Home Search Calendar Help Login Register
Did you miss your activation email?
MurraysWorld Discussions  >  General Community  >  Tennis Talk  >  Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 ... 16 Go Down Reply
Author

Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss.

 (Read 8738 times)
TheMadHatter
World No 1
*
*
Posts: 11,751

Gender: Male
Location: Southampton


Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #150 on: July 19, 2012, 10:54 PM »
Reply

Just to play devil's advocate, and cos I'm a bit confused, here's an idea.

Maybe between 2003 and 2007, it wasn't a weak era. Maybe nobody else got a look-in cos Fedex was just soooooo good.

Let's imagine that Fedex didn't exist (oh God, yes). Between 03 and 07, Roddick won five slams (three Wimbledon), and Safin and Hewitt four each.

Would we then see it as a weak era? After all, it contained three multiple slam winners.

Please, somebody, anybody, tell me why I'm wrong.
I suggested this on the last page. EJ posted a MASSIVE reply. Have a look.
IP Logged
Grabcopy
Top Seed
*
Posts: 6,924

Gender: Male
Location: Catatonia


I know I'm paranoid. But am I paranoid enough?

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #151 on: July 19, 2012, 11:39 PM »
Reply

I suggested this on the last page. EJ posted a MASSIVE reply. Have a look.

Thanks. Yeah, I think gut feel comes into play, too. You just sense those four years when he cleaned up were a tad weak. Also, the 2-8 thing with Nadal is, for me, a dealbreaker.
IP Logged
janetx
Challenger Level
**
Posts: 1,099



Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #152 on: July 20, 2012, 01:30 AM »
Reply

Roddick perhaps, because he had that serve and he reached a number of finals losing only to Fed during those years (but, he had lots of chances to figure out Fed's game, and he couldn't, unlike Rafa, Nole and Andy M).

But were Hewitt and Safin reaching a bunch of finals to be stopped by Fed? Methinks not. Maybe they were ousted in some semis during those years, but I would have to look back.

Still, I just don't think any of them have the complete game: Safin was a head case; Roddick had a great serve and forehand but a weak return and net game; and Hewitt lacked a serve with any real power. He had tenacity in spades and a good return, but again, he was lacking.

Plus they all fell under the "aura" that Rafa helped to shatter, and then Murray and Nole. Most of Fed's contemporaries still have that spell cast over them, and while they will step up and take it to Andy and Nole, they won't versus Fed. Ferrer is one example but there are others...
IP Logged
TheMadHatter
World No 1
*
*
Posts: 11,751

Gender: Male
Location: Southampton


Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #153 on: July 20, 2012, 12:29 PM »
Reply

Youzhny ^^

Christ that QF performance was embarrassing. He'd looked so good in the early rounds, almost back to this 2010 self, and then against Federer (rather predictably) he just rolled over and played awful.
IP Logged
scotnadian
World No 1
*******
Posts: 11,746

Gender: Female
Location: Toronto, Canada (ex Aberdeen, Scotland)


You (still) ain't seen nothing yet..

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #154 on: July 20, 2012, 12:39 PM »
Reply

^Yeah.. that was dire. He looked like a rabbit caught in headlights.
IP Logged
indirachap
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #155 on: July 20, 2012, 12:46 PM »
Reply

Let's agree that that the last era when Federer was No 1 was a weak era. Nonetheless he is No 1 now, and its the now that matters since its the now which is being called the strongest era ever!

Thus in this strongest era ever Federer not only has won The Masters at the 02, he has won Wimbledon, he holds world No1 ranking and what is more, statistics show that that over the last 12 months, he has been the most consistant player of all - statistics dont lie!
IP Logged
scotnadian
World No 1
*******
Posts: 11,746

Gender: Female
Location: Toronto, Canada (ex Aberdeen, Scotland)


You (still) ain't seen nothing yet..

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #156 on: July 20, 2012, 12:53 PM »
Reply

Fed doesn't think he's the GOAT.
(Watch the vid embedded in this article)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18764325
IP Logged
Emma Jean
Veteran
******
Posts: 8,961

Gender: Female
Location: Toronto, Canada


We will be Victorious

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #157 on: July 20, 2012, 01:41 PM »
Reply

Let's agree that that the last era when Federer was No 1 was a weak era. Nonetheless he is No 1 now, and its the now that matters since its the now which is being called the strongest era ever!

Thus in this strongest era ever Federer not only has won The Masters at the 02, he has won Wimbledon, he holds world No1 ranking and what is more, statistics show that that over the last 12 months, he has been the most consistant player of all - statistics dont lie!

Sorry but this is not the strongest era ever.
IP Logged
indirachap
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #158 on: July 20, 2012, 06:23 PM »
Reply

Sorry but this is not the strongest era ever.

