Tennis
Even those behind the scandalous disasters of Enron, WorldCom, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers can hold their heads up comparatively high when set against the judgement of this thread's creator.
A word of advice. When you've been humiliated beyond compare, yet shamelessly play the pitiful 'Look at me, I've been fishing and I've got all these responses' type defence, there's only one place left to go. It really is time to silently crawl away.
To paraphrase James Maxton, in response to the delusional rambling Ramsay McDonald in the House of Commons almost 100 years ago, "Give up man, you're a b****y tragedy".
Hope that helps.
not sure what's more tragic. that or giving people chocolate coins
us open 2008 winner french open 2009 winner 2009 wimbledon winner 2010 Australian open...4 slams from 5 since your stupid statement
roll of honour for roger federer sponsored by canaryboy
HARRY22 07 Jun 16:10
roll of honour continues. 2012 WIMBLEDON CHAMP
Greatest thread of all time
got 6's before the youzhny match
we're both equally shrewd these days
i started backing her weeks ago at 33s and she kept drifting on the lead up to wimbers so kept topping up. For a few minutes i was excited 
like a who's who of mugs who have replied over the years
placed all kinds of doubles with serena fed and djokovic pre wimbers and had federer radwanska double i started backing her weeks ago at 33s and she kept drifting on the lead up to wimbers so kept topping up. For a few minutes i was excited
...and you didn't hedge off any profit on that - if that was pre-tourny what odds?
sometimes you just have to gamble 
ZERO is my guess. As a consequence, none of his existing wins are worth a carrot.
@Mesmerised, the fact that you have to put up a stat like only player to have won 2 slams on each surface says everything. Surely there are hundreds of stats that can be made up to support either player(lying with statistics). For instance, you remove both player's favorite surface and Fed still leads by a massive 11-5, showing consistency. But feck the stats. Federer's comeback and winning at 36 makes him immortal.
If you want to compare them directly in slams, then Djokovic has played Federer 15 times in Grand Slams winning 9 and losing 6, Nadal has played him 12 times winning 9 and losing 3.
-Hard 6-4
-Clay 1-1
-Grass 2-1
-Hard 3-1
-Clay 5-0
-Grass 1-2
So the only postive roger has is being 2-1 up on Wimbledon grass to Nadal. Fact it when those two starting to come good they took over and Federer barely won a slam in years.
Federer has won two slams this year largely because of the huge advantages his had, missing 6 months and coming back fresh for the first tournament of the year, skipping the whole of the gruelling clay season and winning Wimbledon, he's virtually a part time player, both of these wins have also been largely helped by the fact that Novak has been away with the fairies the last 12 months and Murray has been burnt out, and had illnesses. Really Nadal threw Australia away.
He is one of the best of all time, but nobody can definitively say he is the Greatest when there are two players who have simply bested him at the biggest tournaments and both of whom would have more slams than Federer if they had of all been born the same year.
Only have to look at the difference in quality of the first few slam finalists all 3 had to play
Federer: Philippoussis-Safin-Roddick-Hewitt-Roddick-Agassi(35)-Baghdatis-Nadal-Nadal-Roddick-Gonzalez
Nadal: Puerta-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Soderling-Berdych-Djokovic-Federer
Murray: Federer-Tsonga-Nadal-Murray-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Murray-Murray-Murray-Nadal-Federer
Given the h2h in slams that Novak/Nadal have over Federer, how many of those slam finals would Federer have made at the beginging or if he met Novak/Nadal in them, how many of them would he have won, as history has shown he would have lost more then he would have won.
He is a great player, his serve is better than Nadal and Djokovic's imo because of it's intelligent disguise, accuracy and consistency, his footwork is better, but Nadal's top spin forehand shot and the revs he gets on it has just killed him over the years, and Novak's return game and seen through Federer's defences when Novak is at his best.
People can keep buying into the FEDERER IS THE GOAT narrative driven by media luvvies and the gooey eyed fans but drill down a bit deeper and it just isn't true.
What does this mean for whatever reason? the answer is if you follow Tennis is that Murray has been suffering from Shingles, Burnout from the marathon run at the back end of last year chasing Number 1 followed by a hip injury which was clearly visible from the match v Querrey, a player of Murray's quality doesn't lose to Sam 61 61 in the last two sets unless he's injured, which given the pace taken off of his serve and forehand was obvious, Novak has lost his passion for a few different reason and fell off of a cliff, if these two had of been 100% Federer would not have had the free ride that he's had. The reason he's won so many matches in slams is because the general standard of the tour is still leagues below the standard of Novak and Nadal at their best, Rafa simply had the Aussie open in his hand final set and threw it away.
