Rusedski and Bartoli say Federer is the Greatest Player of All Time ?

zZZZZZzzzzzzZzZZZZZZzzZZZZZZZZZzZZZZZZZZzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

OP total BS, who cares how many slams you miss, it's in your responsibility to be fit when a slam is on the calender, so he wasn't able to participate, how could he have had a chance of winning them. Nadull is a one surface wonder, good on other surfaces, but not extraordinary. Federer won 10 slams away from his favorite surface, Nadull 5

I know it's an old debate but it's the way which they dismissed everyone else so quickly, you cannot seriously say he is the best player there has even been when even in his own era his lost 25 of the 35 matches they've played and has an inferior record h2h in slams too.

bad match up doesn't compensate overall success

the match up is one thing but then there is slams and masters, Nadal will catch up to 17 and already has won more masters plus is the only player who has a positive h2h v every single player on tour

it's been done to death unfortunately.

it all depends on your criteria.

rafa for me, but I'd queue overnight to watch federer in his pomp, even against some no-mark; you only see rafa's brilliance when he's forced to fight.

1. Nadull won't catch Fed's slams, hopefully 18 in 2 weeks
2. h2h Nadull vs Kyrgios 0-1, vs Darcis 1-1, there will probably be more if he doesn't have to retire immediately

Murray when coached by Lendl was better than both of them.

Murray was GOAT during the period he won the US Open, Wimbledon and Olympic gold. No one could get near him.

Rafa is the Goat

maybe gdoat

it's in your responsibility to be fit when a slam is on the calender

100% correct statement

h2h v minor players doesn't really matter, against the top 10 it's more prevalent, you real rivals, Nadal has every worthwhile stat going for him v federer bar the most slams but that is a matter of time, it would have been 15 already if he wasn't injured v Wawrinka, the bulk of Federers slams were won in a 6 year period between 2003-2009 when novak and nadal were not at their peak, since 09 he's won 2, against neither v novak and nadal.

Not a chance Nadal will win 17.

Nadull won his 1st slam 2005, also was 2nd in ranking that year, Djoker's 1st slam was 2008. If you discount Fed's slams till 2009, I'll discount all his RG slams

Aug 25, 2014 -- 5:54PM, scandanavian_haven wrote:

the match up is one thing but then there is slams and masters, Nadal will catch up to 17 and already has won more masters plus is the only player who has a positive h2h v every single player on tour

you clearly said every single player on tour

posted this on the wrong thread, scandanavian_haven 25 Aug 14 22:35 Joined: 27 May 11 | Topic/replies: 1,022 | Blogger: scandanavian_haven's blog
bb66 yes I did but forgetting to remember that he lost one single match to kyrios is besides the point,

I think in time nobody can take seriously the point he the greatest player there's ever been when he's been whipped 25 times by one player, and won his favourite tournament 2 times less than Nadal has won his

that only stresses he's a one surface wonder, I doubt he will win another slam away from RG

its a fact, fed is GOAT no doubt... best playstyle in the game

FEDERER has been Nadals BITCH for a good 9 years now and has kicked his arse over 20 times and you are saying he is the greatest player of all time why? because he's good at finishing points early and doesn't run around like roadrunner nadal for every single point? well if he phucking did that he might not have been schooled so many times by him, he  is so great it never occurred to him to change his game for rafa and instead he choose to keep doing exactly the same thing, my friends that is what you call being INSANE. The short sighted people just look at slam count and that's good enough for them, more fool you.

there is no FANBOY quite like a Federer FANBOY

im not a fanboy of anyone, and u just picked his biggest counter to prove a point -.-

you are fanboy you said it's a fact when it's not a fact, it's only a fact in the mind of a fanboy, his two biggest rivals have got the better of him when they were at their best, you can;t put age down to federer's losses to them, it's not his speed has slowed he never had a lot of that to begin with, just face it, you cannot call him the greatest EVER when in his own era he has been OWNED  by his biggest rival, it makes no logical sense, people like you are just fixated on style of play and load of cheap slams

federer is a truly great player but for years he really only had to beat Roddick, also people can say nadal has only dominated 1 surface thats why he has so many slame but same can b said for federer at wimby and novakl in aus open

Rafa by a mile, Mugerer got very lucky, shouldn't even be in the conversation, and Rudeski is a clown

noone in the game holds as many different records as Federer

Fed is the GOAT, no two ways.....his dominance over such a long period of time should not be forgotten. So many calling him done in 2008. BBC pundits predicting a period of Muzz dominance etc.., little did they know. Fed has re-invented himself. His passion for the game is boundless, and has managed himself very well over the years, dropping his schedule when needed physical rest or dodging the asian swing, then willing to do 250 tourneys to learn how to play with a new technique and racquet.

So many would have just called it a day.

WALOFS

his dominance was never over his two biggest rivals, it was over sub standard players in grand schemes of things, just face it, he was and still is Nadal's little b itch, schooled in slams and masters on hard and clay by rafa, he will reach 17 slams at least there is no doubt, the only reason why federer is limping on is he has this obsession of playing rio 2016 to win singles gold to complete the set, age will catch him up very soon, can't see him getting past dimitrov in what is the quarter final stage I think

Nadal the GOAT

Substandard by what standard exactly?  Agassi, Safin, Nalbandian? There's three players who whilst the last two were wildly inconsistent were capable of some of the highest quality tennis there has ever been. Even someone like Davydenko, ask Nadal what he thinks of Davydenko, because he's received a number of beatings from him and has a negative H2H

Kyrgios, Rosol, Darcis, there's some substandard players for you

as big a fan as I was of Bandy ffs no wonder it was easy to win slams if you are putting him up

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

If you put Davydenko at his best playing Nadal at his best on a fast hard court i would go for Davydenko every time. He is just a terrible matchup for him. Even if you put him up against Nalbandian at his best i would go for Nalbandian. People should be more careful and articulate with their statements. Calling somebody "the greatest of all time" is a bold statement, because it is stupid to compare players from different era's. Federer is the best player of the previous decade and he has enough achievemnts to back it up. But that is as far i would go.

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

spot on^^^

Good to see that Nadal criticised the Spanish judge for destroying those blood samples.

Fed = GOAT, FACT. Deal with it.

mastosivic just called fed the goat, obviously him n nadal didnt get on after the water bottles incident

wasn't maware mof Davydonkey kicking Nadull's a$$ (h2h 5-6)

how can you call Nadull GOAT, when he wasn't even best of any decade

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?

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

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.

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

id put smpras over fed,sampras played in a far better era

I think a 28 year old nadal and novak would beat federer at 24 imo

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

ridiculous, records talk for Fed all the way, almost 3 times as lomg leading rankings

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

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

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

exactly the bhoys - Vamos Rafa the greatest ever - fed struggle to get into the top 5

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?

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

Not really don as indoors is by far nadals worst surface and by far feds best

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

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,

Means **** all

I could say to you H2H means **** all.  Is Davydenko greater than Nadal because he's got a positive record?

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

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

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...

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

not even winning 18 slams would help Nadull becoming GOAT

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

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

roddick was good when he was raw, and had a massive forehand to back up his serve.

connors and stefanki stefankied him.

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.