Roger Federer: I Can’t Believe How Many Titles I Have! [Video]
by Tom Gainey | February 20th, 2012, 9:57 am
  • 160 Comments

What a difference a week makes pro tennis. After an extremely disappointing Davis Cup performance last weekend, Roger Federer was all smiles Sunday after winning his 71st career title in Rotterdam.

“I can’t believe how many titles already I have,” Federer said.

“I had a great mindset after a tough weekend at the Davis Cup last week, so I’m happy to turn it around right away.”

Federer’s 71 titles leads all active players, and he’ now just six victories from matching John McEnroe’s career take of 77. Jimmy Connors has the all-time record of 109.

Federer, who struggled in a 3-set win over Nikolay Davydenko in the semifinals, put on an exceptional show cruising past Juan Martin Del Potro 61, 64.

The Swiss said he credits the Davydenko with helping him find his rhythm to beat Del Potro.

“That match with Davydenko was gigantic looking back now,” Federer said. “I knew I had a chance if I got through that one. It all came together perfectly. I’ll enjoy this tonight with my friends and family who are here.

“It feels nice to come back. I think it was the right thing to do. I’m happy I made it a priority this year. I hope I can keep the momentum up going into Dubai, Indian Wells and Miami.”

During his presser, Roger also said he was hoping to play another 3-6 years on the ATP circuit. The 30-year-old Federer reminder the media that Agassi played until he was 36.

Federer’s next tournament is a “home” event in Dubai starting next Monday.


Also Check Out:
Victoria Azarenka Get’s Ridiculous In Boyfriend Redfoo’s New Music Video
Maria Sharapova Celebrates Her Rome Title With A Swig Of Champagne [Video]
Watch Sorana Cirstea Train For Dancing With The Stars [Video]
WTA 2011 Retrospective [Video]
Here’s Novak Djokovic Wearing An AC/DC Shirt In This Adidas Spot [Video]

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

160 Comments for Roger Federer: I Can’t Believe How Many Titles I Have! [Video]

dari Says:

3-6 years?!!!

Go Fed, hope the body and mind hold up!
At that rate he will be playing past nadal!


JAMES Says:

ignorant swiss ,thinks is still best


green900 Says:

not ignorant swiss, he is THE best


Krishna Says:

I am a big time Federer fan.. but facts are facts..he is clearly the best when other members of the “Big 4″ arent around… of course if more events are on an indoor surface..he can beat anybody..even if the “Big 4″ were there.. (WTF 2011).


chocolate Says:

It does not matter whether the other 3 are around. A win is a win. I am just as happy for Roger as anybody else who cares.


subo Says:

roger is the goat i admire him greatly while roger is playing nadal is doing what he does best taking his clothes off what a tired sick act this is becoming big time nadal is a phony fraud and doper


skeezerweezer Says:

They made the choice to play or not play. Fed entered and won against a very good field despite the other 3 not entering. Maybe they’re just not “in shape” enough to play. They need rest although years younger, ha!
So your saying Davy and JDP are chumps?
To a fault, Fed has never run from opposition. Jealous comments always sound like sour grapes. Read em and weep Fed haters! You can’t change the all time records.


Mark Says:

subo, subo, subo. Your extreme envy is so transparent. Go blow a whistle!!!!


RZ Says:

James, he has more titles than any other active male singles player. So guess what? He is the best on that count.


Mark Says:

@subo. The only doper who nobody talks about (I wonder why) is the Djokass the EGG lover!!!!!


Humble Rafa Says:

Some people can’t sleep until they get pillows with their name on it…wherever they go. And they don’t bring their own pillows.


alison hodge Says:

ooh such hatefull coments from mark and subo,what rafa and nole have achieved is amazing,and roger is the worlds best ever player,whos only crime was to bring out the best in rafa and nole,they have all set the bar so high in the game,theres room for them all cant we just enjoy watching them and leave it at that,is there not enough hate going on in the world without bringing it into sport.


Wog boy Says:

Alison, good one :)

Cheers


tennisfan Says:

In life all that matters is how positive you are about yourself. The way he has rebounded back from his loss in AO/Davis Cup just goes on to show how determined he is to reach his goals.

As he rightly said once: There maybe tough moments maybe for, you know, an hour or a couple of days potentially, but life goes on and you get a second chance! (Roger Federer & His Secret of Success?http://bit.ly/ySgH7K ). Just love the way he has come back and brought a smile on every tennis fan.


tennisfan Says:

In life all that matters is how positive you are about yourself. The way he has rebounded back from his loss in AO/Davis Cup just goes on to show how determined he is to reach his goals.

As he rightly said once: There maybe tough moments maybe for, you know, an hour or a couple of days potentially, but life goes on and you get a second chance!. Roger Federer & His Secret of Success? http://bit.ly/ySgH7K


Polo Says:

Roger remains very motivated to play well. He works hard and has good discipline. With those plus his natural ability, he is good enough to maintain his place among the best of the current players, the best 4 in spite of his age. He may have slowed down a bit but he remains a top contender in any event he enters.


Humble Rafa Says:

He may have slowed down a bit but he remains a top contender in any event he enters.

Yes, he does. LOL. The Arrogant One will be out of top 10 by the end of the year.


Kimmi Says:

Do you want to bet on that Humble? lets revisit this in december


jane Says:

alison, I liked your post.

Polo, you’re right, plus he loves it, so why not continue?


carlo Says:

Federer might not be #3 at the year end but he’ll make another Tour Final.

I wouldn’t bet against him falling out of the top 5 this year.

Very good post, alison. You have my vote for the resident diplomat ;)


Mulli Says:

If I’m not mistaken wasn’t Federer the last person to beat the “Joker” and he will be the first to beat him again as well. Maybe Roger has lost a half of step now that he has turned 30 but he makes up for it with raw talent and his excellent physical conditioning and that allows him to play more tournaments throughout the year than most of his competitors, including Rafa and Joker. I think he wins his 17th slam this year too, time will tell!


