Why Federer Is The Greatest (coach, star, titles, games)

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by irish_bob

change reached his peak around 1989 , never remember him doing anything after that , nearly ten years before pisto pete was in his prime

Chang's peak was not 1989. It was in 1996 when he made it to the Final at the Aussie (lost to Becker) and the US Open (lost to Sampras) and reached a career high No. 2 ranking. He actually would've been ranked No. 1 had he beaten Pete at the Open, but Pete smoked him in straight sets (ironically, Chang owned Sampras when they were juniors). I always liked Chang. He was humble, hard-working, and made the most of what he had.

[sunset2000]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

I always liked Chang. He was humble, hard-working, and made the most of what he had.

And then he moved on to marry a trophy wife from Stanford.

[Greg1977]

Originally Posted by sunset2000

You guys do know that Nadal has been beating Federer for YEARS, right?

Your question was, do I think Nadal's skill level will or has exceed Federer's. My answer was that I think Federer is the most skilled I've seen. Since people generally consider Federer the greatest( including the OP), then they obviously must take their head to head record into account. Nadal leads the series 18-10, but 12 of those victories have come on clay, in which Nadal is the undisputed greatest claycourt player ever. Federer has beaten Nadal in the majority of their hardcourt and grass court matches. The conclusion I draw from this is that Federer is the superior all-court player to Nadal, but he cannot beat him on clay. Which, for the record, neither can anyone else.

[sunset2000]

Originally Posted by Greg1977

Your question was, do I think Nadal's skill level will or has exceed Federer's. My answer was that I think Federer is the most skilled I've seen. Since people generally consider Federer the greatest( including the OP), then they obviously must take their head to head record into account. Nadal leads the series 18-10, but 12 of those victories have come on clay, in which Nadal is the undisputed greatest claycourt player ever. Federer has beaten Nadal in the majority of their hardcourt and grass court matches. The conclusion I draw from this is that Federer is the superior all-court player to Nadal, but he cannot beat him on clay. Which, for the record, neither can anyone else.

Okay, fair enough.

What about Djokovic. He dominated Federer in the past two years, in addition to dominating Federer's biggest rival, Nadal, in the past two years also.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by sunset2000

Okay, fair enough.

What about Djokovic. He dominated Federer in the past two years, in addition to dominating Federer's biggest rival, Nadal, in the past two years also.

Novak Djokovic will prove to have been a flash in the pan.

It is ridiculous to call him one of the three greatest players of all time based on two years of performance.

[Greg1977]

Originally Posted by sunset2000

What about Djokovic. He dominated Federer in the past two years, in addition to dominating Federer's biggest rival, Nadal, in the past two years also.

He's won 5 slams in the last 4 seasons, very impressive but can you honestly put him as one of the 3 best players in history already? Really?? Federer owns a winning record over him, Djokovic having the advantage in the last few years imo coincides with Federer leaving his peak years. He's not at the level of 2004-2008 overall, but obviously still a great player. The only player that can claim to have routinely beat a prime Federer is Nadal, and that's chiefly on clay, a court where he's clearly superior to everyone else.

[sunset2000]

Originally Posted by Greg1977

He's won 5 slams in the last 4 seasons, very impressive but can you honestly put him as one of the 3 best players in history already? Really?? Federer owns a winning record over him, Djokovic having the advantage in the last few years imo coincides with Federer leaving his peak years. He's not at the level of 2004-2008 overall, but obviously still a great player. The only player that can claim to have routinely beat a prime Federer is Nadal, and that's chiefly on clay, a court where he's clearly superior to everyone else.

Yes, Djokovic came in at the end of Federer's prime when beating Federer, but you cannot ignore the fact that he at the same time has also consistently beaten Nadal who has routinely beaten Federer for years, while Nadal is still in his prime.

[Greg1977]

Originally Posted by sunset2000

but you cannot ignore the fact that he at the same time has also consistently beaten Nadal who has routinely beaten Federer for years, while Nadal is still in his prime.

I haven't ignored anything. As I've had to explain on the basketball board that in sports, just because a>b and b>c, doesn't necessarily mean a>c all the time. Players match up differently to each other. And for the record, Nadal leads that series 19-14.

[Trader8]

Originally Posted by Harrier

There is no way to objectively compare players from different eras who did not directly compete against each other.

Are Roger, Novak, and Rafa good? Yes.

Are they great? Yes.

Are they the three greatest players ever? No.

Those were Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, and John McEnroe.

Please

Federer is the GOAT, in my opinion.

Don't have time to search the 'net right now, but Agassi played against Sampras, McEnroe, and Federer in his career ... and I'm pretty sure he said Federer was the best he ever faced.

His opinion has to carry a hell of a lot of weight since he was actually out there on court competing against those guys.

Then you have the fact that a young Federer whipped Sampras at Wimbledon in '01. Although, granted, Sampras was somewhat diminished at that point in his career.

Given Federer's body of work at this point, the only guy you can make a case for as being the GOAT right now is Laver. Completing the calendar slam in '69 was super impressive.

It only took the greatest clay-courter (Nadal) in history to prevent Federer from equaling Laver's achievement...

[sunset2000]

What's a GOAT?