Those are not non-accomplishments. They are perfectly valid but your counter to it has been "no one will care about it." I don't know who these "everyone" are as there are so many around who are looking into multiple factors in this debate.
Tennis 2018
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
They are non-accomplishments in that people are attempting to bring hypotheticals into the mix - as in, how good would Federer be if he had to contend with Nadal and Djokovic from the beginning to the end of his career. The correct answer is no one cares, because pointless thought experiments are not actual hard accomplishments. Show me the trophies...because that's all that people will remember decades on.
Same applies to Ronaldo and Messi. Ronaldo gets his 6th ballon d'or with 5 CLs with a 3-peat and that's all people will look at.
You're such a baby when it comes to debate. Everything boils down to childish insults befitting of an 18 year old. And I'm being generous. And your next line doesnt rescue you. He is unanimously considered the greatest or thereabouts by everyone including those that dislike him. However the line I did quote was the nonsensical bias coming through clearly enough.
Read your statement again. It makes no sense. It has little to do with luck. Unless you're blinkered which you clearly are. It has more to do with his style visa v Nadals. Their movement plays a huge part in the difference in injuries.
Maybe.
But the Balon Dor isn't a grandslam. It's more the Loreus Sports award. The CL/WC/PL/La Liga are the Grandslams of football.
There's no Grand Slam in football.
CL is the biggest trophy, where Ronaldo has all the records and more wins etc.
Edit: After WC obv but both have been shit at that.
Given you apparently have the ability to read I said he's the greatest by enough of a margin. I'll leave it up to you figure out the difference given your ignorance of words actually wirtten and their implication, and preference for using words like 'trash' for other's posts given the state of your own.
By that I mean he's ahead. Where he is definitely ahead by a decent margin is with respect to Djokovic.
Yes we know there's no grandslam. It's spread over multiple trophies.
If you want to say there is ONE grandslam (which there isn't) it's the world cup so they're both out of the race. I don't see the point of your argument in that case.
I've nowhere said anything of the sort you are referring. Read again.
No need to. This is the tennis thread not the Messi Ronaldo one.
Look who is talking. A clown who goes around in every such thread with moral high ground and embarrasses himself. As if your stupidity in Messi-Ronaldo threads is not enough to prove your clownishness.
He severely lacks ability to both read and comprehend.
Come on. You're not letting your anger out enough. Be more expressive. Stand up for yourself more.Says this chap two minutes after misinterprating and misquoting someone else. Quality stuff. It's better to move on and ignore your failings than realising your own blunder I suppose.
Thanks for the insight.
Point is baby that over time achievements, records and numbers are what stand a lot taller than individual skill. It's what happened to Luis Ronaldo, where only people who watched him everyday could appreciate him fully while those born too late don't get the hype. Messi will most likely go down the same path. Similarly Federer's slams will overshadow anyone else from that generation regardless what the head to heads are and what not.
First bring logical arguments to table, which you have clearly avoided and then you will be taken seriously.
I'm aware.If only you follow your own advice. I mean after serially embarrassing yourself over years in Messi-Ronaldo thread, you found new thread to prove how little you know.
Good post. And actually I agree with the actual point your making. That the public imagination will most likely far more strongly identify with achievements/success and correlate them with quality more than performance levels etc. But I'm too young (not really young) to know for sure whether that's true. I suppose we need to back look at the legends of the past to really know.
Pele and Cruyff is the classic example. Cruyff could be more talented and it's not a controversial thing to say but Pele's 3 world cups dwarf over Cruyff's CL and league domination and even the 1974 WC where he dominated but lost the final. Cruyff is actually a pretty strong analogy to Messi, career wise. But right now calling Cruyff the GOAT would only be considered a hipster opinion, despite some who saw him live swearing by his talent.
I think you possibly may be referring to your own posting history. I mean it's tough for posts to be both logically weak and poorly articulated but you manage both with aplomb. Not mention the bias steeped in them which you somehow manage to blame others for
This may be the worst attempt at a WUM I've seen on this forum
You can't call 2015 the toughest season when Nadal won 2 tournaments all year, Murray was beaten in every match that mattered, and Federer was 34. There is no universe in which Fed at 34 is better than peak (04-07).