Wog boy Says:

Mulli, you are mistaken. It was Tipsy, Ferrer, Nisikori plus two retirements against Delpo and Murray.
I don’t know who is going to be next one, we might aske Jamie to ask his fortune teller, but I hope it is not going to be Federer. Those ones are hardest to digest ;(


Wog boy Says:

One more thing, as long as Rafa is around and Federer is in Rafa’s half Nole is safe :-)


Humble Rafa Says:

Do you want to bet on that Humble? lets revisit this in december

According to the ATP, I can’t bet. Sorry. :(


Michael Says:

The Media is taking advantage of the gentleness of Roger and posing the irritating question of retirement over and over again. This is silly. Being a Champion, Roger knows well when to take a call. Certainly now is not the time of retirement when he is playing very well even at the age of 30. I am sure he is not going to toil around like Jimmy Connors till 41. He may be will call it up when he is around 35 and that is my guess. But I may be wrong and Roger would have other plans. So, at the minimum he has five more years to add to his already glittering achievements which has no parallel. Moreover, even of late when he has failed to win a major for the past two years, Roger’s record has been very good and would be envy of every other player outside the top four.


Michael Says:

Krishna,

You comment as thought Roger is afraid of the top Three. See, Roger has won many majors with those three around and he has beaten Novak Djokovic the current World No.1 numerous times in majors. Even when Novak had an incredible run it was only Roger who could stop him and that too in a major. By posting like this you are trying to belittle a great Champion like Roger. But never mind, your comments will hardly hurt him as he has already achieved GREATNESS.


naledi mosaka Says:

I am a HUGE Federer fan and I was over the moon that he won in Rotterdam. I am tired of people saying he should retire. When he is ready he will. He still gives me palpitations when he loses the match after winning the first set. My heart bleeds when he loses because I like him so much. GO ROGER GO ROGER


Borg Says:

You have won many major titles but in how many of them you beat Nadal ? Just two. Whereas Nadal has beat you 8 times. You should really feel ashamed of such a kind of record against your main rival.


malher Says:

roger will stay the goat until somebody could ever break his records – that wont be nadal or djocovic because they will run and ping pong each other till both will have to retire due to injuries!!!


Borg Says:

Malher – Nodoubt Federer has a good record. But his best record is 9-18 Vs Nadal and still his followers claim he is the Goat. Roger is definitely great but not greatest. Nadal has demolished his Goat status. Unless he is able to turn around his bad H2H against Nadal, all his claims of being Goat will look hallow.


Lesego Seoka Says:

Federer hasn’t declined or slowed down. He is not losing to rank outsiders in the majors or big tourneys. The only thing that has slowed are the outdoor hardcourts and grasscourts. Some of which play even slower than clay courts. The courts have greatly diluted Federer’s potency but that hasnt stopped him from being a threat at all four majors.

Federer’s great chance at a grandslam still remain Wimbledon and USO.


Polo Says:

Borg, Roger has nothing to be shamed about his record against his main rival. The same way Nadal should not be ashamed about his record against his main rival, Djokovic. I presume you still remember the 7 straight finals they have played, the last 3 of which were all majors. These guys play very hard and always try their best to win. When they lose, there is no shame in that. The other guy just played better. A player who is shamed by losing has no guts to be in the sport. You don’t get anywhere with that attitude. These guys got to where they are exactly because they are not what you presume they should be, cowards. You can never be a victor if you go into a battle with fear and shame of defeat running in your head.


Polo Says:

Borg, Roger never claimed to be the Goat. This nullifies your argument above.


jamie Says:

Hi, y’all.

I found another astrological prediction for Nole’s 2012.

http://in.msn.astroyogi.com/Articles/AstrologyArticles/sportsman-of-the-year-novak.aspx

Like my friend the psychic, Astroyogi predicts Nole will win the USO but not the FO this year.


alison hodge Says:

thanks wog boy,jane, rep carlo feb 20th 10.19pm thanks but all i ever do is try to be fare,i think its possible to be a fan of one player,but also to respect the achievements of others,hates such a negative emotion anyway,and will not change anything,lets enjoy them all,as they wont be around for ever,rafa,roger,nole,andy,delpo,whoever,love them all tennis is a great sport.


skeezerweezer Says:

“You should really feel ashamed of such a kind of record against your main rival.”

Naw, I’m good with that. And how should you feel that your fav holds the greatest ever record of losing 7 FINALS in a row to ONE guy?

Ashamed? LMAO. I am also good with all of the all time records he holds, including the GOLD standard of number of slams. As polo said, Fed never claimed goathood. But his peers did.

Is this sour grapes day? Oh, that’s right, Fed just on another Tour title at the senior age of 30, wtf?


Sandy A. Says:

This srrogant, conceited comment is exactly why I cannot stand Federer, the most arroagant, conceited tennis player in history. I much prefer more modest but even better players, such as Rafa Nadal. Sandy A.


Humble Rafa Says:

Federer hasn’t declined or slowed down.

I don’t know where to begin. You can live in your own world. Peace.


alison hodge Says:

h2hs are such bs,the yardstick with which you are measured in greatness,is grand slams won not h2hs,so what if roger has a crap record against rafa,or rafa has a crap record against nole,i agree with polo why would roger give an eff,when hes sitting pretty at the top of the tree with more slams than any other player,and rafa who atm has 10 slams,5 more than nole,and is joint 5th on the all time grand slam leaders list,more about winning the battle and not the war.


Polo Says:

Sandy A, did you ever consider that maybe Federer is really amazed that he has won so much considering that prior to his first Wimbledon win, he was tagged as a loser, especially in majors, because of his string of early round losses?


alison hodge Says:

polo i was just thinking the same thing myself,it sounds like hes just really pleased,and cant quite believe it himself,a case of thinking is that really me did all that lol,he cant win with some people though,damned if ya do,damned if ya dont.


alison hodge Says:

sorry the war not the battle.