What was IYO?
IP Logged
Emma Jean
Veteran
******
Posts: 8,961

Gender: Female
Location: Toronto, Canada


We will be Victorious

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #159 on: July 20, 2012, 06:39 PM »
Reply

This is I am responding to Nigel's post in the previous page.

But so far, we haven't talked about anything figuratively. It was all fact based and no assumptions were taken into consideration; therefore, we cannot go and assume what would have happened if there was no Federer.

But let’s assume anyway that there was no Federer. If that were the case, then both Roddick and Hewitt would have won a few more Slams for sure since Safin was never consistent and you must need that consistency in order to win a few majors. So in absence of Federer, Roddick and Hewitt would have been your best bets, but that does not mean by any chance that they are in the same league as Federer and Nadal (not in Djokovic or Murray’s league either).  They are only good consistent players but that’s not enough to be a champion like Federer and Nadal. You have to have the mindset as well and a specific goal. But it’s also true that had there not been a player like Federer and later Nadal, then everyone would have thought that both Roddick and Hewitt were simply that good and that would have been a pure misconception, something that I am trying to prove all along.

In Reality, both Roddick and Hewitt came at a time when there was a certain gap from one era to another. Sampras’ era didn’t see any gap if you look back you’d notice it. Anyway, the gap was in between 2000 to 2003 and both Roddick and Hewitt had their Slams in that time period (even Safin got one of his Slams in that timeframe). Hewitt, in fact, maximized his effort and his injuries were mostly his game related as he stretched out his game and his physical ability quite a bit. This is a similar case with Del Potro as well.

As to Roddick, his game wasn’t as taxing as he had a couple of weapons in his arsenal that came naturally to him; therefore, he was able to sustain this long.  If you change the time period a bit and then both Hewitt and Roddick would be left with nothing so the gap helped them quite a bit. Federer was significantly better player than these two but not better than Nadal, Djokovic and Murray but they showed up much later. We have basically no way of knowing that, if Federer were to face some past legends like McEnroe and Lendl followed by then current legends like Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Courier etc., how many majors he would have won in the end. We now know that a baby Nadal was too much for him to handle and Djokovic too leads in the GS H2H. Murray and Federer are dead even in terms of overall H2H.

Similarly though, we have no way of knowing how many majors Sampras would have won if he were to play in this era.  

Here are some H2Hs re: Sampras vs his main competitors back in those days. I highlighted the ones where the other players lead Sampras. I’ll post Federer vs others sometime later. This is just to compare era vs era in terms of players and where Sampras stood in terms of H2H vs his main opponents.  

Sampras vs McEnro: 3-0
Sampras vs Lendl: 5-3
Sampras vs Edberg: 8-6
Sampras vs Becker: 12-7
Sampras vs Agassi: 20-14
Sampras vs Courier: 16-4
Sampras vs Mats Wilander: 2-1
Sampras vs Jimmy Connors: 2-0

Sampras vs Ivenisevic: 12-6
Sampras vs Muster: 9-2
Sampras vs Chang: 12-8
Sampras vs Stich: 4-5
Sampras vs Korda: 12-5
Sampras vs Pioline: 9-0
Sampras vs T. Martin: 18-4
Sampras vs Bruguera:  2-3 (at RG, they are 1:1 all)

Sampras vs Rafter: 12-4
Sampras vs Krajicek: 4-6
Sampras vs Kafelnikov: 11-2
Sampras vs Rios: 2-0
Sampras vs  Enqvist: 9-2
Sampras vs Henman:  6-1
Sampras vs Corretja: 4-2
Sampras vs Moya: 3-1
Sampras vs Kuerten: 2-1
Sampras vs Rusedski: 9-1
Sampras vs Haas: 5-3
Sampras vs Phillipoussis: 7-3

In 1999 & 2000, Sampras was ranked 3 in the world. In 2001, he slipped to 10; and then finally, in 2002, the year he retired, he was ranked 13. He was ranked No. 1 from 1993 to 1998. From 1990 to 1993 he was a top ten player and the year he turned pro, 1988, he was ranked 97. Sampras was pretty much down and out after 1999. He won only 2 majors after that - Wimbledon 2000 and 2002 US Open at age 31.
[ Last edit by Emma Jean July 20, 2012, 07:40 PM ] IP Logged
Grabcopy
Top Seed
*
Posts: 6,924

Gender: Male
Location: Catatonia


I know I'm paranoid. But am I paranoid enough?

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #160 on: July 20, 2012, 07:31 PM »
Reply

Sorry but this is not the strongest era ever.

Yeah, I'd say 1976-81 (Borg, Connors, McEnroe) and 1986-92 (Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi and beginning of Sampras era).

They were all multiple slam winners. Yet you can still argue that they were all only able to win several slams because there was no ONE player who was able to dominate as much as Federer now.