The other question: How can Federer win even at this age, and how does that fit with him being easily beatable in 2015? He did improve his backhand hugely in 2017, but in 2015 it was still a weakness (see the Wimbledon final). I think in 2017 he was also tougher mentally (no way he would have won that AO final vs Nadal in 2008-16). Was he helped by injuries? Yes. But his level in early 2017 was high enough that he would probably have won both regardless. 2017 AO was quite a difficult lineup and Wimbledon was easier but not a walkover. 2018 AO certainly he wasn't at his best and was helped by everyone else getting KO'd early.
In any case, I would put money on 2006 Fed over 2017.
Fwiw, the stats site you linked to also thinks Fed if the GOAT, by a clear margin:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
Interesting. And it makes sense really. Achievements have a much wider reach than any nuances ever will. Beyond the crowd that is genuinely passionate about the sport and into the general folk who aren't.
2015 is not the toughest but definitely tougher than 2004-07 field.
Why Federer didn't improve his play earlier? He didn't do it for so long doesn't fit well with argument that had he done he would have beaten prime Djokovic and Nadal.
The goat list there is configurable. It can change depending on weightages.
I think you possibly may be referring to your own posting history. I mean it's tough for posts to be both logically weak and poorly articulated but you manage both with aplomb. Not mention the bias steeped in them which you somehow manage to blame others for
OK. Please tell again how Fed is GOAT by enough margins after having losing record vs two of biggest rivals.The same site consisderes Novak's peak the best as well FWIW
Because you can’t change who you are overnight, and especially when your way brought you so much success. He did change and added more to his arsenals over the year, but even he couldn’t slow down the physical decline.
You’ve been banging the drum of ‘he couldn’t have decline if he’s still been in the mix all these years’. Well, fact and logic don’t agree with you. A cursory glance at the career of great tennis players over the past 30-40 years or so suggests that 26 is the magic number after which your success in Slams declines. The majority of players also amass the bulk of their Slams within 3-4 years before falling always. Strange? Well, Ferguson and Sacchi have lso said that the cycle of a great team is 4 years. Positing somehow that a 29/30 year old Federer should still be in his absolute peak when competing against men 5-6 years his junior doesn’t really fly, and his performance in the 2010-2013 period when the shock losses happened much more frequently also backs up the point. He’s good, but he’s still human.
The hierarchy within Grand Slams (Wimbledon>French>US>Australian) need to be factored into these arguments. I don't think we can weight Grand Slams equally; I'm sure Djokovic, for instance, would happily trade a few of his Australians for more Wimbledons/French.
It took him 9 years? That's quite long for a GOAT. When he did change, injuries all over the tour means we will never know how effective it would have been had he done it before. Still as I said before, injuries in field is not something which should take away his slams at 36-37.
These 3 stand out than others though. Other greats had early exits more often than these 3. Also fitness science have got better in recent years. Currently Novak and Rafa are 32 but no one is giving excuses of them not being in prime. Same excuses started for Fed even when he was 29-30 and wasn't able to beat these two. Given the play style of Nadal-Djokovic is more physically demanding, they should have tapered off now. But they haven't. So, Federer losing all these years was not down to significant physical decline. The first time I saw his age showing as a big factor was in 5th set vs Anderson. Before that, it didnt feel as significant factor.
Lendl. 
Connors. Kudos, ser.
Connors. Kudos, ser.
ffs missed this. Please tell me this post was wum attempt. Even then it is an awful attempt at trolling
The change came first in 2014 with the racket change, but the new backhand that neutralized Nadal didn’t come into play until his comeback after the long absence. When you are in the tour competing, it’s a grind. These guys play 40 weeks a year, it’s travel, play, recuperation, rinse and repeat, and on top of that also the media responsibilities, other money-making schemes. There are very little time during which you can fundamentally change your approach to the game, practice and finesse it. I agree that he waited too long for it, since many of his fans who are avid followers of the game have screamed out for years about working on the backhand, but it’s always easier to stick to your way. How much different are Nadal/Djokovic now compared to their pomp in the turn of the decade? Not a lot.
