Federer the Best Ever? I Think Not - He's not Even the Best Player of This Era

[festeringZit]

Roger is a great champion, a class act, and has been a great ambassador for the game.

I still think the whole purpose I started this thread is a worthy discussion, and as I posted multiple times earlier in the thread, many sports writers agree.

I stand by what I said 100%. It's problematic to declare someone the best ever (in a heads up sport) when head-to-head they are completely dominated by one or more
players.

Nadal owned Roger earlier in their careers. Roger has gained on Nadal head-to-head over the years, but Nadal still clearly has the better record. Djoker also clearly has
a better head-to-head record against Roger. Now both Nadal and Djoker are a little bit younger than Roger, so that has to factor in somewhat.

Djoker might surpass both Nadal and Federer before it's over, so the argument about Roger being the greatest ever based on total grand slams may be a moot point
in a few years...

 

[The Greatest One]

When its all said and done, Roger will finish 3rd in majors.

Nadal has another 2-3 French Opens and will sneak in a another 1-2 over the next few years.

Djokovich best surface is hard and a close 2nd is grass. And he is the youngest of the 3. He seems to own the Australian Open.

This was Federer's best chance at #21 and he knew it. Under 50% he wins another one.

I like all 3 so I can be impartial.

No one makes the game look easier than Federer though. The guys never sweats.

Think Djokovich finishes with most then Nadal then Federer.

When Novak is playing at his best, he is unbeatable on hard/grass.

 

[The Greatest One]

Also should be said that someone like Andy Roddick will largely go unnoticed in tennis history and even some Americans think he under achieved. But if not for Federer, he may have around the same # of majors as Agassi. He would have won 2-3 Wimbledons if not for him and a couple more US Opens.

On the money issue, Novak has out earned Federer by a long shot in straight prize money despite Federer having more majors and about 30 more tournaments won than Novak.

 

[festeringZit]

Rafa number 19. I say he is already the greatest of all time

 

[SunDodger]

Rafa grinds out a five set win.:aktion033

That Wimbledon final seemed to take a lot out of Fed and Djok. They both got bounced early in their US Open tune up in Cincy, while Nadal won the Rogers Cup.

 

[phdinsports]

Rafa number 19. I say he is already the greatest of all time

So when Roger had 3 or more grand slams than Nadal, you made the case that Nadal was better because of the head to head record, notwithstanding most of the victories came on clay. Now you claim that Nadal is the greatest, yet Djokovic has a better head to head record. Where's the logic in that? Djokovic has a better head to head record than Nadal 5 atp finals championships to zero for Nadal (biggest tourney outside the four majors) and wayyy more weeks at number 1 than Nadal, meaning Djokovic is the better player. You have to look at slams and weeks at number 1. There's a reason why Borg was rarely considered the greatest of all time, given the fact that he had the most majors in the open era. He didn't have enough weeks at number one. Murray with three majors was included in the "big 4" while Wawrinka who also has three majors was never included in this group because he never reached the top ranking. When Sampras was the GOAT he had the most majors and weeks at number one (and the most Atp finals victories) When Federer was/is the GOAT he has the most majors and weeks at number 1 and most atp finals. When Joker surpasses Fed in slams and weeks at number one he'll be hands down the GOAT. Nadal's record for most weeks at number two will never be touched. He played second fiddle to Fed when he was in his prime and to Joker in his prime.

 

[festeringZit]

Nadal #20.

Greatest mens tennis player of all time.

 

[SunDodger]

Nadal crushes Djokovic today 6-0 6-2 7-5 at the French. :aktion033

He is surely the King of Clay. (<)<


Got all my money back and more from that Novak DQ. :toast:



Rafa holds a clear 10-6 edge over Novak in head to head Majors.

 

[HarryCaray]

Nadal -150 was a joke of a line, he's still borderline unbeatable on clay. Just happy Novak didn't come down with a mysterious shoulder injury after getting bageled in the first set.

For my money Federer is still the slightly better all-around player.

 

[crudebar]

Federer has actually owned Nadal later in their careers has won something of 6 of their last 7. Of course the lone loss being at roland garros.

If i had to bet my life and the court wasn't clay i would take Djoker over anyone of all time. Nadal is without question the greatest clay court player, it's not even an argument with anyone else in history.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Nadal -150 was a joke of a line, he's still borderline unbeatable on clay. Just happy Novak didn't come down with a mysterious shoulder injury after getting bageled in the first set.

For my money Federer is still the slightly better all-around player.

Only reason I did not bet it .
-150 is a joke but when you factor in the very real possibility of joke retiring I did not feel like getting free rolled

 

[phdinsports]

Federer has actually owned Nadal later in their careers has won something of 6 of their last 7. Of course the lone loss being at roland garros.

If i had to bet my life and the court wasn't clay i would take Djoker over anyone of all time. Nadal is without question the greatest clay court player, it's not even an argument with anyone else in history.