Nadal: Puerta-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Federer-Soderling-Berdych-Djokovic-Federer
Djokovic*: Federer-Tsonga-Nadal-Murray-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Murray-Murray-Murray-Nad...
What if Federer had lost to Muller,Rosol, Darcis, Brown, Kyrigios at the French Open all the years Nadal beat him in the Semi/Final. What if Nadal had got past those players in years he wasn't playing well at Wimbledon and come up against Fed? Suddenly the H2H might look a little different. You can't just study purely the H2H and ignore the players Nadal lost to. It's a bigger achievement to make the Final and lose to Nadal than to crash out the first week to the average players Nadal has to at Wimbledon.
What if Nadal was born 10-15 years earlier and had to play on the quick Grass at Wimbledon before they changed it and slowed it down. As much as Nadal did a good job to change his game and win Wimbledon it would have been a much bigger ask in past eras.
The past era wasn't as bad as people make out. Roddick had a winning record v Djokovic and Davydenko had a winning record against Nadal for instance.
Not fair to discredit the wins this year due to weaker competition. Djokovic won his first slam when Fed was playing with mononucleosis, injuries and lulls in form are part of the game. How many times has Nadal had the advantage of coming back fresh from injury.
Until Nadal wins a few more or someone else starts chalking up the slams there's really no debate to be had
followed by a hip injury which was clearly visible from the match v Querrey
if these two had of been 100% Federer would not have had the free ride that he's had
Rafa simply had the Aussie open in his hand final set and threw it away
All excuses i'm afraid. That's what i meant for 'whatever reasons'. If he hadn't been injured, If he hadn't thrown it away etc etc. You can't argue based on ifs. Murray injured himself chasing something that Federer had for 302 weeks and you think that's an excuse why Fed had an easy ride in wimbledon?
Regarding the age, if Fed was 5 years younger than Nadal, you'd still be saying ohh he has the benefit of age so he took 2016 off and had time to come back strong. I know i dont have much knowledge of tennis but I do have sense and know how statistics can be misleading. And you haven't even used them well.
for me personally if this about the greatest tennis player of all time then statisitcs are important because imagine if they were in different eras, too many different variables then, but they have played each other so the direct head to head matches are important as we are comparing them directly, hard to get past the negative stats for roger losing more times to nadal and djoker overall and in slams and in slam finals, roger has a more pleasing playing style but the styles of novak and nadal on all surfaces were more effective then federers apart from grass against nadal but they only played 3 times there. so total slam numbers is not the be all and end all for a goat debate it's just part of it but if you are the greatest tennis player ever I think you would have to win more than 1 slam at the french which wasn't even against nadal and shown to have won more than lost against the other two in the debate which isn't the case however i don't agree with mesmerized that it definitely isn't roger because mental strenghth and consistency is also apart of of elite sport and he has never wavered whereas novak looks lost the last year, never seen that with roger. it's all debatable it just depends which way you see it, fans of certain players see it a certain way but I a delpo fan and i would make the excuse he hasn't got 20 slams by now because he was injured for years
3 great players and if with agassi on board novak can back to his best
Fully fit, he has the edge
Why do you have to make excuses? I see that Rafa lost the final to Fed because he had a 5-setter in the semis? Didn't Federer have a 5-setter in the semis in the French Open 2009? He still won the final. Does that mean he is better than Nadal because he can win the final after a 5-set semifinal? Does that mean you stop blaming Nadal's defeat to Soderling for Roger's only French Open? No. These are all pathetic arguments. As i have shown twice now, the same argument(his age and Nadal's 5 set semi) can be used to prove either player's greatness. Its just the way you put forward the stats and conveniently ignore eveyrthing else.
Jul 18, 2017 -- 8:04AM, detraveller wrote:
Rafa lost the oz final cos...Fully fit, he has the edgeWhy do you have to make excuses? I see that Rafa lost the final to Fed because he had a 5-setter in the semis? Didn't Federer have a 5-setter in the semis in the French Open 2009? He still won the final. Does that mean he is better than Nadal because he can win the final after a 5-set semifinal? Does that mean you stop blaming Nadal's defeat to Soderling for Roger's only French Open? No. These are all pathetic arguments. As i have shown twice now, the same argument(his age and Nadal's 5 set semi) can be used to prove either player's greatness. Its just the way you put forward the stats and conveniently ignore eveyrthing else.
