Old Father Time

Hurkacz clearly ain’t bang average.

Federer will go down as the most popular player ever and the second greatest ever. Should be proud.

Second to who, DK?

Hurkacz is no better than average IMO. Would struggle to take 8 games off top players.

Jul 7, 2021 -- 6:37PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:

Second to who, DK?

Djoker I would imagine.

Djokovic without doubt. Doesn’t even 20 slams to be considered that by unbiased people with greater knowledge of the sport, but for the media and your regular simpletons I guess he does.

Don't eat gluten kids

DanielKoellerer, you are correct in saying Federer is the more popular figure but I would suggest most people also consider Federer the greater player. As one with an ocassional though lifetime interest, I think Federer was the best of all time.

To me it is no contest although head to head stats could be used by either side to argue for their champion:

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-novak-djokovic/F324/D643

It’s not about who people ‘consider’ as Federer fans (or more to the point anti djokovic types) will never claim Djokovic is the greatest.

Can only look at such a thing objectively and once djokovic gets to 20+ there is not even a debate.

Djokovic has absolutely dominated Federer in their rivalry in the important ones.

80% slam finals
70% all finals
70% all grand slam matches.

Or thereabouts.

You can factor in year end number 1s, weeks at no.1, masters series wins etc if you like. All slams x2 as the only player to do so as well.

Then there’s the subjective stuff too like coming up and taking on an already established Federer and nadal. The fact he’s dominated fed on the court that was supposed to be his. Fact he’s done something fed never managed and beaten nadal x2 at Roland Garros. And of course fairly claiming he’s the most all round player ever with not one weakness (barring maybe the smash). Across all surfaces the best.

It may be that I imagine Federer was at his best before Djokovic could challenge him.

But Federer c 2005 against Djokovic at his best? The Fed Express every time for me.

I am sympathetic to the case of Djokovic because the crowd has mostly been against him and there is nothing wrong with his tennis.

But Federer had the higher threshold to his play.

But Federer had the higher threshold to his play.

How is this measured please?

Subjective nonsense, the type spouted by Fed fans.

How can people have such hatred towards Federer?
He's a class guy who plays a beautiful form of tennis that real tennis fans should enjoy?
Such an immature attitude towards the man. Must be envy

While he was dominating for a long time did they not watch him  to save their sanity?

you have to factor in age, Novak started to dominate Federer when Federer  was past 30 and Novak was mid 20's, RF became noticeably slower, Djokovic even commented on that prior to one of their matches, and Federer even had Championship point against ND in the Wimbledon final 2 years ago age 37, it was a real 50/50 match.

They are the 3 best ever, don't know why there has to be just 1, it's not a simple equation of most slams means the greatest of most weeks at number 1, many other factors that dictate those stats such as time out through injury

I remember Novak giving up through tiredness a few years back. Poor conditioning
There's not a bead of sweat on him when he walks off after 5 setters should they happen nowadays
I just cannot be behind him

How is this measured please?

Their early encounters.

Sure, Dvokovic ground him down in later encounters but it would be a mistake to measure a declining Federer against Dvokovic.

Lies, lies and statistics.

The most ridiculous statistic is prizemoney won.

Fedex is without doubt the most elegant,aesthetically pleasing player who ever lived..beautiful to watch at his best

but Djoko is the best athlete,retriever and as has been stated has beaten the best at their best(or close to it)

whichever way you spin it,Fed's initial wins were against way lesser opposition that Rafa and Djok would have equally beaten

what is unequivocal is we have been so lucky to have the 3 of them around for so long and fair play to Andy Murray to have been able to win slams in their era when few others have been capable of so doing

Also at the end of the day men are not machines

they are naught but mere sheep to try out experimental gene therapy vaccines on

If wimbledon had left the grass alone instead of changing the seed to produce a slower surface to accommodate baseliners
then Federer would've been unbeatable there imo and picked up a few more slams
I miss the serve and volley game he had.
He had to adapt his game to the strengths of others (baseliners) which doesn't seem fair.