Steve 27 Says:

I look forward to Murray against Federer for the position number 3 of the ATP.
And I’m talking about the present, not whether the Swiss has 16 majors and the British one. And keep saying Federer is closer to the number 4 than number 2, Murray does not advocate anything in Dubai, IW and Miami.
Djokovic: Defends 3 titles and he will be the big loser, because he only will lose points.
Nadal: Two finals. He’s good at these tournaments, he can win a title and be eliminated in the quarterfinals in the other, so do not lose anything.
Federer: Final at Dubai tournament and two semifinals at the Masters 1000. Knowing that does not give up on this kind of tournaments, they can send home fast or best not lose anything.
Murray: On the contrary of the the Swiss, he have the hunger and motivation to climb definitely the position 3 and Djokovic and Nadal Djokovic: Defends 3 titles and will be the big loser, because you will lose points.
Nadal: Two end. He’s good at these tournaments, you can win a title and be eliminated in the quarterfinals in the other, so do not lose anything.
Federer in Dubai final and two semifinals at the Masters 1000. Knowing that does not give up on this kind of tournaments, they can send home fast or best not lose anything.
Murray: On the contrary, the Swiss have the hunger and motivation to climb definitely the position 3 and Djokovic: Defends 3 titles and will be the big loser, because you will lose points.
Nadal: Two end. He’s good at these tournaments, you can win a title and be eliminated in the quarterfinals in the other, so do not lose anything.
Federer in Dubai final and two semifinals at the Masters 1000. Knowing that does not give up on this kind of tournaments, they can send home fast or best not lose anything.
Murray: On the contrary of the Swiss, he have the hunger and motivation to climb definitely the position number 3 and fight with Djokovic and Nadal the first place at the end of the season.
Conclusion: Nadal and Murray will go near to Djokovic and Federer respectively. In the first because the Spaniard dont anything special, but because the Serbian inevitably lose points. In the second case, the Scotish can only score points, and can be approximated quite the Swiss, who will win or lose much.


Steve 27 Says:

the british none, I meant.


Steve 27 Says:

some paragraphs have been copied twice.


RZ Says:

A lot of people call Fed arrogant, but personally I prefer that top-performing athletes tell it like it is. The humble act gets old fast and becomes disingenuous after a while. I’m not saying the top pros should be conceited, but there’s nothing wrong with saying that they’re proud of or amazed by their accomplishments. After all, they’ve worked hard for them.


green900 Says:

Guys be real except the fact, fed is real. he is the best in history, maybe djoko and nadal may surpass him in slams ( i personally don’t think so but in the end who knows – i never saw djokovic winning 3 slams in a year last year) so at the present the best in history remains federer. Period.


alison hodge Says:

green900 yeah agreed,and you wont get any argument from me there.


skeezerweezer Says:

Steve 27,

I got your post (twice, ha!). Yeah it will be very interesting to see how Nole holds up defending all those titles. Remember though, he has a bounty of points he is sitting on. I think your right Murray is sitting pretty right now but he has to win and has to play. Of all the guys to cheer for in a tourney it would be easy to cheer for Murray at Wimby for his first GS. However, the brit press needs to give him some breathing room and I don’t see that happening :(.

RZ,

Totally agree. Anyone here who has competed in an indivIdual sport here knows what your sayin ;)


skeezerweezer Says:

alison,

Lol, are you sure you’re a Rafa fan? If you continue to post like this you will have me turning into a big Rafa fan ;). Good stuff. You must be a Libra.


alison hodge Says:

skeez lol thanks yeah i am i love rafa,but how can anyone not love,admire and aprieciate what roger has achieved,im just greatfull rafa has what he has,im not a greedy person,rather than been resentfull because he falls way short of roger, whats the point lifes too short anyway,been a brit i also love murray too,sorry im not a libra though im sagatarius,but my late mother was,maybe i get it from her lol,thanks again.


Humble Rafa Says:

The humble act gets old fast and becomes disingenuous after a while.

Not mine. May be because my humbleness is genuine.


RZ Says:

HR, of course you are genuinely humble. After all, even a banana has gotten the better of you. LOL.


Steve 27 Says:

I truly believe Andy Murray can win his first major this year, Wimbledon or U.S. Open (of course, the British want the first- since Perry my God-) and gradually surpass Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the rankings. And finally cease to be slighted by the tennis fans who mock him for being in 3 grand slam final and not earn a meager set. But time makes every person in the proper place it deserves and I’m sure if it exceeds that mental problem he has in the final stages of major tournaments against top players, will become a multichampion of slams. Personally, I find it much better than Del Potro, his game is more varied than the Argentinian, has much better volley and is certainly more consistent in his game. Sure, it lacks that Murray “sacred fire” that Del Potro has, something innate is not learned, but can be countered with the confidence you gain as you get great victories and the psychological factor is a strength and not weakness never more. For this is Lendl, right? And if not this year, will next year, when it becomes the world’s No. 1. Honestly, I do. Only is a matter of time and see that all parts are completed.


Borg Says:

Polo – “Roger never claimed to be the Goat”

But his worshippers make that absurd claim time and again even when he has such a pathetic record against his main rival which will make one squirm with shame.

Skeezer – “I’m good with that. And how should you feel that your fav holds the greatest ever record of losing 7 FINALS in a row to ONE guy”

Mate, my favourite Nadal is still leading Djokovic 16-14 in H2H and he leads in major events as well by a wide margin and he has also beaten him in Olympics. Therefore, do not compare just for the sake of it to save Federer who has such a dismal record against my guy even in his favourite Hard courts. In a way, I salute Novak for his wins against Nadal which was not possible for your guy getting thrashed time and again and it was so nauseating when you guys jumped up and down about his GOAT status. Nadal might say one thing in Press that Federer is the GOAT etc. etc. but in his inner heart he will feel that Djokovic is way better than Federer. Although I would like Nadal to turn this H2H against Djokovic sooner than later, there is no way he should feel ashamed with this 7 consecutive defeats. Considering the stuff he has made of, Nadal will soon find a way to check Djokovic. He is not appearing hopeless as Federer was with Nadal.


Borg Says:

Roger never claimed to be the GOAT. Yes, for sure because he knows in his inner heart that he is not the GOAT when he chokes against his main rival. But his senseless followers claim often that he is the GOAT and there comes the problem. We can consider the claim of GOAT status of Federer if he is able to turn his H2H against Nadal atleast slightly. At present, the H2H looks so bad to even write about.


