We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Tennis
federer will never win another slam
|
By:
You certainly have to wonder how many Slams Nadal would have won if the spineless referees had actually done their jobs properly and docked him points virtually every service game for his serial shameful and shameless time violations.
ZERO is my guess. As a consequence, none of his existing wins are worth a carrot. |
|
By:
 alun |
|
By:
Federer is class. I thought he was done a couple of years ago. And the way Djokovic was playing, and Murray, I thought Fed had no chance now and should have retired. But the fact that both Murray and Djokovic are struggling at the moment for whatever reasons and couldn't maintain consistency, and that Fed was not only consistent but is still winning at 36, I don't know how anyone beats him.
@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. |
|
By:
That's very ironic because people put up the total number of slam stats and say Federer is the greatest, he has won more than everyone else so it must be true. Me telling you that Nadal is more accomplished on all surfaces is very relevant and less simple then pointing towards 19 slams which is very misleading. In regards to the GOAT debate, what is even more important to realise is the fact that Federer has benefited from being born 5 years earlier, meeting players in those first few slam finals far inferior to what Novak and Nadal had to face which was each other and Federer.
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. |
|
By:
But the fact that both Murray and Djokovic are struggling at the moment for whatever reasons and couldn't maintain consistency, and that Fed was not only consistent but is still winning at 36, I don't know how anyone beats him.
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. |
|
By:
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 Djokovic*: Federer-Tsonga-Nadal-Murray-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Murray-Murray-Murray-Nadal-Federer |
|
By:
The issue of the best player ever will always be up for debate depending on personal preference...nobody has yet won all the slams in one year except rocket Rod...all on the same surface then but still a great achievement by any standard...that said I can always watch Federer play as he has the greater number of shots in his repertoire and the way he plays is simply more entertaining than the others (imo)....records will be broken over time and in the future they will probably add another slam or two so someone will win more in numbers but for sheer entertainment I'll watch Fed every time
|
|
By:
Only have to look at the difference in quality of the first few slam finalists all 3 had to play
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 |
|
By:
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 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. |
|
By:
think the reason Nadal lost to all of those players is because of the knee problems he developed in 2012 which make sit hardder to play on grass than any other surface because of the trajectory of the ball from the first bounce, before that he was making final after final, most of the roddick losses for novak was pre gluten free days and pre super novak 2011 onwards
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  |
|
By:
Remarkable that some people still can't accept Federer as the GOAT. Embarrassing.
|
|
By:
I think the Roger detractors had a decent argument going into the 2017 season, but after Roger has won 2 Slams this year at age 35 (turning 36 soon) and gone 3-0 against Rafa this season, not so much.
|
|
By:
Fed's lucky to have French title to his name and has never won Olympic gold. Also, as mesmerised points out, Nadal has basically owned Fed over the years, holding a 23-14 h2h advantage atm. Rafa lost the oz final cos he was below his best after a gruelling sf vs Dimitrov. Fully fit, he has the edge. I think it is fair enough to question whether Fed is the goat. The BBC eulogising the guy, and once-a-year tennis fans/middle Englanders applauding wildly and women creaming themselves over lovely Rog doesn't make it true.
|
|
By:
Roger definitely the GOAT on grass
 |
|
By:
Rafa lost the oz final cos...
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. |
|
By:
down the years from the beginning Nadal was always better than Federer and Djokovic eventually after gluten gate but Federer wins in style and with seemingly minimum effort, that's great in itself, more of an effort for the other two.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Dialing rather than dealing out, although it sort of works both ways.
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
How many sets was Fed's semifinal at Aussie Open this year?
|
|
By:
Fatslogger 19 Jul 17 12:24
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 |
|
By:
Okay, a series of ad hominem (you may need to look it up) non arguments presented with the false confidence of someone who is either incapable of analysis or already knows they're wrong. If you don't think grass is a worthy tennis surface that's a view you can hold but as most of everyone else in the tennis world and crucially the tennis tour calendar disagree with you, it's hardly a great argument in terms of the debate about greatest ever player. You might as well say that hitting serves that don't get returned shouldn't really count, it's close to that level of absurdity. Also worth pointing out that what you say about grass not supporting rallying tennis was true about twenty years ago when the courts were faster but not so true any more. Or perhaps you'd forgotten that Nadal has won Wimbledon himself twice. Of course it's different to clay and it's a matter of taste which you prefer but you can't just dismiss a surface that Nadal is vastly worse than Federer on and then resume the conversation based on how they both do on clay.
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? |
|
By:
Oh and the Swiss coward? Is that the guy who contested a semi every grand slam for can't even remember how long but over five years worth of tennis and has played the most grand slam finals, quarters and semis, including loads on his least favourite surface, clay? Really, you need to take a look at yourself. There's nothing terribly clever about posting total rubbish to troll people.
|
|
By:
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
  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Oh and while I'm here, factual error: Nadal has beaten Federer only once on grass (and has only played him three times on grass in total because of his habit of getting knocked out of Wimbledon early). Although perhaps that counts as multiple times to Larsson.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
bobweenit 19 Jul 17 13:26
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 |
|
By:
Now that ive looked at the ausopen again, its amazing how people have used to to defend Nadal. Federer had a 5 setter against the world number 4 at that time and '14 hours later' Nadal labored his way through a world number 15 opponent. So just because Nadal couldn't finish off a world num 15 quickly, he was fatigued in the final and 'threw it away' in the final set which is why Federer won the slam? Quite an argument.
|
|
By:
Yeah, played a worse tournament, got beaten in the final but is definitely still better than Federer based on that tournament!
|
|
By:
See Larsson still can't answer questions.
|
|
By:
Nadal had a day less rest in a much more energy-sapping sf than Fed's vs Stan.
|
|
By:
Fed is certainly the biggest cry baby of all time though - let's not forget his reaction to losing the 2009 Oz Open final vs Nadal.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Well, I still think 23-14 tells its own story.
|
|
By:
|