadal do not take into account the fact that while their careers overlap, they are not completely concurrent, and Federer's best and most dominant years were before the rise of Nadal.
That's fair, but that criticism runs both ways doesn't it? The fact that Federer's best and most dominant years were before Nadal was on the scene is kind of telling.
Of All The wrote:
Third of all, tennis is far more of a global sport than most of you seem to realize
Fourth of all, elite tennis has an 11-month season.
Fifth of all, live long and prosper.
I sort of agree with all these except for the season business. The players complain about this but it's not exactly true. They have a lot of intense weeks in a row followed by several weeks of little action. And if their schedule is so grueling maybe they shouldn't play exhibitions for money during their limited off-season. It doesn't really help their case.
Joke Boy wrote:
objectivity wrote:
He's in a niche sport which requires having loads of cash and which hardly anyone in the world is able to play. An NCAA distance running champ has achieved far higher level of sporting ability than Federer has ever attained.
Lol. Of course he's the GOAT, across all sports.
LOL yeah look at all those poor Africans living in poverty who have been sent to tennis acadamies costing several hunred thousand dollars he has had to overcome. Tennis is not a patch on distance running in terms of competitivity.
Who is Roger Federer?
Serena Williams is the GOAT
Paula Radcliffe is the GOAT
kartelite wrote:
Nadal has a losing record in 11 career matches against Davydenko (whom Fed leads 19-2), so I guess by your reasoning he must be a better player than Nadal? Guys like Karlovic (Fed leads him 13-1) have winning records againt Djokovic, so he can't be the greatest either...
Federer met Nadal disproportionately more times on clay since he had relatively more deep runs there than Nadal did on hard courts or grass. If Nadal hadn't lost to lesser opponents in earlier rounds, Federer would have had the chance to beat him in more hard court/grass semis and finals (as he did 4 times last year). Going back to 2015, Federer has won the last 5 matches and last 7 sets (all 6-2, 6-3, or 6-4).
Agree; thank you for post very specific tennis examples of why singling out head to head match-ups don't belittle overall accomplishments. Laughable--- has issues if he can't accept that.
I think most would agree Wimbledon is the most prestigious and biggest stage of the Grand Slams. Federer also has a whopping 8, the most of anyone. Sampras (and someone named Renshaw from over a 100 years ago) are next with 7; Sampras never won the French. Borg is next with 5. Nadal? a measly 2.
could be worse wrote:
Agree; thank you for post very specific tennis examples of why singling out head to head match-ups don't belittle overall accomplishments. Laughable--- has issues if he can't accept that.
I think most would agree Wimbledon is the most prestigious and biggest stage of the Grand Slams. Federer also has a whopping 8, the most of anyone. Sampras (and someone named Renshaw from over a 100 years ago) are next with 7; Sampras never won the French. Borg is next with 5. Nadal? a measly 2.
I like Federer as much as the next guy but the dude has a point. It's kind of weird to be the best ever when you have a contemporary who not only owns you in the big spots but also is very close in grand slam titles himself. This is why the Davydenko or Eli Manning comparisons are dumb.
Wimbledon the biggest? Not to Americans. That's the US Open.
And to many Europeans the French Open is most important.
Remember, very few people play tennis on grass. It's a weird surface that goes back to the aristocracy. Many more people grow up on clay.
yeah but.... wrote:
I like Federer as much as the next guy but the dude has a point. It's kind of weird to be the best ever when you have a contemporary who not only owns you in the big spots but also is very close in grand slam titles himself.
I agree. I am a Federer fan but in my heart I know that Nadal is better. I never want Federer to have to play Nadal.
One thing to consider, grass courts nowadays are much slower than they used to be, which favors strong players like Rafa and takes away some of the advantage a fast and technically exquisite player like Federer has on fast surfaces.
The reason for this may be to offer matches that take a bit longer to score each point and make them more enjoyable for the audiences.
On classic grass, Federer would be even more dominant.
Nadal is one of the best ever. But Roger IS the best, even Rafa has acknowledged this on more than one occasion. I'm Spaniard, by the way, and like Nadal very much.