Joe W Says:

As I was watching the Rotterdam final, I had a premonition. Shortly after Fed retires in 2017, he will be a highly sought after coach. Relationships are very important to Fed. Therefore he would only coach a player that share his sensibilities, drive, and would truly be in a “receive” mode. He would also have to be a player/contemporary of his. That player is Juan Martin Del Potro. A older, wiser, JMDP who needs a late career intervention. Wouldn’t that be something. As intelligent and articulate as he is, I don’t think he would be a compelling tv commentator (ok maybe that is an oxymoron). But I do think that he can see beyond the grind of the tour. He loves tennis as much or more than jmac. Which is why he look for an outlet. Some kind of tactical specialist that will work with you in the off season and for short periods of time (slams). The sky is the limit for a handsome, confident, intelligent guy who has a little swagger. Where will fed be if we look to the horizon?


rave Says:

I would rather have Roger’s refreshing honesty than I am so humble, no? I saw the wonder on Roger’s face when he won Rotterdam, that big smile says it all. HE loves the sport, he loves winning, and he still absolutely is amazed when he wins. At nearly sixty, I am still trying to appreciate what I have accomplished, and to say it Is it bad to acknowledge your hard work and the rewards that come with it? We all should do more of it in our lives. May be we will be happier and less inclined to be snarky, negative, or cruel in our words.

ANd H2H only seems to matter to Nadal fans. They will bring it out as the only peice of evidence, and I mean the only argument they have against Federer. So sad that they cannot appreciate two great tennis players for what they are and what they have accomplished. Go Roger, Vamos Rafa.


rave Says:

I meant, “Why is it so bad to acknowledge your hard work and the rewards that come with it.


roy Says:

we’ll see how long federer plays when he has a few more years failing to win slams and when his record with not just nadal but djoker and murray becomes incredibly lopsided.
not sure his ego can handle it.


skeezerweezer Says:

Borg,

“He is not appearing hopeless as Federer was with Nadal”

7 ATP tour finals in a row ( 2 Slams ) Hopeless? You didn’t see Rafa moon ball out of frustration and hopelessness that he was getting beat on all fronts? He had 7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7 chances in a final to win just 1 and couldn’t do it. How sick is that? The facts tell the story. However its ignorant posters like you who continually want to say the only thing that matters is your fav has a winning record against the Maestro. I got a buddy who has a winning record against Agassi as a junior. What does that make him?

So should we assume since Fed has a winning record against Novak that….? . Silly stuff to justify a position…

How about this?

You should be very thankful Fed gifted him(Rafa) the FO trophy by beating Nole, otherwise the way things have went this year Nole could have beaten Rafa 8 times in a row instead of a measly 7. So what does it all mean? Just sayin. Nothing. Give it a rest man. It’s a argument you can’t justify anymore. Every player has a thorn, and you are just bummed that Rafa has a GOAT thorn now. One can say Rafa owns Fed, Fed owns Novak, and Novak owns Rafa. Is this really what it is all about to determine ones own mark on the tennis records?

If you want to talk more about H2H lets go, but don’t get your feelings all mixed up on how that determines the greatest player ever. Rafa is going to be one of the best ever. But don’t be ragging on Fed just to justify Rafa’s greatness, he deserves it all by himself, not on someone else’s back.

Oh yeah and this….

“But his senseless followers claim often that he is the GOAT”

BTW, why don’t you give Rod Laver a call, he is one of the “senseless followers” that still call Fed GOAT. Hehe.


Borg Says:

Skeezer – Thank Novak Djokovic zillion times for helping you Fedarts as otherwise you would be in a very embarrasing position while countering the H2H of Federer against Nadal. Now you people have readymade answer which runs like Nadal owns Federer and Novak owns Rafa etc. etc.

“I got a buddy who has a winning record against Agassi as a junior. What does that make him?”

How odd for you to make such a comparison ?? Nadal is not that buddy or anybody. He is the main rival of Federer and to have a 8-19 record against him is a major embarrassment for any player more so for a player with calibre like Federer who has a claim on the GOAT status.

“So should we assume since Fed has a winning record against Novak that….? . Silly stuff to justify a position…”

Even today after the 7 consecutive wins, Nadal has a 16-14 advantage against Djokovic and that fact cannot be dismissed. Nadal leads Djokovic 5-3 in majors whereas Federer trails 2-8 in majors and 8-19 in H2H against Nadal. Therefore it is not that Federer only has a winning record against Novak, even Nadal has his numbers till date even after those defeats.

By the way thanks for accepting that my man Rafa is one of the best ever. But please bear in mind that Rafa will become the real GOAT when he ends his career.

BTW, why don’t you give Rod Laver a call, he is one of the “senseless followers” that still call Fed GOAT. Hehe.

By the way with all respects to Laver, if he has called Federer as GOAT then he too is senseless.


Borg Says:

Skeezer – “You should be very thankful Fed gifted him(Rafa) the FO trophy by beating Nole, otherwise the way things have went this year Nole could have beaten Rafa 8 times in a row instead of a measly 7″

Now how can I agree to this ridiculous assumption when you are talking about a six time Rolland Garros champion and a player who has not even reached one Rolland garros final in his career till date. If it is Nadal against Federer it is given whereas it is not the case with Nadal against Djokovic.


boxy Says:

Being a tennis and Fedfan is not just about winning. It is also about identifying with someone who you have something in common with and sharing in their triumphs as well as struggles. It is not just about cold winning, but also about sharing in each other’s humanity. That sharing in the struggle is actually more important than the winning itself, because we all struggle. But we don’t all win.


Ezza Says:

‘Borg’, why all your tedious droning on? It’s as if you don’t really appreciate or understand the sport of tennis. There is room for all types in the game, and successful as he has been, I find Nadal’s endless grinding and grunting far less appealing to watch than Federer or Murray. And you lay such importance on Nadal’s's 16-14 head to head with Djokovic never mind that Nole has now found a way to beat him regularly and on every surface. Nadal used to beat Djokovic ‘lite’ so you might want to get that into your head. Head to heads mean precious little in the overall debate but you cling to it as if that’s the only thing that matters. Hugely simplistic.


malher Says:

federer – the arrogant one – the goat!!! – he has all the reason in the world to be arrogant!!


malher Says:

borg – shame man – and all you Nadalfans can do is hammering the H2H – shame again


serbian hammer Says:

Steve 27,nice thinking but somehow,Djokovic will be a big loser dont sound that well.How a player that is winning almost every tournament he enters can be a big loser,i never saw Federer chalenge him ,Nadal or Murray lost to him from the start of the year,and about Murray,who did he beat,the young players like Dolgopolov,Tomic and Nishikori,won i brisbane and when he faced Djokovic he lost,3 sets to 2,if it was 3 sets to 1 or 3:0 its a LOSS!Same goes for Nadal,but he has beaten Berdych and Federer back to back which is not easy.So before we can say that Djokovic is loser lets wait end of the season,where he doesnt defend that many points himself so he can compensate the lost points if there will be any.And that besides winning a slam its all that matters.Djokovic 1 rest 0.