Yep, lots of statistically unsoundly special pleading going on here. Of course there are some head to head arguments against Federer but that's probably largely that he kept getting through to play Nadal on clay whereas Nadal kept dealing out on grass before he got to Federer. Also don't think you can have that Federer was hugely advantaged by being a lot older than Nadal and Djokovic and also that they've got better head to head stats, given that for a lot of those games they've been in their prime and Federer has been past his.
Also worth pointing out that the injury arguments are a bit ridiculous. How good a player you are depends among other things on fitness. There's hardly much more value in saying how lucky Federer has been that other players have been injured when he's been fit than there is in saying that he's very lucky he's got such an outstanding serve. It's an integral part of the game.
Nadal has beaten him multiple times on every surface so that argument doesn't hold, only one GOAT and it certainly ain't fed
Jul 19, 2017 -- 4:07AM, dlarssonf wrote:
More like Fed was in his prime and nadal as a kid was still beating him up. And plus the swiss coward hadn't the balls to play the clay this year because he would have got a hiding.Nadal has beaten him multiple times on every surface so that argument doesn't hold, only one GOAT and it certainly ain't fed
This is verging on delusional. Nadal is clearly an exceptional player himself and greatest ever on clay (by quite a long way). The notion that Nadal is better than Federer, however, because he keeps getting knocked out by relative no hopers on grass, which is essentially what you're saying, is ridiculous. Federer gets far enough on clay to lose to Nadal on the surface Nadal is the best ever on. Nadal isn't good enough on grass, on average, to get far enough to lose to Federer, who's the best ever on grass. I'm assuming you accept that Federer is a much better grass court player than Nadal as only a moron would say otherwise. They've got a very even record on hard courts.
Jul 19, 2017 -- 4:36AM, johnnyrant wrote:
A gruelling sf 5-setter is a crucial factor when said player is then asked to produce his best in the final that follows immediately after. It is fine margins when it comes to the top players & it was pretty clear to me at least that Rafa was below his best in the Oz Open final vs Fed due to fatigue. Let's see what happens in the next year or so. Muzza would have a French title to his name if he got to play someone like Soderling in the final.
Even if this is a valid argument for the match itself (as pointed out above, Federer has won a final after a 5 set semi), again, it's special pleading. If you cruise through a tournament without needing to exert yourself because you're that good, of course you'll be fresher for the final. Like fitness, it's a crucial element of tournament tennis and you can't discount it because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Jul 19, 2017 -- 10:07AM, dlarssonf wrote:
More like Fed was in his prime and nadal as a kid was still beating him up. And plus the swiss coward hadn't the balls to play the clay this year because he would have got a hiding.Nadal has beaten him multiple times on every surface so that argument doesn't hold, only one GOAT and it certainly ain't fed
This is verging on delusional. Nadal is clearly an exceptional player himself and greatest ever on clay (by quite a long way). The notion that Nadal is better than Federer, however, because he keeps getting knocked out by relative no hopers on grass, which is essentially what you're saying, is ridiculous. Federer gets far enough on clay to lose to Nadal on the surface Nadal is the best ever on. Nadal isn't good enough on grass, on average, to get far enough to lose to Federer, who's the best ever on grass. I'm assuming you accept that Federer is a much better grass court player than Nadal as only a moron would say otherwise. They've got a very even record on hard courts.
the only moron here is you , typical for a fed fanboy . Yes he is better on the mug grass surface where ball bashers
usually do well, but not on the other surfaces when you have to actually have a rally. If you think the swiss coward
is better than Rafa go ahead and knock yourself out but remember its you that is the delusional clown.
And any time you want to remind yourself of how much a delusional clown you are check out the head to head
I didn't actually say you were a moron, just that anyone not recognising Fed as much better than Nadal on grass would be. As you didn't actually address any of my points, I'll ask again: do you agree that Fed is much better on grass?
Jul 19, 2017 -- 7:26AM, bobweenit wrote:
Larsson is not worth bothering with slog I have found that out! you know what they say don't bother arguing with idiots and Doctors
Hey bob. I assumed just a troll, to be honest but it's sometimes fun to bait them.
