Re: The official Tennis thread

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Nadal has won every slam comparing him to Roddick

Been to Wimbledon final 5 times

GTFO with that nonsense, also anyone who thinks Nadal was mainly about athleticism clearly must be a casual.... you don't win 14 slams and go to 20+ slams final on pure athleticism

See i can claim i disagree with you so your a casual BS too.

[El Gunner]

I've always maintained by the opinion that if ever there was someone born to do something, it's Roger on a tennis court, playing tennis.

Pure talent and ability, miles above everyone.
Undisputed GOAT

[izzy]

Wow, some of the stuff thrown out here is insane.

Federer is one of the GOATS and if someone wants to make the argument that he is the GOAT then there should be no problem with that. What he has done speaks for itself.

Don't want to hear this rubbish about competition when I saw him consistently beat Agassi and Sampras in Slams at a young age.

Djokovic's dominance has coincided with Fed's age and Nadal's injuries. Who is his competition? Nadal (who is also one of the GOATS) is all Clay. That is a fact. 9 Frenchs.... of his 14 Slams. That dominance should translate to ALL courts, but it hasn't. So that rubbish about competition needs to end.

The only reason why I called Fed ONE of the GOATS is because I'm not gonna disrespect the greats who came before him like Sampras, Becker, Borg, Agassi, McEnroe and even Nadal.

P.S. That MJ - Fed comparison is WAY OFF.  MJ is not even a basketball player anymore, he's now some GOD with the way he is talked about, Fed isn't talked about like that.

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Talent and ability

There was me thinking how you perform against competition was one of the biggest things to analyzing who the GOAT is.

I was wrong the most talent is how we define it, if that's what you are defining the undisputed GOAT crap on then carry on lol.

[RealGunner]

People are saying he is ONE OF THE GOATS, not the ULTIMATE GOAT (apart from James). Former is undoubtedly true unless you have some sort of personal grudge against Federer. Latter no idea imo.

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Also i have no problem with someone considering him the GOAT he has a legit claim to it.

But to say he's undisputed when you consider all the facts, also Izzy please don't bring up Agassi and Sampras.... it's basically like fapping over a young up and coming boxer for beating a 40 year old former champion because both of them where near retirement.

These are the facts..... he has a losing record against his two biggest rivals, he has a large percentage of his slams against scrubs like Roddick, Philippoussis and and Hewitt.

Since Nadal's first slam he has won more slams than him, i wouldn't hold the scrub era against him if he dominated Nadal and Djokovic but fact is he hasn't.

If he was the undisputed GOAT and the MJ of Tennis like McAgger claimed then Nadal wouldn't have 14 slams to his name and Djokovic wouldn't have 8.

[El Gunner]

Talent and ability

There was me thinking how you perform against competition was one of the biggest things to analyzing who the GOAT is.

I was wrong the most talent is how we define it, if that's what you are defining the undisputed GOAT crap on then carry on lol.

I assume this was in reply to me.
Never said it is solely based on that, only pointed out that he is has insane talent and ability.

And what's this crap of Federer not performing against his competition.
Has he beaten Nadal before, yes!
Has he beaten Djokovic before, yes!
Because those are the guys you bring up Guy has been dispossing of legends before those two came on the scene like izzy pointed out.

You seem to feel H2H record is important, and while Nadal is the only real rival that has a better record over Roger, you solely base that on him not being the ultimate King. That sounds silly to me.

17 Majors. Going hard at the age of 34. While Nadal and whatever's is scrubing it out against scrubs in round 1, round 2 matches.

Extremely talented. Most majors by men's player ever. Has beaten challengers/rivals over the years. Has beaten legends at a young age. Has longevity in the game which can only be admired and praised with awe.

Ultimate GOAT. What more do you want?
For him to have a better H2H record against Nadal?

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

I never said he didn't perform against competition.

I said he didn't dominate his competition, if anything his competition has had the edge.

To be the undisputed GOAT then you have to undisputed better your competition and he hasn't. Over the years he hasn't dominated his biggest rivals.

It's like having a losing record against the only two people in his era who will go down in history doesn't matter lol.

It's just not undisputed at all and i have gave reasons why, i'll leave it there because obviously you are too emotionally connected to the man to debate properly without completely misinterpreting what i'm saying.