Polo Says:

I have no problem with people who do not like Federer, including those who try to put him down. There will be people who will denigrate him, that is expected because they admire somebody else. But after all is said and done, Federer still has the best overall record. I do not wish to argue with anyone because just watching Federer and knowing how much he has accomplished is enough to make me happy. I do not have to prove anything to the naysayers the same way that Federer does not have to prove anything to anybody that he is a very good tennis player. That is the advantage of being an admirer of Federer. The other players: Nadal and Djokovic especially, they are also very good players and I applaud them for their achievements. They all are good because they are good and accomplished in their own ways. I don’t see the need in belittling the achievements of others in my attempt to prove that my favorite is a good player. When the time comes that another player achieves much more than anybody else, including Federer, I will applaud him too.


RZ Says:

I used to think that Fed’s poor H2H against Rafa worked against him, but changed my tune when I realized that DESPITE that poor H2H he STILL has 16 GS titles, all those year-end titles, 71 titles and counting, and more than 1,000 match wins.


the_mind_reels Says:

Well said, Polo. I chime in only on occasion on these threads — not because I’m not opinionated, but mostly because it’s usually just circular logic/bashing (e.g., Fed’s Grand Slam record vs. Nadal’s H2H record vs. people claiming they know Nadal/Fed’s “inner feelings”) — and I’ve no problem stating that I too am a Federer fan, but I appreciate your perspective. I love watching all of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic play because I appreciate what they do and because I love the sport.

Very curious to see how the spring shapes up for these guys.


malher Says:

@polo – sooo agree with you – thanks for the nice post – i/m very bad with english and cant always say what i want to say – go fed!!


carlo Says:

I wish there were more tennis fans interested in the present matches even though they are 250 and 500 events. Some great tennis goes on when the top 4 are not playing.

What we get is the same old weekly tedious hate regurgitated by anti-Federer fans.

Really appreciate your 9:52 post, Polo.


Humble Rafa Says:

What we get is the same old weekly tedious hate regurgitated by anti-Federer fans.

Is it not the love-this-guy-till-I-die-GOAT-syndrome? Most people are realists, not haters. They consider the Arrogant One to be past his prime, in decline, desperately trying to relive the past.


alison hodge Says:

carlo i agree i look on this forum and read the posts every day,and sit shaking my head and cringing at some of the posts anyway,and my significant other will say whats up with you lol,and many times ive thought about dissapearing never to be heard of again,but then i think sod it,why should i let anyone drive me away,i love the forum and most of the comments on it, so here i am still ,your right the rafas h2h debate gets tedious,so do the anti fed posts,and it is nice to discuss other players outside the top 4,tsonga had a great win today,britains anne keothavong had a great win last week over cibulkova which never got so much as a mention,nice to talk about other players,even the girls for a change.


Wog boy Says:

Malher, didn’t you say in one of your posts, while back, that you are Southafrican? I am asking this because of you saying that your english is bad, and English is first language in SA even if you are Afrikaner.


jane Says:

carlo I too am interested in the matches going on (A Gulbis sighting, for e.g.! Unfortunately for him it may be short-lived as he’s playing Super-Milos, but during the week I’m just too busy to watch. I have been checking the scores, wins, losses and hopefully like last weekend I can catch a match or two – semis and finals kind of thing.


Steve 27 Says:

Serbian hammer: I mean, is that Djokovic has so many points to defend until the U.S. Open, a couple of defeats in IW and Miami can cost him as Nadal and Murray (which will eventually be third, at the expense of Federer) will come quite in ranking, especially the Scottish, who does not defend anything in the next 3 tournaments, opposite the Serbian defending 2500 points. That’s my point, of being “the big loser.” And yes, Djokovic has a major and the other none, but we know that in tennis, things change very quickly.


Steve 27 Says:

RZ, do you mean Federer has more than 1,000 match played. Only Connors and Lendl have over 1000 wins,lol.


Steve 27 Says:

And do not confuse criticism in the strict sense of the word, with the word hate, please, minors can only think so. Use the gray matter, please fed fans.


Wog boy Says:

Nadal knows the best how 6000 points buffer can disappear in no time (5 months). If Nole can hold until FO he will stay #1 at the end of 2012. He doesn’t to defend all the titles in order to stay #1 but he will need another GS title and lets hope that will be FO :-)
After USO Federer is one who have mountains of points defend not Nole. I don’t see Andy doing better than #3 by the end of the year, he has got some pounts to defend too at the tail end of the year.


Wog boy Says:

And yes, Nadal is safe at #2.


mat4 Says:

Wog boy:

Nole, IMO, needs to win just one tournament: the FO. After that, he can retire.


Steve 27 Says:

Djoko will not win the French Open this year, however, should win the Olympic gold medal and give it to his country, Serbia.


skeezerweezer Says:

Wog boy,

Yes Fed has his own defending to do after USO. Problem is, both Nole and Rafa are hardly ever a threat after USO. So they would have to beat that trend……however…given Feds age…don’t now how much he will be into the last qtr if he can’y make some headway in the 3 slams???

BTW so you think Rafa is safe this year at #2? Mmmm…


Wog boy Says:

Mat4, I can see why, but I hope he is not……going to retire, meaning he is going to win FO 2012 and few more, I hope he can make double digit when it comes to GS by the time he decides to retire. That would be fitting end for our man.