Jul 19, 2017 -- 6:29AM, caramba wrote:
How many sets was Fed's semifinal at Aussie Open this year?
this.
Larsson is not worth bothering with slog I have found that out! you know what they say don't bother arguing with idiots and DoctorsWinkGrin
Fatslogger 19 Jul 17 13:28
Jul 19, 2017 -- 1:26PM, bobweenit wrote:
Larsson is not worth bothering with slog I have found that out! you know what they say don't bother arguing with idiots and Doctors
Hey bob. I assumed just a troll, to be honest but it's sometimes fun to bait them.
ah fools seldom differ , pleasing
Jul 19, 2017 -- 10:30AM, johnnyrant wrote:
You need to assess players meeting one another at their best - surely the most accurate barometer of who is the better player. There were mitigating circumstances for Rafa at the Oz Open. It was as clear as day he was labouring in the final. When they have played one another over the years at their best, Rafa has had the edge.
Special pleading alert. You don't get to define when Rafa was at his best retrospectively based on some specious reasoning around tiredness or injuries (especially as these are part of how good a player you are anyway) but really on whether Federer beat him or not. It's just totally circular.
Jul 19, 2017 -- 10:30AM, johnnyrant wrote:
You need to assess players meeting one another at their best - surely the most accurate barometer of who is the better player. There were mitigating circumstances for Rafa at the Oz Open. It was as clear as day he was labouring in the final. When they have played one another over the years at their best, Rafa has had the edge.
Actually the ausopen argument was put forward by a federer detractor with the excuse Nadal 'threw it away' which then turned into 'nadal had a 5 set semi' which when pointed out Federer had the same has now turned into federer had a day's rest, which is also not true since the gap between the games was only 14 hours. I really don't see how a 48 hour rest and 62 hour rest should make a difference?
Also, you still don't realize that Nadal having to play a 4.5 hour game against a player ranked 15th in the world is in itself not the ideal advertisement. Yet it is the reason why you discredit Federer of his win!
Jul 19, 2017 -- 1:33PM, johnnyrant wrote:
Well, I still think 23-14 tells its own story.
Well you can pull up all sorts of numbers that tell a story. How about 19-15? More importantly, if you're going to hang on the head to head, what's your counter argument to the point that it's distorted by the fact that Federer has been better on clay than Nadal on grass? Otherwise put as Federer gets far enough for Nadal to beat him on clay, while Nadal gets knocked out on grass by the kind of player Federer would dismiss in straight sets (if he even got far enough to play Fed) and therefore Nadal doesn't get far enough for Fed to beat him. Still waiting to hear any other narrative to explain why they've only played three times on grass.
Nadal and Federer has played Wimbledon 12 times in the same draw, and don't be meet anywhere else on grass.
So logically they are going to meet on numerous more occasions on clay than grass so as per fatslogger you are just talking nonsense which proves nothing.
Head to head says it all, you can't be the GOAT when ain't even the greatest of your era. Djokovic also has a better head to head then Federer so suck it
They've played five times at the French and only three at Wimbledon, because Federer is better on clay than Nadal is on grass. In the days when Nadal was playing decently on grass, he got to play Federer. Since 2008, how do you interpret his record?
So let me use the same logic that you and others have used for Nadal. If it weren't for Federer's mug backhand, Nadal would never have had a better head to head record. Same for Djokovic. I know its faulty logic but its exactly the same logic you and others have used to discredit Fed of his recent wins.
Jul 21, 2017 -- 2:04AM, dlarssonf wrote:
2 grand slams on grass to one on Clay suggests otherwise. Not matter what is said you are fed fanboy but unfortunately for you he is only the third best player of his era , he done well for himself considering he is a ballbasher with a mug backhand
Oh so now it's about total numbers of grand slams, is it? Why didn't you say so? Only I think we've got some stats on those too and as 15 is clearly more than 19, sounds like your right about Nadal being better than Federer after all.
federer also leads on key stats # of slams, # of weeks at #1, # of ye #1
if nadal gets 20 slams he'd be the greatest but at the moment it's federer without question
have you got out of your fed pj's yet??
Jul 27, 2017 -- 3:31AM, dlarssonf wrote:
No embarrassing slip up by me , sorry to disappoint you have you got out of your fed pj's yet??
