Who cares about tennis?
Who cares about tennis?
Tennis is boring wrote:
Who cares about tennis?
It's a far more popular sport than garbage running.
Tennis is not boring. I watched the Aussie final. It was more exciting than any guys-hit-each-other-with-their-helmets football game I've seen this year.
yeah but.... wrote:
Wimbledon the biggest? Not to Americans. That's the US Open.
And to many Europeans the French Open is most important.
y.
Wimbledon is absolutely, unquestionably, the most prestigious. You lose all credibility trying to argue otherwise.
silly millie wrote:
Wimbledon is absolutely, unquestionably, the most prestigious. You lose all credibility trying to argue otherwise.
And what relevance does prestige of tournament (which is subjective) have on determining GOAT? Are you saying Wimbledon counts more than the others? By what multiplier? Should we multiply Federer's Wimbledon's by 2x? Maybe 10x because it's so prestigious?
Give me a break, son.
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
This ^
Good to see that there are a few logical posters here on LRC.
A few
This Man wrote:
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
This ^
Good to see that there are a few logical posters here on LRC.
A few
If Federer retires tomorrow and Nadal wins 5 more French Opens then you will grant Nadal better than Federer?
asdfasdfasfsf wrote:
If Federer retires tomorrow and Nadal wins 5 more French Opens then you will grant Nadal better than Federer?
Yes.
Though many many many will have a soft spot for Federer.
asdfasdfasfsf wrote:
This Man wrote:
This ^
Good to see that there are a few logical posters here on LRC.
A few
If Federer retires tomorrow and Nadal wins 5 more French Opens then you will grant Nadal better than Federer?
Yes. Without hesitation.
yeah but... wrote:
And what relevance does prestige of tournament (which is subjective) have on determining GOAT? Are you saying Wimbledon counts more than the others? By what multiplier? Should we multiply Federer's Wimbledon's by 2x? Maybe 10x because it's so prestigious?
Give me a break, son.
Here's your "break" oh pompous one: Winning on the biggest stage matters. It's hard to quantify, but if Federer had struggled over the years at Wimbledon, it'd tarnish his legacy. It's like people arguing Jordan was clutch in the argument of Jordan vs Lebron. You can't put a number on it, but it absolutely matters.
With that in mind, I'm not sure, if Rafa wins 5 more Frenchies, that I'd rank him above Federer, but at least it'd be arguable. Many would argue that Rafa was the greatest Clay player and Roger the best all around. In my mind Rafa would have to shine brighter a few times at Wimbledon.
Anyhow, right now, 20-16, 8-2 on biggest stage. No argument.
not John McEnroe wrote:
Serena > Roger
Serena's ass >> Roger
Laughable--- wrote:
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.
You can only call Nadal a "clay court specialist" relative to his results on other surfaces, just because he has been so dominant there. Whereas a Gustavo Kuerten could never do much outside of clay. Nadal is certainly an all-time great and that would be the case even you took away his unprecedented results on clay.
While head-to-head matchups are important, tennis is ultimately about winning tournaments. Different players do match up differently against one another, that's why Chung on fire could beat an 80% Djokovic in straight sets but was not going to beat an 80% Federer on fast hard courts. Federer's game had some flaws that Nadal's playing style (and being lefty) was able to exploit, particularly his lack of an aggressive backhand which Nadal could eat up with deep topspin forehands crosscourt. Federer finally fixed that, and has now won the past 5 matches between the two. Also, due to the age difference a lot of their encounters occurred when Nadal was just hitting his peak and Federer was past his (although he's managed to stay near that level for an impressively long time). Imagine a 25-year-old Federer playing a 30-year old Nadal - I think the H2H results would be a lot different.
While it doesn't make sense to "exclude" tournaments, Federer does have 11 HC grand slams compared to 4 for Nadal. And Federer also has a slew of other records including weeks at #1, semifinals reached, quarters reached, consecutive GS semifinals (23) where he is leaps and bounds ahead of the next guy.
Regarding the "draw difficulty" point...for the top 3-5 guys, it doesn't really matter if they play a 67th ranked guy or a 15th ranked guy early on, which is a significant factor those rankings consider. It just matters when you'll face a fit Djokovic or Murray, and Federer was stopped more times at the end of a grand slam by a great-playing Djokovic than Nadal was.
kartelite wrote:
Regarding the "draw difficulty" point...for the top 3-5 guys, it doesn't really matter if they play a 67th ranked guy or a 15th ranked guy early on, which is a significant factor those rankings consider. It just matters when you'll face a fit Djokovic or Murray, and Federer was stopped more times at the end of a grand slam by a great-playing Djokovic than Nadal was.
Did you read it? The point is that lots of Federer's GSes came before there was a Nadal or a Djokovic or a Murray. He racked up all these grand slams against the likes of an aging Sampras, Agassi, etc. He literally had no competition for several years.
And incidentally if you look at Federer's recent wins they are often against draws like this year's Aus Open where Murray is gone, Djokovic and Nadal are injured. Federer can't control that, but it shouldn't be ignored either.
Tennis is like ping pong on the ground right?
I'd say the GOAT is Forrest Gump.
Of course, he's make believe, like the idea that tennis is a sport.
Greatest goat of all-time
It's not even close except maybe Nicklaus
you didn't read wrote:
Did you read it? The point is that lots of Federer's GSes came before there was a Nadal or a Djokovic or a Murray. He racked up all these grand slams against the likes of an aging Sampras, Agassi, etc. He literally had no competition for several years.
And incidentally if you look at Federer's recent wins they are often against draws like this year's Aus Open where Murray is gone, Djokovic and Nadal are injured. Federer can't control that, but it shouldn't be ignored either.
I think it's a bit hypocritical to say that he was only winning then because D/N/M were too young, and he's only winning now because they're too old. Longevity is a key element in this discussion, and by choosing to play a less efficient style of tennis Djokovic and Nadal may not have the long careers of Federer. Big wins and length of domination rather than shorter flashes of brilliance, it's why we don't consider Komen over Geb in the all-time greatest runner discussion.
Besides, Agassi and Sampras were younger then than Federer is now, and guys like Roddick/Hewitt/Nalbandian were seriously great players whom Federer simply beat down into early retirement.
I think even putting aside GS count and only into all the other accomplishments, it's difficult to make the case that anyone is more accomplished than Federer.
I don’t think this has been said, but the main reason Nadal has a great record against Federer in finals is because Nadal struggled to make the finals so many times! In many of Federer’s wins, Nadal was knocked out by a weaker opponent; on clay, Nadal made it to the final and won. For a fair comparison, you should really be comparing tournament starts, since a player can’t control his matchups. If you were to do this, Federer would have a clear advantage.
Him or Serena
kartelite wrote:
guys like Roddick/Hewitt/Nalbandian were seriously great players
C'mon man. I was with you till that nonsense.
the letter why wrote:
I don’t think this has been said, but the main reason Nadal has a great record against Federer in finals is because Nadal struggled to make the finals so many times!
This literally makes no sense. The reason Nadal has a great record against Federer is because he's a better tennis player.