Nole don’t listen to mat4, please, keep going, this is not best of you, you can do and play even better. This not best of you.
Aren’t we greedy? Nole spoiled us, his fans:-)

I can see myself in five years time in Rod Laver Arena, after
final chanting to Nole …” WE WANT MORE, WE WANT MORE..”:)


skeezerweezer Says:

As a fan I am a little concerned with Nole burning out. I hope he and his team start strategizing how to stay #1 while not playing too much. Ex; exh’s some place across the workd, 250 events, etc.. Just concerend about the pace of his career, would like to see him playing a long time. Lets face it he played a ton of matches and was in most all finals……


mat4 Says:

@Skeezer:

I wrote a few posts in the other thread for you, but everyone else answered. But I would like to know your opinion, about patience and the backhand.

On the other side, about Nole: we all write about the physicality of Rafa’s game, but we often forget that he forced other players to do the same thing. If Nole keeps playing Rafa in finals, both careers will end soon.


Wog boy Says:

Skeeze, actually Nole use to play pretty good at the tail end of the year until his team decided to change schedule, what was smart thing to do. He won WTF, Paris , Basel, twice Bejing etc. What I thought is, if he is short with points he can make an efort and play Asian leg, that he didn’t last year. Don’t forget, last year he won 10 finals and made the rest of the finals by the time he won USO, he was wasted, understandably.


Wog boy Says:

Skeeze, You already said about Nole’s finals, last year. I didn’t see your last post.


skeezerweezer Says:

mat4,

can you direct me to the “article title” you posted under so I can go see it? Sorry, I missed it but would like to see what you had to say ;)

Wog boy,

;)..just hope he manages things well as far as schedule goes. He runs harder, stretches out on the court wider imo that anybody. Mr. Rubberband man. I mean…..he invented sliding on Hard Courts. How insane is that?


Borg Says:

Skeezer,

I know why are you worried about Novak getting burned out ?? It is because he is the real man who has been able to stop my man Nadal or else by now Nadal would be with about 14 titles and that 16 titles could have been history anytime soon. I salute Novak for that and he has proven his class by turning his once bad H2H versus Nadal which your man was not able to do getting beaten black and blue time and again. Normally, when it is a Federer Vs Nadal match I wonder why there is so much excitement when the result is already a foregone conclusion mostly except for that World Series Masters. Now you are extremely worried that Novak might break down which will pave the way for Nadal to garner more majors. But do not worry. My man do not need such short cuts to win majors, he will prove himself by beating Novak in majors and will not run away from the battle. That is Nadal for you, man of tremendous grit, tenacity and determination. VAMOS !!!


Borg Says:

Ezza – H2H definitely matters if it is concerned with the top two guys. Nobody in the history of Tennis who is claimed as GOAT has such bad H2H against his main competitor. You take Laver Vs Rosewall, Borg Vs Connors, Borg Vs Mcenroe, Sampras Vs Agassi etc etc. It is such a shame and need to be stressed time and again however awkard it might sound to the Fed fanatics. Federer has to live with this stigma for ever and this will be the biggest black mark in his resume.


jane Says:

mat4 says “Nole, IMO, needs to win just one tournament: the FO. After that, he can retire.”

I agree, in that I’d love to see him get that title before he’s done – but it would be great to see him complete his set of Masters 1000 Shields too; he is so very close to a sweep. I believe he needs only Cincinnati and Shanghai, technically, as well as Monte Carlo too, I guess, as it’s still 1000 points. So the FO and those 3 and he’ll have won all the “bigger” titles. I suppose an Olympic gold would be nice too. ;)

Wog Boy, you’re right. Typically Nole had done well post-USO. For example, in 2008, he won the YEC; in 2009, he won Bejing, Basel and Paris; in 2010, he won Bejing and then the Davis Cup tie. Only last year he didn’t do well, because as you point out, he was spent. All those titles, the streak, the battles with Rafa – no wonder. We’ll see what happens this year, but I agree that he can pick up points on the Asian swing this year, should he need or want to do so. And at Paris as well.


skeezerweezer Says:

Hey Borg,

YAWN already….Zzzzzzzzzzzz

You should get your OCD checked out ( re; H2H is all that matters, H2H is all that matters, H2H is all that matters ).

Talk about something else already, your scaring the posters away. Your just digging yourself in a deeper hole protesting the H2H. You and I both know the tennis history will not be judged by it unless Rafa gets close to Feds slam count. Until then, STFU. Rafa has his own problems with Novak that is hurting is all time greatness, which is not even getting to GOAT status, so you should be worried about that, and him just getting one more slam at this point(you better pray Nole gets hurt, sick, etc).
Its not the Fedtards or Feds fault, he(Rafa) did that( 7 ATP tour finals consecutive losses to a main rival and losing the number #1 ranking )by himself .

I am good what Fed has done and if he retires tomorrow, I am content and happy. His legacy is stratospheric. Your posts prove you are troubled because every time Fed wins as a grandpa age of tennis it is another mark to his greatness, not hat it is needed. Fed, now, with a the overall career in place, stands head and shoulders above everyone, just as all his peers have said and continue to say. They have credentials. You don’t.

Furthermore, I don’t want to take Rafa’s greatness down by having to defend Fed cause of posters like you. He’s a great player in his own right, He is young, and in his prime. He should shatter some records own his own, so lets watch and see. But for now, Fed is undeniably the King( Well actually Nole is, but talking overall career here….and your love Rafa even said so ). And if you think Rafa is not telling the truth about calling Fed “the best in history”, then he is a Liar. Lighten up the schoolyard talk, and so will everyone else.


Borg Says:

Skeezer,

I know well that my frequent harping on the H2H will make you yawn. The results are so glaring and breach the Federer’s supremacy. Therefore what more can the Fedarts do than pretend to sleep because countering it will be extremely embarrasing. Is it not ??

I said and maintain that Nadal doesn’t need such short cuts to winning just like your man who won the 2009 French and Wimbledon. I am not worried about Nadal when he faces Djokovic because I know that he will do his best and will not meekly surrender just like Federer does against Nadal. Regarding that Federer win at Rotterdam I would have appreciated it if he had done that against the top three or atleast one of the three. But as usual, Federer is happy piling up tournament wins in their absence. By the way thanks for your compliments about Rafa. I appreciate that. Rafa is only 25 and he has still four good years left, 16 looks damn easy.