No hating of Fed here.

Just fed up of all the subjective nonsense.

I guess a one-handed backhand counts for a lot.

Jul 9, 2021 -- 3:40PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:

How is this measured please?Their early encounters. Sure, Dvokovic ground him down in later encounters but it would be a mistake to measure a declining Federer against Dvokovic.Lies, lies and statistics. The most ridiculous statistic is prizemoney won.

As s_h has said elsewhere, a prime Fed beat a pre-prime Djoko.

A prime Djoko, beats a post-prime Fed.

Federer beat nadal for the first time at aus open in 2017 final when he was 35......nadal had beaten him in their 3 previous meetings downunder beginning in 2009. Fed was just as good 2013-2018 as he was 2003-2012......its just that joko had the better of him totally from 2011 onwards. FED only won majors (3) after 2012 when novak was injured. prior to joko injury, joko had the better of fed and when he came back he began beating him again. FED at his peak could never beat nadal at french, monte carlo and rome. DJOKOVIC COULD.
Fed had all the time in the world to win all masters titles but he didnt get it done. JOKO DID DO IT, and by beating nadal at all clay tournaments. that is a massive plus for novak in the goat debate. i am a nadal fan but winning 13 of the 20 on clay is not a good mix of slams.

joko needs to be carefull.........i fully expect him to win on sunday but after that, the USO has to be the priority.........winning the calender slam is so more important than winning the olympics.

. Fed was just as good 2013-2018 as he was 2003-2012...

absolute pure waffle, you trot out statistics like there's no tomorrow, I don't think you actually watch tennis

post 2012 he was being knocked out of slams by Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Seppi, Anderson, Millman, Dimitrov and now Hurcacz - contrast that to the period between his first slam win til 2012 where the only players that KO'd him from slams were slam winners or slam finalists, Novak-Nadal-Soderling-Berdych-Tsonga, a different class to the mugs who KO'd him post 2012

he simply became older and slower post 30 and took long periods off which coincided with Peak/prime Novak taking over,

I'm pretty sure Federer would also have beaten the 2015 version of Nadal at the French if he was 28 as well, Novak was short odds, 1.4 or so, it was expected, when have you ever seen odds like that for him at Roland Garros? Nadal must have lost more matches on clay that year then any other.


The comparison is much fairer between Novak and Nadal because there around 12-14 months apart in age, Federer is nearly 6 years older, that's a massive difference, t's actually impressive Federer was able to compete with him.


No doubt Novak will dominate all the stats in the end but the actual differences between their level of ability / talent is thinner than wafer thin.

Federer won most of his titles in a weaker era, before Nadal and Novak peaked

Rafa clearly had the edge over Federer, on all surfaces, for years

Federer's beaten Nadal 5 times out of the last 6 and he's a tennis pensioner
Nadal clearly didn't have an edge on him over grass, most of losses to Nadal were on clay

between 2008 and 2014 Nadal and Federer played 6 grand slam finals, on three different surfaces, and Nadal won them all

anyone who think Federer was better than Nadal during those years is nuts

those were Nadal's peak years

when fit he was the best player in the world

sometime around 2015 / 2016 Novak overtook him

Federer hasn't been the best player since 2008, at the latest

it was clear that Nadal also had a psychological edge over Federer, in addition to skill / fitness

why are you cherry picking dates? just as bad as bdj

Nadal won his first slam in 2005, which tells you he was ready to wins slams, because he'd won a slam. He then lost slams or slam matches to Federer after this including on grass and hard courts between 2006 up until 2019. Nadal completely dominated Federer on clay courts, but he dominated everyone on clay courts including Djokovivc who he's knocked out of the French 6 times.

we can all find and chose stats to suit our own arguments, but it goes back to what I originally said, their talent level is very similar.

because those were Nadal's peak years

he hasn't been the same since

at his peak Nadal was clearly better than Federer on all three surfaces

Nadal was just a kid, and a clay court specialist, in those early Wimbledon losses to Federer

he improved over time and overtook Federer, the 2008 Wimbledon final being a clear inidication of that

"Nadal completely dominated Federer on clay courts"

Federer never dominated Nadal, Djokovic or Murray on any surface, at any time

so you conveniently chose his peak year starting 2008 which would then only include 1 single grass match which was 5 sets and then deduce 'clearly better than him on all surfaces'

Federer was way past his peak in 17 and 19 when he knocked Nadal who's 5 years younger, out of hard and grass slams, also a better record indoors, at any time, we can do this all day but it's cherry picking.

are you disputing that Nadal was better than Federer between 2008 and 2014?