If you were good at ad hominem stuff I could understand you focussing on it, given how bad you are at actual arguments (Nadal is better on grass than Fed on clay because one more grand slam but Fed not better than Nadal despite four more grand slams, anyone?) but you're equally terrible there. Federer pyjamas? Aren't you embarrassed you're as bad at insulting people as you are at analysis?
Jul 28, 2017 -- 3:14AM, dlarssonf wrote:
Nope you started the insults a long time ago , you just can't accept that somebody thinks Fed isn't the goat because you do and in turn try to use every stat in the book to convince otherwise. You think I'm just here to answer every question you bang on about grass , clay etc etc . The facts are Fed is nowhere near the best of his era , Nadal has a dominant head to head , better head to head in grand slams and beaten him on every surface. You can dress all this up whatever way you want , with your aimless questions , but they are the facts. If you are happy believing Fed is the GOAT , I'm delighted for you but don't call other people delusional when they believe otherwise. Suck it up
So you don't have any useful answers to the questions you've been asked? Thought not.
More like Fed was in his prime and nadal as a kid was still beating him up. And plus the swiss coward hadn't the balls to play the clay this year because he would have got a hiding.Nadal has beaten him multiple times on every surface so that argument doesn't hold, only one GOAT and it certainly ain't fed
seemed to be verging on delusional to me. The Swiss coward bit was pretty bad but convincing yourself that one instance (Nadal beating Federer on grass) was multiple times? Again, don't suppose you'll answer but if you want to own up to outright lying or conveniently forgetting the facts I'll withdraw the accusation that you were bordering on delusional.
To clarify, I think it's pretty clear at this point in their careers that Federer has the better claim than Nadal, whose record on clay (a surface where he's obviously the greatest ever by a fair margin) somewhat disguises the fact that he's merely been very good indeed on other surfaces, when judged by the very highest standards. This includes his HtH with Federer on clay, which has been discussed at length. This doesn't mean Nadal isn't himself a tennis great and if he wins another 4 or more slams, especially if a couple aren't on clay then it gets to be pretty much a toss up. I also have no problem at all with people pointing out Nadal's excellence or using stats to dispute Federer's claims but when your style of debate includes insults, lies, errors, ridiculous accusations of cowardice and no attempt at all to address counter arguments based on a discussion of stats while calling your own cherry picked stats "facts" then I think you've lost any right to complain about being mocked.
If you want facts though, the current slam count is 19-15. While this isn't the be all and end all, until you attempt to address it, I don't think it's going to be worth replying to any more of your posts.
Your very first post to me when I joined the nadal/Federer debate , not even once had I engaged with you on this or any other thread. So don't pretend you didn't start the insults because you did when somebody didn't agree with you. So you can sit pretending the be the poor victim all you want , have the balls to admit you started it because your beloved Fed was getting slagged or otherwise FCUK Off - hope that helps
Federer is a great player but surely to be the greatest he has to have been better than his main rival and there wasn't any point during his career that he was on the two main surfaces, even on grass Nadal was catching him up 06 he lost 1-3, 07 he lost the final 2-3, 08 he won the final 3-2 then he won WImbledon again 2 years later but never met RF again there after the knee problems he couldn't make second week, I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal starts missing the grass season altogther the same way Federer ducked the clay seasonm, it would be a good option imo as he just can't win at Wimbledon anymore.
Jul 29, 2017 -- 4:14AM, dlarssonf wrote:
This is verging on delusional. Nadal is clearly an exceptional player himself and greatest ever on clay (by quite a long way). The notion that Nadal is better than Federer, however, because he keeps getting knocked out by relative no hopers on grass, which is essentially what you're saying, is ridiculous. Federer gets far enough on clay to lose to Nadal on the surface Nadal is the best ever on. Nadal isn't good enough on grass, on average, to get far enough to lose to Federer, who's the best ever on grass. I'm assuming you accept that Federer is a much better grass court player than Nadal as only a moron would say otherwise. They've got a very even record on hard courts.Your very first post to me when I joined the nadal/Federer debate , not even once had I engaged with you on this or any other thread. So don't pretend you didn't start the insults because you did when somebody didn't agree with you. So you can sit pretending the be the poor victim all you want , have the balls to admit you started it because your beloved Fed was getting slagged or otherwise FCUK Off - hope that helps
Still no answers then?
I just explained why I described the post as verging on delusional and you're still apparently incapable of mounting any defence to the things that made me say that, or even acknowledging that there was a problem or an error. If you don't see that coming up with a "fact" that was clearly wrong in your arguments makes you look like you've lost the plot in trying to prove your point then fine but that demonstrates the legitimacy of the criticism in the first place.