Regarding that Rafa’s frequent comment calling Federer as the best in history, did you notice that, he often says that when he beats him black and blue. So what can you infer from that more than sarcasism ???


skeezeweezer Says:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Borg. I leave you and say goodnight with this. Its all about WINNING. Fed has the mostest, ever, against the field of players in his career. No one has ever gotten close to beatin him 7 tour finals in a row.
Rafa? He mostly likely will be the greatest of all time at #2. He has held that position better than anyone. Hehe.

I am movin on to other topics, there is other players to talk about for now, sweet dreams in RafaBodLand.


malher Says:

@ carlo – I agree – im watching all tournaments – very excited to see kevin anderson playing tonight


malher Says:

@ wog boy – yes im from south africa but grew up in namibia where very few english is spoken – more afrikaans and german – but to tell you the truth – there are more afrikaans speaking south african than english speaking – luckily my kids grew up to be bilingual fully – again sori for bad english


Jeanius Says:

Could someone please tell Borg to shut up. He is like an old vinyl record, not stopping and hammering on the same note. Stupid ass


Wog boy Says:

Malher, I see, thanks.
BTW, no need to aplogize, I know the feeling since English is not my first language.

Go Novak :)))))


alison hodge Says:

i too am a rafa fan,but i agree with everybodys comments,borg enough already with the h2h record puurlease,its getting old and embarrasing,its a fruitless argument fed fans couldnt care less about it,there man has 16 slams,and 71 titles overall,let it go your on a hiding to nothing,i can only hear the sound of dead horses been flogged.


Polo Says:

Quotation from “Field of Dreams”:
“If you build it, he will come”

I apply the opposite which sometimes work:
“If you don’t pay attention, he will disappear”


chris Says:

H2H is not a good comparison, its overall achievments that make Roger the GOAT. We never truly saw Roger in his prime vs Rafa in his prime because Roger is several years older than Rafa. You could claim that we saw this matchup ONLY with Federer at his tailend of his prime and Rafa just beginning his prime…which is no true matchup of players in their prime.

Furthermore, even if we throw out the above and strictly look at H2H regardless of when each was in their prime…a matchup is a matchup. Everyone has a style/or one player they just don’t matchup well against. Take Michael Jordan for example, against Shaquile Oneal. Isn’t it clear that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time? YES! But in a head to head/one on one match there is no way Jordan could stop Shaq from dunking all over him every time. Jordan would have to reside to shooting jump shots everytime and some of those he would miss. Shaq would beat Jordan almost everytime just based on how they match up.

Take either of the above, whichever explanation you like…there is no way Roger Federer cannot be crowned the best tennis player of all time. I mean just look at his raw talent and skills for goodness sake, he’s unbelievable!


Steve 27 Says:

The best or like said Boris Becker “The most successful” player in open era.


RZ Says:

Steve 27, yes I meant 1,000 matches played and counting rather than wins and counting.


Dave Says:

Federer and Pete Sampras are exactly 10 years apart in age: (a) Between Jan 2000 to February 2002 (26 months), Sampras won just two titles (one grand slam and one Masters 1000) competing in a supposedly weak era of Safin-Hewitt-Kuerten-Agassi-Kafelnikov-Ferrero. Between Jan 2010 to February 2012, at the same age as Sampras was 10 years earlier, Roger Federer has won 10 titles (1 grand slam, 2 year ending World Tour Finals, 2 Masters 1000, 3 ATP 500, 2 ATP 250) competing against the supposedly superior golden age of Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-Delpo etc.

It’s interesting that Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have learned to either stay away or whine about supposed injuries/fatigue when Federer is playing an indoor hardcourt tournament. It’s not coincidental, is it?

Federer still beat Davydenko, who is 6-2 in his last 8 matches over Nadal in his prime since 2008 Miami. And Federer still beat a Juan Martin Del Potro who is good enough right now to beat Nadal on hardcourts (Rafa had his hands full against Delpo at last Wimbledon and even resorted to a dubious medical time out at 6-6 just before the tiebreak started in the first set — according to reports a livid Delpo told umpire Carlos Ramos that Nadal was “lying” about his alleged foot injury at that critical juncture; a subsequent MRI scan revealed “nothing serious” about Nadal’s alleged injury; and Nadal’s feet looked just fine in his next match).

Since 2009 Cincinnati (while Nadal and Djokovic were in their prime, but Federer was well past his physical prime):

- Nadal has lost to Djokovic 2-10 (0-7 in last 7 matches, while healthy).

- Nadal has lost to Davydenko 0-4

- Djokovic has lost to Federer 5-6

- Davydenko has lost to Federer 2-5

- Federer lost 2-5 to Nadal during this period. However, one of Federer’s wins over Nadal is the most lop-sided career win between the Big 4 players in terms of percentage of total points won and second fastest win ever (Fed’s 2006 WTF over Nadal was 2 minutes faster). And he did it at age 30.
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=193260

Federer has never lost 7 straight matches to Nadal… or even lost 6 straight matches. The only time Federer lost 5 straight matches (3 clay) to Nadal was when Fed’s game was compromised by mononucleosis illness and back injuries between 2008 Monte Carlo to 2009 Australian Open.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/match-tough/federers-back-needs-a-break/article1301682/

At Nadal’s age today in April 2007, Federer had 47 titles, including 10 grand slam and 3 year-end titles. Since Nadal’s first grand slam win in 2005 FO, Federer has since won 12 grand slam titles and 4 year-ending World Tour Finals. Since Djokovic’s first GS win 2008 AO, Federer has since won 4 GS titles and 2 year-ending World Tour Finals. Between Nadal and Djokovic, only Novak has managed to win one WTF, in Fed’s mono year 2008.