Federer only won Wimbledon twice in those years, once when Nadal was absent

they only met once on grass during that period

"Federer was way past his peak in 17 and 19 "

they were both past their peak at this point

picking 2008-14 is not cherry picking, it is the period when both were at, or near, their best

and Nadal won 6 out of 6, on all three surfaces

I never got this Federer greatest of all time malarkey

how many times do Nadal and Djokovic need to beat him?

Agree with Giuseppe.

Beating Phillipousis, Baghdatis, gonzalez in slam finals gave him a fairly easy ride till about 2008. Then when nadal became a great on all surfaces, and djokovic appeared feds days were fairly numbered. Relatively of course.

12 slams from 2003 to 2007.
8 slams from 2008 to 2021.

His longevity is impressive but you can’t claim that disparity is normal and claim that was his peak just because he suddenly started losing a bit more frequently to nadal and then djokovic. Maybe the fact people believe his peak was 2005/2006 because there was no djokovic or major nadal challenge off clay.

When was djokovic’s peak?

Was it 2011 to feb 2012 when he won 4 out of 5 slams, went on a 40+ match winning run.

Or was it 2015 to 2016 when he won 5 out of 6 slams, and lost in the final of the other which meant he narrowly missed out on the calendar slam? Beating Federer in 3 of those slams pretty comfortably in 4 sets, including 2 finals. In fact he beat him in Indian wells, Rome, Wimbledon, us open and atp world tour finals in 2015. Not going to mention his finals record vs roger or his slam record vs him. Refer to my above post.

Or maybe it’s 2021? The calendar slam? There will be some pretty twitchy anti-djokovic bottoms if that ends up looking likely.

So what does it show? This man has pretty much dominated tennis for a decade - losing final blip in 2012 2013 and post French open 2016 motivational blues.

The records he has roll off your tongue. Sorry, but it’s not up for debate. All 3 are magnificent and will probably always be the 3 greatest but there’s a fairly clear order actually. No anti Federer hate as he is the main reason the rivalries are so great, has the most aesthetic style, incredible longevity, and is consequently the most popular ever. He’s just not the greatest.

As wesdag said, it’s not about subjective nonsense, there’s a lot of objective evidence out there to prove it fairly clearly.

Nadal kept getting beat in earlier rounds so didn't make the finals with Federer on Federer's preferred surfaces.
With Nadal not being good enough to make these finals its long odds on Federer beating him
That's how a stat can be skewed.

Plus of course there is a massive chance that Nadal was "at it"
Will be confirmed when he has heart trouble in his 40s
Disgrace

gave up gluten and suddenly turned into superman, is that objective?

"Nadal kept getting beat in earlier rounds so didn't make the finals with Federer on Federer's preferred surfaces."

what are you talking about

Federer only won five grand slams between 2008 and 2014 (Nadals' peak years) and one of those was Wimbledon 2009 when Nadal pulled out

they played 19 times during that period

Nadal won 15 of those ties, including all 6 at grand slams (4 finals and two semi finals, I posted above that all were finals)

admittedly only one of those ties was on grass, but Federer wasn't pulling up any trees at Wimbledon during this period, he only won it twice

2008-14

leaving out meeting son clay

grass one match, Wimbledon final won by Nadal

outdoor hardcourt, 3 grand slam matches, all at Australian open, all won by Nadal

4 other outdoor hardcourt matches, 3 wins by Nadal, 1 by Federer

indoor hardcourt 3 matches 1 for Nadal, 2 for Federer

Federer also beat him indoors in 2015

other than indoors Nadal had a clear edge over Federer on every surface

You get no more £50s off me.
Anyone who fights the corner of Roid Boy gets nada.