But I believe you can go only off gut feel. it's obvious that Roddick and Hewitt just didn't have the same quality as today's top four. You can tell that by studying their games.

Slightly off-topic, but it's also obvious that Andy is just short of the other three, too. I say this because I watched the Wimbledon final again the other night. Andy was a set up and had two break points at 3-2 in the second set.

On the first of those, Fed hit a weak approach shot to his forehand. Nadal or Djokovic would have laced it down the line. Murray bunted it cross-court for a relatively easy Federer volley. It's instances like that that separate the great from the immortal.
IP Logged
Emma Jean
Veteran
******
Posts: 8,961

Gender: Female
Location: Toronto, Canada


We will be Victorious

Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #161 on: July 20, 2012, 08:08 PM »
Reply

Yeah, I'd say 1976-81 (Borg, Connors, McEnroe) and 1986-92 (Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi and beginning of Sampras era).

They were all multiple slam winners. Yet you can still argue that they were all only able to win several slams because there was no ONE player who was able to dominate as much as Federer now.

But I believe you can go only off gut feel. it's obvious that Roddick and Hewitt just didn't have the same quality as today's top four. You can tell that by studying their games.

Slightly off-topic, but it's also obvious that Andy is just short of the other three, too. I say this because I watched the Wimbledon final again the other night. Andy was a set up and had two break points at 3-2 in the second set.

On the first of those, Fed hit a weak approach shot to his forehand. Nadal or Djokovic would have laced it down the line. Murray bunted it cross-court for a relatively easy Federer volley. It's instances like that that separate the great from the immortal.

I’d change the 2nd era from 1986 to 1995 because all these players later (at the start of Sampras era) Edberg, Agassi, Becker, Courier and Sampras were all in their prime (though Sampras hadn’t peaked as much then and neither had Agassi). That’s together with some other really good solid players around.

But it's not just the game because as far the as the game goes, you can say without a doubt that Federer is much more complete than Nadal – which then begs the question - what then separates Nadal from Federer given that their H2H is so one sided? Nadal has four things going on IMO, 1) he’s supremely consistent and confident; 2) he makes the best out of his game; 3) he’s extremely good at finding holes in his opponent’s game and capitalize on it, but most importunately, 4)he’s mentally extremely tough.

As to our Andy, I really think he’s in a very unique situation right now and definitely doesn’t belong to the same level as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He’s still evolving both mentally and physically and he needs time to come into full term. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all born with a champion mentality whereas Andy isn’t as clear as to where he stands in all this. He’s still searching for answers and his game won’t come together until he knows for sure what he truly wants. There are a lot of conflicts both in his game and mindset and this all need to click at the supreme level. Given another look at the Wimbledon final just last week, I am now sure he wasn’t going to win it anyway. He’s simply taking one step at a time to find out the truth about himself and adjusting his game to the one where he would see the best results. He is simply accepting himself where he is right now whereas champions like Sampras, Federer, Nadal and all others always knew where they truly belonged.  

I think it will be really intersting to find out how things were back in late 70s and early 80s. I only know the high level stuff but it will be really interesting to finally dig in and see what's in there.
[ Last edit by Emma Jean July 20, 2012, 08:13 PM ] IP Logged
indirachap
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #162 on: July 21, 2012, 01:10 PM »
Reply

Both Sampras's serves were better than Federers. I would say  Federer's forehand was more penetrating than Pete's and that Rogers's backhand was superior both with the slice and the topspin thanks to Nadal's relentless leftie assault on it which has honed it into something to be marvelled at for a single fister.

What does it for me is the difference between the two on clay (Federer was/is far superior) and also the fact
that the surfaces are so much slower these days for the single fister making success so much more of an achievement now.

In addition there are so many more people (both professional and amateur) playing tennis these days
a fact which I feel would make the current triumvirate plus perhaps Andy, odds-on favourites to eclipse the likes of Laver,Hoad,Rosewall,Borg,Connors, McEnroe and Lendl anyday and with their eyes closed!
IP Logged
blueberryhill
Veteran
******
Posts: 9,828



Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #163 on: July 21, 2012, 02:19 PM »
Reply

[email protected] I think Andy's main problem in those crunch moments is that he still tends to revert to the counter puncher role. At those times he seems to find it hard to go from defence to offence.
I'm sure it'll come though, under Lendl's guidance.
IP Logged
tamila
Challenger Level
**
Posts: 1,072


Re: Federer is not the GOAT. Discuss. « Reply #164 on: July 22, 2012, 08:54 AM »
Reply

BBH I entirely agree with you.  Lendl already seems to be changing Andy's attitude to pressure as he keeps up the offence for longer.
IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 ... 16 Go Up Reply 
« previous next »