[McAgger]

Many legends including Sampras have already admitted Roger is the GOAT.

Honestly everyone that is arguing against Roger being the ULTIMATE goat. Give me names as to who you think is greater than him. Otherwise stfu.

It's easy to keep refuting teh idea that Federer is the goat but you are afraid to name anybody else because as body of work nobody comes close.

[McAgger]

Nadal has won every slam comparing him to Roddick

Been to Wimbledon final 5 times

GTFO with that nonsense, also anyone who thinks Nadal was mainly about athleticism clearly must be a casual.... you don't win 14 slams and go to 20+ slams final on pure athleticism

See i can claim i disagree with you so your a casual BS too.

Dude I said take away Clay and he would be like Roddick after you said take away grass from Roger. He's clearly above Roddick, Murray, etc.

[McAgger]

It's like having a losing record against the only two people in his era who will go down in history doesn't matter lol.

Ndal is one, Who else are you talking about?

[izzy]

Uh, no it really isn't. He was CONSISTENTLY beating them. It was not some one off fluke just because they were coming close to retirement. Also, you just dismiss players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin like they were jokes when it is clear to anyone that they would ALL be multiple Slam winners if it had not been for Federer. They were amazing players and for you to just dismiss them is ridiculous.

Fact: He actually has a WINNING record against Djokovic. If Djokovic wins on Sunday, they'll be tied. How many years has Federer been out of his prime that has allowed Djokovic to even come close to matching him? About over half a decade?

Since Nadal's first slam huh? How many were on Clay? 8? How come he wasn't winning as easily on the other courts in the other slams? Who was there to stop him from doing that?

Why wouldn't Nadal or Djokovic won their slams? Since when does being the GOAT mean others don't win ever?

This is Tennis, just like Golf, it's your level of dominance over years in which people view highly not about H2H records.

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

I have always said that i believe Sampras is better, because his competition was a lot higher. I know he didn't win as much but i believe if Federer and Sampras prime years were swapped Sampras would have won more than he did and Federer would have won less than he did.

Also that he believe Federer is the GOAT doesn't mean much to me, that's his opinion and fair enough but that's like saying because some football GOAT says Messi is the best that makes it so when it really doesn't.

Anyway all i said as i don't believe it's undisputed and i gave enough evidence as to why, not my fault that you are emotionally invested into him that you can't think straight.

[McAgger]

Also i have no problem with someone considering him the GOAT he has a legit claim to it.

But to say he's undisputed when you consider all the facts, also Izzy please don't bring up Agassi and Sampras.... it's basically like fapping over a young up and coming boxer for beating a 40 year old former champion because both of them where near retirement.

These are the facts..... he has a losing record against his two biggest rivals, he has a large percentage of his slams against scrubs like Roddick, Philippoussis and and Hewitt.

Since Nadal's first slam he has won more slams than him, i wouldn't hold the scrub era against him if he dominated Nadal and Djokovic but fact is he hasn't.

If he was the undisputed GOAT and the MJ of Tennis like McAgger claimed then Nadal wouldn't have 14 slams to his name and Djokovic wouldn't have 8.

Dude Djokovic's prime and most of his majors are AFTER Roger's peak.

Nadal (the greatest Clay player of all time) stopped him from annihilating Tennis for 5 straight years and winning all 4 grand slams in 3 straight years.

Clay is a peculiar ground for tennis because it literally gives advantage to physicality over everything else. It's like a completely different sport. Roger was never physically as imposing as either Nadal or Djokovic.

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Uh, no it really isn't. He was CONSISTENTLY beating them. It was some one off fluke just because they were coming close to retirement. Also, you just dismiss players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin like they were jokes when it is clear to anyone that they would ALL be multiple Slam winners if it had not been for Federer. They were amazing players and for you to just dismiss them is ridiculous.

Compared to Nadal and Djokovic and even Murray they are jokes yes.... except Safin but he was an unfortunate case and if he his talent actually translated on the court consistently he would have won a lot more but it didn't so it's not really relevant.

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Also i have no problem with someone considering him the GOAT he has a legit claim to it.