I'm not taking a position on that, I'm not saying he was clean

is that ok? I could do with a 20 to be honest

the following site has crunched the numbers

.
https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

Jimmy Connors better than Borg according to that list. Hmmm

Actually they have Connors better than Sampras
I'd like to w/d that pile of doo-doo pls

bit of trivia: one of Connors' US Open wins was on clay (76)

how many clay tournaments did Pistol Pete win?

Connors missed a load of French Opens during his peak years too

and hardly ever played in Australia (as was common among top players)

could have won more grand slam tournaments

hey scandanavian...........if federer was a considerably lesser player from 2013-2018 than 2003-2012, then why in 2017 did federer beat nadal in all 4 outdoor hardcourt meetings......nadal won the us open in 2017 (and the french 2017)......he was not exactly an average player was he.........those 4 meetings were at the aus open final and included two masters hard court finals.........they were not mickey mouse matches.
fed was a great player in his 30's........its just that novak prevented him from winning 10 more slams......stats dont lie..FEDERER WON 2017 WIMBLEDON WITHOUT DROPPING A SET.......U HEAR THAT SCANDANAVIAN...........THE ONLY YEAR HE WON WIMBELDON WTHOUT DROPPING A SET.....WAS IN 2017......WHEN HE WAS IN HIS MID 30'S......HE COULDNT DO IT IN 2003-2007.....DJOKOVIC WAS PLAYING INJURED IN 2017.
I have proved my point about fed being a great player in his 30's..........he only won 3 slams then because joko BEAT HIM EVERY TIME THEY MET IN A SLAM........MORE OR LESS.......THE H2H STATS IN SLAMS FOR FED V THESE TWO ARE EMBARASSING........remember scandanavian.............fed was well up to winning slams in his 30's in straight sets ..........AS LONG AS HE AVOIDED NOVAK DJOKOVIC.....I REST MY CASE.


h2h nadal v federer at the slams
aus open 3-1
french 6-0
wimbledon 1-3


h2h djokovic v federer at the slams
aus open 4-1
french 1-1
wimbledon 3-1
USO 3-3

what are you talking about, look at the players who knocked him out of slams post 2012, they'd never have done that 03-12 because they didn't, you Millman's and Gulbis and Stakhovsky's were beating him after 30 years old not before, only slam winners or finalists could before.
Federer has beaten Nadal 13-7 on hard courts, inside hard and outside together. Nadal has never got close to winning the world tour finals. The only surface he has dominated him on is clay, but he's dominated everyone on clay including Novak.

claiming someone is the GOAT when all 3 have 20 slams each but when they then have a losing slam h2h of 10-4 and 11-6 is relly weird.......especially when u also hear that the other two have way more masters titles than fed.....even allowing for the advantage nadal has in having 3 masters on clay when there are none on grass.........WHY DOESNT FED HAVE MORE MASTERS THAN JOKO.......FED WONT BE WINNING ANYMORE MASTERS.......IF COVID GETS OUT OF THE WAY JOKO WILL 10 MORE..........THERE ARE NO STATS THAT PROVE THAT FED IS THE GOAT.........NONE........that 2019 wimbdleon final when roger federer was nearly 38 years of age and lost WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE WON.........may well haunt FEDERER FOREVER........

"The only surface he has dominated him on is clay"..........why has federer got a 3-1 losing h2h record at the aus open v nadal?
given that nadal is 6-0 v fed on clay, why doesnt fed have a 4-0 record v nadal on grass?.....why isnt it 100 pct like nadal has on clay v fed

WHY DOES FED HAVE A 4-4 RECORD V NADAL H2H ON NON CLAY SLAM SURFACES SCANDANAVIAN..........WHY DOESNT HE DOMINATE?