I didn't call you a moron, I used a conditional. Did you read the sentence or just one word? Do you accept that Fed is a much better grass court player than Nadal? I know you don't like questions but it's a pretty easy one and I'm quite happy to say that you're not being a moron if you say "yes". If you say "no", then I'll think you're a moron, because it would be moronic not to see Federer's clear superiority on grass. If it makes you feel any happier, I think only a moron would fail to recognise Nadal's even greater superiority over Federer on clay. Doesn't make Nadal a bad grass court player, any more than Federer is a bad clay court player.
Jul 29, 2017 -- 6:03AM, darren_discombobulates_sports wrote:
The reason Nadal lost to all of these low ranked players at Wimbledon was because of his well documented knee problems as already said.....this happened in 2012 and in came the early first week exits, before so he was making all the finals at Wimbledon, it's much harder to play of grass with knee problems than the other two surfaces for obvious reasons, Federer is the greatest grand slam winner but that stat alone cannot be used given the heavy h2h loss with Nadal who was beating Federer in his prime on the two surfaces that make up over 95% of the tour, so it's hard to call Federer the greatest ever when he was inferior to Nadal, the length of time at number 1 and the number of slam wins are inflated because of weaker era before Nadal and Djoker, the likes of Roddick and Hewitt who were Federer's main rivals before were good players but not on the same Tennis planet and Rafa and Novak, not even close. It's like in Snooker, Hendry had won more World Championships that O'Sullivan but O'Sullivan is the greater player who has a better h2h and is more talented, though I don't think Nadal is more talented than Roger it's just that his game style has always been problamatic for Federer to deal with, as was Djokovic once he got his health sorted out with the gluten issues.Federer is a great player but surely to be the greatest he has to have been better than his main rival and there wasn't any point during his career that he was on the two main surfaces, even on grass Nadal was catching him up 06 he lost 1-3, 07 he lost the final 2-3, 08 he won the final 3-2 then he won WImbledon again 2 years later but never met RF again there after the knee problems he couldn't make second week, I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal starts missing the grass season altogther the same way Federer ducked the clay seasonm, it would be a good option imo as he just can't win at Wimbledon anymore.
So this kind of argument in favour of Nadal, by contrast, I think is fair enough, although I still disagree with it.
The problem with saying that Nadal's knee is why he faded away at Wimbledon is that while it may well be true, in the context of this debate it's special pleading, like the stuff about him being tired (through failing to beat easy opponents easily) in the US Open final this year. It all contributes to how good a player you are and have been. Yes, if he'd had no knee problems he might have done better than he has on grass and say if he'd won a couple more Wimbledons and taken them off Federer, beating him on the way, he'd have an at least equal claim to being the best ever. By contrast though, if he'd done a bit better and got through to be beaten by Federer two or three more times, the head to head argument that's largely all that the Nadal is the greatest ever enthusiasts have going for them would look a lot weaker. We don't know which it would have been and speculating about it doesn't really get us anywhere in analysing what's actually happened rather than, as seems to be the case with various Nadal fans on here, what we'd have liked to have happened.
The stuff about Federer having easier opponents early career is probably fair but then you can make a counter argument about how amazing it is that Federer is still able to compete at all against his main rivals when he's clearly past what should be his prime (yes, I know there are reasons for Murray and Djokovic being off kilter but he's stuffing Nadal this season, despite the age gap). Again though, you can only judge on what actually happened, not on what might have done.
I see your point about greatest but to be the greatest you just have to have a better case than anyone else. You don't have to have best overall record in slam wins, finals reached, semis and quarters reached, most time at number 1 overall and consecutively, most career match wins, most career masters tournament wins, most career world tour wins, most career total tournament wins and a winning head to head record against everyone. Federer doesn't have all of those and clearly there are plenty of other things you could include but he does have most of them.
For the record, this was Roger's 8th Slam since this thread was created.
The stunning ovation we heard in the Rod Laver Arena at the presentation was surely repeated across the entire sane world, for a man who exemplifies the very best things in sport. The greatest player I've witnessed in over 50 years of enjoying the sport of tennis.
Who knows, if some cowardly umpires had forced certain shameless timewasting players to play to the time rules, he could have been closing in on 30 by now.