But to say he's undisputed when you consider all the facts, also Izzy please don't bring up Agassi and Sampras.... it's basically like fapping over a young up and coming boxer for beating a 40 year old former champion because both of them where near retirement.

These are the facts..... he has a losing record against his two biggest rivals, he has a large percentage of his slams against scrubs like Roddick, Philippoussis and and Hewitt.

Since Nadal's first slam he has won more slams than him, i wouldn't hold the scrub era against him if he dominated Nadal and Djokovic but fact is he hasn't.

If he was the undisputed GOAT and the MJ of Tennis like McAgger claimed then Nadal wouldn't have 14 slams to his name and Djokovic wouldn't have 8.

Dude Djokovic's prime and most of his majors are AFTER Roger's peak.

You are so quick to use this excuse but you don't mind using it in his favour when Roger was beating people past their peak

[McAgger]

I have always said that i believe Sampras is better, because his competition was a lot higher. I know he didn't win as much but i believe if Federer and Sampras prime years were swapped Sampras would have won more than he did and Federer would have won less than he did.

Also that he believe Federer is the GOAT doesn't mean much to me, that's his opinion and fair enough but that's like saying because some football GOAT says Messi is the best that makes it so when it really doesn't.

Anyway all i said as i don't believe it's undisputed and i gave enough evidence as to why, not my fault that you are emotionally invested into him that you can't think straight.

Sampras is not an idiot. He knew his own abilities and he has watched Roger. Him saying that actually puts a great perspective into this argument. Because Sampras is by far the CLOSEST anybody else can come to argue that Roger is the Ultimate goat and even he admits that he wasn't as good as teh man.

[izzy]

Compared to Nadal and Djokovic and even Murray they are jokes yes.... except Safin but he was an unfortunate case and if he his talent actually translated on the court consistently he would have won a lot more but it didn't so it's not really relevant.

In what way are they jokes compared to those three?

Please explain?

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Clay, clay, clay.

Like Nadal didn't beat Federer at Wimbledon and the Australian Open either.... they never faced at US to know.

He always had a mental lockdown on Federer, it didn't just extend to Clay like you like to think.

[McAgger]

Prime Safin, Prime Hewitt, Hell prime Roddick >> Murray imo.

[jibers]

There is no undisputed GOAT. Too many variables. Sampras and those pre Federer era played when the difference between clay and grass was night and day. Nadal won't have made it past the second round on the old surface. Agassi won tthe career grand slam because of the changes.

Federer is one of the GOATs for sure, as are Djoker, Nadal and Warwika (:

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Compared to Nadal and Djokovic and even Murray they are jokes yes.... except Safin but he was an unfortunate case and if he his talent actually translated on the court consistently he would have won a lot more but it didn't so it's not really relevant.

In what way are they jokes compared to those three?

Please explain?

Because they are infinitely better Tennis players maybe? especially Roddick who outside of his serve had absolutely nothing on those 3.

As M99 said a 19 year old Nadal gave him more trouble than those 3 you mention ever did, speaks volumes of their quality. ( Safin's fitness and mental issues not withstanding.

[RealGunner]

There is no undisputed GOAT. Too many variables. Sampras and those pre Federer era played when the difference between clay and grass was night and day. Nadal won't have made it past the second round on the old surface. Agassi won tthe career grand slam because of the changes.

Federer is one of the GOATs for sure, as are Djoker, Nadal and Serena (:

This post should be it.

+1

[El Gunner]

I have always said that i believe Sampras is better, because his competition was a lot higher. I know he didn't win as much but i believe if Federer and Sampras prime years were swapped Sampras would have won more than he did and Federer would have won less than he did.

So this logic is completely based on a hypothesis of what you think?

We provide you with facts like - most majors of all time and being at the top of the game for many years. You come up with the opinion that Federer wouldn't have won as much as he has done if he played in Sampras' era.

OKAY M8

and btw, Federer leads Djokovic head to head 20-19 iirc

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

Prime Safin, Prime Hewitt, Hell prime Roddick >> Murray imo.

No point bothering with you.... delusional doesn't even begin to describe it

Safin i already explained, but considering his skills were never translated on a consistent basis it's irrelevant.

[McAgger]

17 SLAMS. /thread.

We can reopen the discussion when (if ever) Djokovic wins 14.

[Sponsored content]