WHY DOESNT FED HAVE A WINNING H2H AT ANY SLAM V NOVAK DJOKOVIC.............2 LOSING AND 2 ARE A DRAW

IN 3 YEARS TIME WHEN NOVAK HAS 25 SLAMS.............WHAT WILL BE YOUR ARGUEMENT THAT FEDERER IS THE GOAT?, OTHER THAN HE BEING A NICER PERSON........THERE ARE PLENTY OF NICE GUYS OUT THERE.......IT MEANS NOTHING IN DETERMINING WHO THE BETTER PLAYER IS.

I'm not claiming Federer is the best ever, I think they're all pretty much the 3 greatest ever Novak simply started to dominate everything once Federer was past 30 and slowing down

Read this - it's Novak's own comments about Federer in 2013



Feeling your age, Roger? Fed's too slow, claims Djokovic ahead of ATP Tour clash

[i]Roger Federer is guaranteed a rapturous welcome at the 02 Arena on Tuesday night, with his legion of fans loathed to agree with Novak Djokovic's diagnosis of the problems that have afflicted him this year.

The 26 year-old Serb, who is plunged straight in against six-times champion Federer in their opening group match of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, hinted that he believes age is finally catching up with the great Swiss.

Abandoning the reverence with which the top players usually speak of each other, Djokovic did not dilute his analysis of why his opponent has endured, relatively, his worst season in a decade.

'From my point of view he hasn't been moving as well this year and I guess that's one of the reasons he hasn't had much success,' said the world No 2. 'He is moving maybe slower than he used to

Federer's supporters will point to the stiff back their hero has sporadically suffered from in 2013, although that in itself may be a sign of advancing years.

The two actually played on Saturday in the semi-finals of the Paris Masters, with Djokovic winning in three, and after dashing to London on Sunday night he has to win again if he is to have any chance of blocking Rafael Nadal from the year-end number one position.

Switzerland has already got a win on the board with Stanislas Wawrinka beginning the tournament with a 6-3 6-7 6-3 victory over Tomas Berdych in the opening match of Group A, much to the delight of the large Swiss contingent who always attend.



and you add this to the fact he's had 2 knee surgeries, it's amazing he was still able to compete, still able to Knock Nadal out of slams and had Slam winning point against Djokovic age 37.

there's virtually nothing between them in terms of talent and ability, just different styles, but all you have is cherry picked stats and dates.

novak will end up with more slams, better h2h, better slam h2h, better slam final h2h, more masters titles..........AND BEATING RAFAEL NADAL - THE KING OF CLAY - AT MONTE CARLO, ROME AND ROLAND GARROS......SOMETHING FED COULD NOT DO AT ANY POINT IN HIS PRIME

There is no cherry picking here scandanavian....FACTS ARE FACTS...........what joko said to some reporter 8 years ago means nothing............TALK ABOUT CHERRY PICKING TO PROVE YOUR POINT. THATS DESPERATE CHERRY PICKING BY YOU....TO PULL THAT INTERVIEW UP....MY OPENING SENTENCE ABOVE IS NOT CHERRY PICKING.....JUST BASIC STATS TO PROVE JOKO IS THE GOAT...YOUR DOING THE CHERRY PICKING

NICE DEBATE THOUGH. HERE ALL DAY.

2008-14 Nadal was the best player

2015-21 Novak has been the best

this isn't a controversial statement surely?

and if you accept that, how can Roger be the GOAT?

Giuseppe.......Fed fans are totally blinded......i dont get it. THERE ARE NO STATS THAT PROVE HE IS THE GOAT.

the player he has beaten the most in grand slam finals is 1 time slam winner Andy Roddick....roger beat him in 4 finals
nadal beat federer in 6 finals and novak in 5..........they will point to the clay skewing this but federer and novak are great clay court players
novak beat nadal in 4 finals and fed in 4..........

these are more stats to prove nadal and novak played in harder eras.........its a no brainer.......Federer had every chance to win more slams than nadal and novak..........BECAUSE HE PLAYED THEM IN SO MANY GRAND SLAM FINALS.......BUT THEY KICKED HIS BACKSIDE........AND THATS ULTIMATELY THE REASON WHY THEY WILL END UP WITH MORE SLAMS..............because they will have better h2h record v fed in slam finals

Are you counting meetings when Roger got his zimmer frame?