I would take Borg over anyone at their prime. He has the highest winning percentage of any player (minus his pathetic comeback with a wood racquet) both on tour and at the slams. He had the most slams ever at the age of 25, when he stopped playing at the slams, and that's without playing the Aussie open. He played their once. Players in that era did not put such a premium at the slams. Hardly any of the top players played the Aussie open. Plus all his slams were at the two most contrasting surfaces, French clay and the fast grass at Wimbledon. No player in the open era has more than one title at both slams!! The courts were slowed down in 2001, change of grass. I don't think baseliners like Nadal or Joker would not have as many Wimbledon titles on the faster grass. He didn't play long enough to be in the discussion of the GOAT, but based on his shorter career, he was the most dominant player.

 

[SmallDaddy]

The greatest tennis player of all time is Federer, but he is not the best of his era.

Fed would have been a top player in the 60's and 70's playing with wooden rackets,
would have been a top player in the 90's on fast courts.

You think Nadal would be a top player playing with a wooden racket or Djokovic play his defensive style on fast grass with unpredictable bounces??

The best of this era is Djokovic.

Winning record vs both by quite a bit

 

[festeringZit]

Rafa's record at the French Open: 100-2

Think about that for a while.

 

[crudebar]

Amazing. Also consider the era he is playing in(top 3 players of all-time playing in basically the same era, perhaps not the peak of his prime federer) and how many clay court specialists there are in tennis. Clay might be the hardest surface to dominate and he makes it look easy.

People forget how great Federer was on clay, because he could never concur Rafa. He could arguably be the 2nd greatest clay courter of all-time but he doesn't have the trophies because of Nadal. Even last season when he hadn't played on clay in years Federer made the semis at roland garros before once again losing to Nadal.

 

[crudebar]

I believe Fed has made 5 finals at roland garros and lost everyone to Nadal. Did get the one trophy when Nadal lost to soderling and Novak got his when Nadal had to pull out of the tourney do to injury.

Would be interesting if Novak was still chasing the career GS. I give Federer credit for his because Nadal was actually competing in the tournament when he won.

 

[Ricboff]

Federer has actually owned Nadal later in their careers has won something of 6 of their last 7. Of course the lone loss being at roland garros.

If i had to bet my life and the court wasn't clay i would take Djoker over anyone of all time. Nadal is without question the greatest clay court player, it's not even an argument with anyone else in history.

give me Sampras at Flushing Meadows under the lights

grass ? cant make a call with fed having joked so many times , really hurts his legacy. Match point 5th set on serve Vs Nole after rallying and he blows it. It would have been better if he retired after beating Nadal at melbourne in that epic thriller. The way he lost to Nole leaves a bad taste in my mouth

i agree, never see another Nadal on clay-- freak show. lets not forget he mauled fed in a Roland Garros final , ridiculous. He's 34...i think he can win Roland Garros the next 5 yrs. Only covid can stop him


is there another more dominating perforamnce over an extended period than rafa on clay........ in all of sport? Phelps in swimming is the closest i can thing of

rafa did not lose a set at Roland Garros this yr.....

 

[crudebar]

give me Sampras at Flushing Meadows under the lights

grass ? cant make a call with fed having joked so many times , really hurts his legacy. Match point 5th set on serve Vs Nole after rallying and he blows it. It would have been better if he retired after beating Nadal at melbourne in that epic thriller. The way he lost to Nole leaves a bad taste in my mouth

i agree, never see another Nadal on clay-- freak show. lets not forget he mauled fed in a Roland Garros final , ridiculous. He's 34...i think he can win Roland Garros the next 5 yrs. Only covid can stop him


is there another more dominating perforamnce over an extended period than rafa on clay........ in all of sport? Phelps in swimming is the closest i can thing of

rafa did not lose a set at Roland Garros this yr.....

All 3 are freaks. It use to be when you reached your late 20s in tennis time was just about up. Sampras won his last slam and last tennis match at i believe age 30 and as the 17th seed. He won and immediately retired, but he was also just about cooked at age 30.

I get what you're saying about Fed last season. But remember he played that final at 38 against Djoker. Should have won though. The landscape would look a lot different if he had just gotten that last point. All 3 sets he lost in that final were tie breaks. While Federer dominated the two sets he won.

Rafa is more impressive then phelps considering he is going on 15 years now. IMO

 

[phdinsports]

Rafa's record at the French Open: 100-2

Think about that for a while.

Borg 49-2 at the French. One loss came when he was 16 the very first grand slam he ever competed at.

 

[phdinsports]

I would take Borg over anyone at their prime. He has the highest winning percentage of any player (minus his pathetic comeback with a wood racquet) both on tour and at the slams. He had the most slams ever at the age of 25, when he stopped playing at the slams, and that's without playing the Aussie open. He played their once. Players in that era did not put such a premium at the slams. Hardly any of the top players played the Aussie open. Plus all his slams were at the two most contrasting surfaces, French clay and the fast grass at Wimbledon. No player in the open era has more than one title at both slams!! The courts were slowed down in 2001, change of grass. I don't think baseliners like Nadal or Joker would not have as many Wimbledon titles on the faster grass. He didn't play long enough to be in the discussion of the GOAT, but based on his shorter career, he was the most dominant player.

Correction Nadal has at least two titles each, at the two most contrasting surfaces.