They stand out, but still aren’t exception to the rule. Well, except for Djokovic. Fed won 12 Slams by 26, 8 since. Nadal won 11 Slams by 26, 6 since. Djokovic currently stand at 6-6. So yeah, one has already tapered off, and the other were off for 15 months before now gaining back his mojo somewhat.
The first time his age feel like a factor was the semi final of USO 2010 when he bungled a 2 set lead and match point in the fifth to lose to Djokovic. The next year he got beaten at Wimbledon by Tsonga of all people after another 2 sets lead. Even if you don’t feel that way, doesn’t make it untrue. The majority of the tennis world were wondering whether he was done at Slams then, that’s why him winning Wimbledon in 2012 aged 31 was kind of a big deal. I however wouldn’t make the point that his lopsided h2h vs Nadal before he turned 29/30 was physical, but every man and his dog knew about the favorable technical match up in favor of Nadal, so even then ex-pros would still go: ‘Well he’s the best even if he loses often to Nadal’ in that period. For Djokovic, it’s quite simple: before 2010, 10-5 in favor of Federer. After, 18-12 in favor of Djokovic.
It was not a WUM attempt at all. I've been a die hard Nadal fan since 2006. In the 90s and early 2000s I was a Sampras fan. I started following Nadal in 2004 and really liked the way he played. I used to watch most ATP and Majors he played in. Remember watching the 2005 RG final as if it was yesterday. That summer was very enjoyable and also historic sporting wise because of the Ashes as well.ffs missed this. Please tell me this post was wum attempt. Even then it is an awful attempt at trolling
But I became a massive Nadal fan from 2006 onwards. It was great to see him improve on other surfaces and win Majors on those. The 2009 AO final was epic. Probably the greatest match I've seen, along with Wimbledon 2008. AO 2009 ranks slightly higher because that loser Federer cried a sore baby loser at the end. I started watching Noval from mid 2007. I like to see him do well, more so after he destroyed Federer in Slam finals in 2015. T'was great to see.
But Nadal will always be my favourite player.
I’m sure we can all agree on one thing - Federer fanboys are WOAT
And that comes after *that* Nadal fan.
And that comes after *that* Nadal fan.
Personally I think it's brilliant that despite this generation seeing three all time greats compete against one another, they have generally maintained their respect for each other through it all barring the odd hiccup.
And that's why your earliest post was dismissed by many. It's one thing for Nadal to be your favourite and another to be illogical about Federer's place in the sport. Even Agassi would laugh at being compared to him.
Being a fan of Federer I tend to want Nadal to not win as I don't want the gap between them closed. But I respect Nadal a lot. He's a wonderful sportsman whose talent and mentality has been a joy to watch over the years. Despite upsetting me a decent bit over the years I can't but help admire him.
I don't quite agree that his losses where he lead in slams were because of age. He had this habit of rapidly dropping his level with too many unforced errors and bad shot selection in slams and quite often it happened vs Djokovic. Vs Nadal, even on hard court when he lost, Nadal was playing at higher level. Vs Djokovic he used to get in position to win but used to miss out. To me, it was more of mental issue than physical. Or maybe the level of work these guys put him through from 2009-10, he didn't often experience it before. His game was always about his far superior quality play which didn't give opposition chance. For some reason, Federer took long to appreciate Djokovic as well. Maybe he still doesn't. Probably because he feels that he squandered some slams vs Djokovic which he could have/should have won. Going back to point though, all that I didn't feel was about age. You saw how Anderson often left Federer unsure on which way he will hit and then had him scampering? There the age shown when Fed was chasing the ball. Circa 2010-11 or so, didn't get that feeling.
Last edited:
I think that's ridiculous really. There's a level of prestige that may be different but they're different surfaces and different conditions etc.
I don't think you can start weighing them differently based on intangibles.
- Status