Federer is not only a successful player, but technically he does things nobody else can. The best match I've ever seen was a semifinal at Roland Garros between Federer and Djokovic some years ago. Both played beautifully. Federer won, then lost to Nadal in the final. Djokovic could have taken Nadal, IMO, but back then Rafa knew how to handle Roger.
The last few times both have met, Roger has totally owned Rafa. Among his many virtues, Federer has kept improving and finding ways to stay passionate and focused, despite being now a husband and father.
Maybe it would be more meaningful to break down where and in what round the Nadal-Federer matches occur. It's quite possible that the reason Federer didn't defeat Nadal more often is because Nadal didn't advance far enough in certain tournaments for Federer to have a chance to play him when he clearly would have had the edge. How many times in those early Wimbledon and U.S. Open victories of Fedcerer's was Nadal just a young pro who didn't advance beyond the second or third round?
Mizuno fanboy wrote:
The last few times both have met, Roger has totally owned Rafa. Among his many virtues, Federer has kept improving and finding ways to stay passionate and focused, despite being now a husband and father.
But we're talking GOAT here. "The last few times..." is kind of irrelevant. It's total picture.
There Seems wrote:
Maybe it would be more meaningful to break down where and in what round the Nadal-Federer matches occur. It's quite possible that the reason Federer didn't defeat Nadal more often is because Nadal didn't advance far enough in certain tournaments for Federer to have a chance to play him when he clearly would have had the edge. How many times in those early Wimbledon and U.S. Open victories of Fedcerer's was Nadal just a young pro who didn't advance beyond the second or third round?
So you want some data? Good thing for us, The Economist has crunched it:
Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is not just the king of clay
...
Both Mr Federer and Mr Nadal have faced some easy draws and some hard ones—that’s the nature of a sport in which every tournament begins with an empty bracket and a lottery. But the lotteries—and the career trajectories of the strongest members of tennis’s supporting cast—have tended to benefit Mr Federer. The average grand-slam title run requires beating a set of opponents that the typical champion would defeat 23% of the time. Only eight of Mr Federer’s 19 major titles have come against competition more difficult than that. But 13 of Mr Nadal’s 16 championships have required him to confront harder-than-average obstacles. Suddenly, the difference between 19 and 16 isn’t as clear-cut as it initially seemed.
In fact, when we adjust those two numbers for difficulty, the King of Clay ends up with the strongest claim to the throne for the entire kingdom. On average, Mr Nadal’s titles are worth 1.18 majors apiece, while Mr Federer’s work out to 0.98 each. I’ll save you the multiplication: Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7. The adjustment gives Mr Djokovic more credit as well, upping his total from 12 to 15.3 and swapping his fourth-place position on the traditional list with Pete Sampras’s third. It’s a promotion Mr Djokovic deserves, as all 12 of his major titles have required him to fight through tougher-than-average draws. Running the numbers also forces us to recognise just how hard Mr Wawrinka has needed to work to break the stranglehold his most fearsome peers have held at the grand slams. His three majors all rank in the top ten most difficult.
Even more than weeks atop the world rankings, Masters-level titles or peak Elo ratings—by which Mr Djokovic is the best-ranked, thanks to a run of five slam titles in six attempts between 2015 and 2016—difficulty-adjusted majors are unlikely to figure in the typical weekend argument about the greatest tennis player of all time. Yet for a single metric, it carries a heavy load, going to the heart of the case for Mr Nadal and cutting through much of the anecdotal carping that leads fans to discount one title or grant another extra credit. Each of the all-time greats has had their share of good and bad luck—little of it as good as Mr Nadal’s fortunes this past fortnight. As the sport’s greatest rivals continue their quest in 2018, it is important to remember that the Spaniard’s easy draw was an aberration, and that his career record in grand slams is every bit as good as Mr Federer’s.
tl;dr: Nadal's path to majors have been much more difficult than Federer's. Another data point for Nadal over Federer.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Female coach having affair with male runner. Should I report it?
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?