You could say there's 2 points in it being Roger 22 winning slams and Djokovic 17
2 match points when roger was 38 at wimbers and 2 match points at us open versus Djokovic
Your slam figures would look sick on the basis of 2 points won or lost.

But according to you lot it is preposterous to think Fed is even in the frame for Goat

man wins 8 wimbledon titles.......last one the only time in straight sets (2017).......3 weeks off 36th birthday........yeah, we are counting meetings 2014-2019.......when they met 5 times in slam matches and joko won all 5.......federer won 3 slams 2017-2018............DONT KNOW WHT YOUR POINT IS

if he is better than novak djokovic, WHY WILL NOVAK DJOKOVIC END UP WITH MORE GRAND SLAMS?........ITS EASY STUFF.

"You could say there's 2 points in it being Roger 22 winning slams and Djokovic 17"..........if my aunt had...........

point is Federer was past his best.
Good god its not hard to grasp

You miss my point spectacularly again.
The swing would be 4 slams on 2 points. 2 points in amongst thousands played
So there is not a massive gulf between them.
Dont insult me with my auntie crap

Good god its not hard to grasp

more grand slam titles (its a formality)
more masters titles
won each slam twice - fed couldnt do
won all masters twice - fed ouldnt do once
beat king of clay at monte carloe, rome, roland garros.......fed couldnt do
better h2h v nadal........fed couldnt do

good god its not hard to grasp


THE IFS ABOUT 2019..........HOLY CRAP, FED LOST.......THIS ALL YOU GOT?

Would you consider Djoko to be the goat if he had won 17 slams and Federer 22
Simple yes or no.

By the way you can shout and embolden stats all you like.
You will never convince me.

Serena knows
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamzagoria/2021/05/18/serena-williams-says-roger-federer-is-the-goat-of-mens-tennis-hes-a-genius-and-the-greatest/?sh=3f7a012c2194

Would you consider Djoko to be the goat if he had won 17 slams and Federer 22...............federer doesnt have 22

2 separate matches he had match points.
That's my point.
The difference is minute.
But we won't agree so be lucky.

2 separate grand slam matches*

jumping cuckoo.........never in the history of tennis should a player have won a tennis match but lost and it was that 2019 W final.....fed should have ended his career on 21, but it still would not have been enough cause novak will get to 24/25......no more for fed

but lets be real FEDERER LOST IN 2019.......im trying to be nice..........i was the only person from a household of 5 shouting for novak that day....imagine what its like for those 4, having to deal with me.......

Just checked it was the 2011 semi final when Federer lost after mps due to a sh1t or bust shot by Djokovic
Fed would still have had to beat Nadal in the final but as he leads 13-7 and was at his peak would have been no problem for Fed, lol.
Maybe counting that ^^ one is pushing it a little.

No probs bdj, you are a tough adversary in the stats stakes...... phew
all the best

im a nadal fan and i was gutted when novak got to the 2011 final because novak owned rafa that year beating him at 5 consec finals........and he beat rafa in 2011 USO final as well. i watched the replay of that final on youtube recently......the highest quality tennis match i have ever seen. its simply unreal.

i like novak as well..........i dont like fed because of his crying after 2009 australian final when rafa beat him...........i was a neutral fan untill that match......but there was 13 time slam winner roger federer crying because he lost a match. he had won 5 wimb and 5 USO in a row.......crikey imagine what its like to be andy roddick or andy murray losing slam final after final.....i was all rafa after that and was gutted when novak started to beat rafa from 2011 onwards but more than happy to see novak go past fed in goat race, hence all my posts here.........

btw i find it difficult to make a case of rafa being better than fed in the goat race as fed has a better mix of slams.........so im not totally biased, all my arguements are novak over both of them.