Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 66 comments are related to the topic:
Rusedski and Bartoli say Federer is the Greatest Player of All Time ?
Rusedski and Bartoli say Federer is the Greatest Player of All Time ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 66
|
By:
And you can't throw Agassi into that era he was well past his prime when Federe was in his prime, Agassi was winning slams when federer was ten years of age LaughLaughLaugh
So you don't count Federer as part of this era because he's 8/9 years past his prime? |
|
By:
acquiesce12 26 Aug 14 21:47
no you don't need to articulate it's phucking simple, you cannot call him the GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME, when he was never the greatest in his own era ffs, his two biggest rivals are better than him when they played at their best, federer is just Mr consistant in kicking everyone elses ass What era are you even going on about? He's 33 years of age now, that's 5/6 years ahead of Nadal/Djokovic era. Federer peaked in 05/06, that was when he played his best tennis. Love to see how 27/28 Djok/Nadal would have got on against a 24 year old Federer |
|
By:
The only way you can judge the goat is on grand slam titles won. At the moment Federer is the goat. If Nadal draws level with him then h2h record come into it. Until then it can't. It's all about winning titles.
|
|
By:
You claim Federer was in his prime in 2005/2006 Don1 and yet Rafa the kid was already schooling him on both clay and hard courts. Each to their own but how any body can think Federer is the goat is beyond me - he got lucky when the best players of his era where fcuking Roddick and Hewitt
 Nadal played in the greatest era of tennis and managed to pick up 14 grand slams and Olympic Gold. Rafa by miles a better player than fed could ever dream of being  |
|
By:
id put smpras over fed,sampras played in a far better era
|
|
By:
I think a 28 year old nadal and novak would beat federer at 24 imo
|
|
By:
don you phucking clown wtf are you talking about
Nadal owned federer in every single year he had a positibe h2h record bar 1 year let's look at the slams Nadal 9 - 2 Federer Federer won ONE slam on Nadal's favourite surface - and that was only because he never played him Nadal won TWO slams on Federer's favourite surface - and tht includes beating Federer in the final Fed the GREATEST Fe |
|
By:
ridiculous, records talk for Fed all the way, almost 3 times as lomg leading rankings
|
|
By:
Since Nadal won his first slam Fed has won 12 slams
Since Novak won his first slam Fed has won 5 slams So you're telling me Fed won in a weak era when Nadal was in that weak era and he couldn't even beat these weak players that Fed ended up beating later in the tournament I think a 28 year old nadal and novak would beat federer at 24 imo A 30+ plus Fed has been taking Djok to 5 sets and beating him a couple of times in the past few years, I have no doubt a prime Fed would be beating him most of the time. Nadal did beat Fed in his prime so that is a different story but it wouldn't be as straight forward as their recent slam meetings |
|
By:
who gives a phuck what you have no doubt over, NADAL has kicked his ass TWENTY FIVE TIMES but apparently you think federer is the GREATEST
he's to busy flogging his phucking RF brand and news shoes these days too |
|
By:
Im not up to actual statistics here but nadal has missed or withdrawn from at least 8 slams with injury, not to mention losing aus open v stan with bad back, dont no exactly how many feds missed or withdrawn from but wudnt be many if any
|
|
By:
exactly the bhoys - Vamos Rafa the greatest ever - fed struggle to get into the top 5
|
|
By:
Anyway there's no real point discussing it as nobody is going to change their opinion. Both are still playing and can add to their legacy, picture should be clearer in a few years
I can argue Nadal has never won a year end championship where as Fed has 6. It'd be silly to call someone the greatest when they've never won the tournament that puts the 8 best players in the world against each other wouldn't it? |
|
By:
Id actually go Nadal, Fed Novak simply because of the point made that fed has beaten or taken novak to 5 in his 30s, but nadal v fed isnt even close
|
|
By:
Not really don as indoors is by far nadals worst surface and by far feds best
|
|
By:
It's an end of season tournie that means fcuk all until Fed fans realise that it might help with his legacy ... the head to heads say it all , if Nadal had the luxury of playing the likes of hewitt and safin he would have double the grand slams he has now
Fed was a good player that got extremely lucky to play when he did , as soon as Nadal put it up to him on a hard court he balled his eyes out  |
|
By:
ffs TAXI FOR DONALD
world tour finals, a trumped up poxy indoor tournament played over the best of THREE sets, real men are judged over the best of five in a tough era, as larsson says fed had it lucky in the early part of his career, Nadal would have loved to have been 5 years younger he too would have not just as many but more slams by now, he would have more than his 14 if a)he wasn't injured v wawa and b) he never missed those five slams since his first win, |
|
By:
Means **** all
I could say to you H2H means **** all. Is Davydenko greater than Nadal because he's got a positive record? |
|
By:
Nadal missed those slams because of the way he plays ffs
 His abrasive style means he cannot maintain that level for a full season every year. Part of being a tennis player is managing your body.Anyway Fed has played slams with a bad back and even play the Aus Open with mono, a disease which in its severe form has ended tennis players careers |
|
By:
So nadal cant be as good as fed till he wins 18 slams? Thats fairly in accurate if u ask me given the fact nadal has had to beat murray and novak in there prime and argubly the greatest era of tennis ever
|
|
By:
No, i'm saying you need to consider everything. Obviously Fed's H2H v Nadal counts against him but it doesn't automatically mean Nadal is the greatest.
Some of you act like Roddick, Hewitt are rubbish. Roddick has a positive H2H v Djok... |
|
By:
as far as the "elite" of tennis goes which is where the conversation is , Roddick is rubbish, awful tennis player who made the most of what he was given. Dress it up any way you want Roddick is poor
|
|
By:
not even winning 18 slams would help Nadull becoming GOAT
 |
|
By:
as one dimensional as he is roddick must be the unluckiest player in the open era not to win a wimbledon title. his peak years pretty much coincided with fed. could have had 3 or 4 without him being around
|
|
By:
I always liked roddick as a player but theres no getting away from the fact that he was pretty average barring serve, if anyone got into a rally ud expect them to win the point
|
|
By:
roddick was good when he was raw, and had a massive forehand to back up his serve.
connors and stefanki stefankied him. |
|
By:
and fwiw, for me fed and nadal are equivalent on titles. i'm not going to try and separate based on that.
nadal is better than fed because of the way he's adapted his game, set himself challenges and achieved them and the way he can seemingly control his intensity at will (barring fitness problems). there is no doubt in my mind that federer's missing achievement is winning the french and beating nadal. He's got the game for it, but was unable to win the mental battle. Nadal made huge efforts to develop his game for grass in order to beat fed. Fed has never recovered against Nadal when Nadal has got him past his unforced error threshold for a match. I've always felt with fed that he's the better player when he's playing his best, but that nadal's tenacity and determination, and his ability to force exceptional play when required that makes him the better sportsman. as i said, it's a conversation which has been done to death, and ultimately comes down to the appraiser's criteria. |