‘Borg’s’ argument that “Nadal has demolished his Goat status. Unless he is able to turn around his bad H2H against Nadal, all his claims of being Goat will look hallow.” is not just deeply hollow, it is totally wrong. As the ATP records show (see link), Federer is simply better in more measures of success than the other greatest players (Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Borg, Kramer, Gonzales, Budge). No player has come close to dominating as many of these measures of success as much as Federer has. Federer does not have to be better than everybody in everything. No great player in tennis history was perfect in everything, every player has deficiencies somewhere. Rod Laver has a 5-9 losing record to the 4 years older Ken Rosewall in major finals they played, yet Laver was considered the GOAT for many years. In 1999, Agassi was crowned best player of the year despite losing 1-4 to Pete Sampras that year (Andre’s only win was a meaningless WTF round robin match). In tennis the biggest measures are your titles won and dominance of the field of competition, not H2H over one rival. Just because Nadal’s main claim to fame is having a superior H2H over Federer does not give Nadal claim to Federer’s hard-earned accomplishments over the field. Federer and Nadal are 5 years apart and from two different tennis generations, despite Nadal maturing earlier than usual. Federer dominated every player in his generation, while Nadal in his prime has a losing record over a player from his age group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records

Jack Kramer is perhaps best placed to assess all players he has watched or played against between the 1930s to his death in 2009. Rod Laver recently ranked Kramer the second best player in tennis history before 1968, ahead of Pancho Gonzales, Don Budge, Ken Rosewall and Ellsworth Vines. Kramer is considered the father of professional tennis — he promoted and managed his Tour of the top tennis pros in the 1950s and 1960s, and was a founder and first executive director of the ATP in 1973. For decades, Kramer had stubbornly stuck to his assessment that Don Budge and Ellsworth Vines were the greatest players in tennis history, ahead of Laver, Sampras, etc. However, two years before his death, he finally changed his mind and was ready to anoint Roger Federer as the best he has seen. “I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I’ve never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.”

Whether you want to compare Federer with the present or the past, the facts are facts.


Wog boy Says:

Dave, are you accountant by trade?
Jesus, you are so metodical, good with numbers and good with statistic. You have to be very patient person or to use Valium (in my case) in order to do that and not to have nervous breakdown :) it is so painfully monolitic thing to do.


Wog boy Says:

Monolithic


Wog boy Says:

But than again ” PATIENT IS VIRTUE”


Dave Says:

Wog boy, on the contrary, you just need a photographic memory and some ability to recall multiple bits of info while trying to make sense of the bigger picture. Remember, I did send you Christmas greetings in Serbian a few months ago…


skeezerweezer Says:

Thank you Dave, a stellar post.


Wog boy Says:

Dave, it sounds easy when you say it, but not easy to do it, not for me.
Of course I remember your Christmas greetings, I don’t get to many of them, and I replied with some explanation if I can remeber correctly. You did surprise me, nicely :)


Michael Says:

Excellent post Dave with detailed analysis. A very fine rebuttal to Borg. We can have discussions but we should take care not to insult Champions. They deserve their place.


Dave Says:

Thanks much, skeezerweezer and michael.

wog boy, since your brain thinks in multiple languages (Serbian, English, etc), you already have an active brain with the potential to do it. Don’t limit or sell yourself short, my friend.


alison hodge Says:

yeah i agree a great post from dave,which must have took at least half an hour to type at the very least,i read it twice to take it all in and it took me about ten minutes.
michael says we can have discussions but we should take care not to insult champions,they deserve their place,yeah too true,same for all champions and all players.


Polo Says:

At least Dave did not use an Olivetti to type his post. Very comprehensive indeed. I picked up so many information.


Wog boy Says:

Dave, actually I do like to explore and go beyond boundaries, streching my limits (known one), I got burned few times in my life but it was worth it. I was never scared of unknown and it was challenge for me to try and give it a go and test myself. What do you think, how I ended up in Australia?
I will stop now because I can hear my kids saying ” oh, no not again you and your lifestories” :)) Just kidding. They are not bad kids.

Cheers


malher Says:

@dave – thanks for great post – all facts – you made my day :)


lukyga Says:

He leído tanto que hablan como es q Roger perdió contra Nadal tantas veces en Rolan Garros y en otros..pero yo les pregunto que hacían Nadal y Nole mientras Roger ganaba lo 6 gran slam de wimbledom, los 5 de us open, los 4 de australia,1 de wimbledom, los seis del torneo de maestros y sus 71 titulos y multiples records…donde estaban..porque no estaban precisamente en todas las finales con Roger..mientras que Roger stuvo en las finales con Rafael en Rolam Garros en Australia Y otros..olvidense de que alguien le va a superar a Roger en este siglo 21…no existe ni existerá..aunque le duela a algunos pocos irracionales…todos serán eternos sátelites del único “Astro Rey ROGER FEDERER”!!!!!!!!!!


madmax Says:

Sandy A. Says:
This srrogant, conceited comment is exactly why I cannot stand Federer, the most arroagant, conceited tennis player in history. I much prefer more modest but even better players, such as Rafa Nadal. Sandy A.

February 21st, 2012 at 9:41 am

People still talking about the humble and self-effacing rafa. Sorry to my rafa friends here (the great posters, you know who you are), but I am getting a bit sick of the constant Roger bashing.

Short memories when a few weeks ago, the persona of nadal cracked when he showed himself to be jealous of Roger, deep down, by saying that Roger had left the players to ‘burn’ (and much more than that). People can be so unreasonable.

I wouldn’t have Roger any other way. He had to endure all the crap that nadal was saying and even when these hurtful things were said, Roger still defend nadal, like a brother.

Yeah. That’s really arrogant. Federer is the best in so many ways, most of all, due to his honesty. If you can’t deal with this, then really who does have the problem?

And please, Armani? Ferraris? Yeah, really humble. Not arrogant at all.


Borg Says:

Skeezer –
“Rafa? He mostly likely will be the greatest of all time at #2. He has held that position better than anyone. Hehe.”

But didn’t you see the irony man ? The Greatest of all time # 1 is not able to compete with the Greatest of all time # 2 and wilts more often than not. He He He He !!


Borg Says:

Dave – Good analysis nodoubt. You tried your best to defend Federer but it is a futile one. 9-18 and 2-8 is something which cannot be defended no matter how hard you try.


Borg Says:

Michael – “we should take care not to insult champions”

Quoting harsh facts is not insulting. I know it hurts but still …..???????


Dave Says:

Borg: “For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game. It’s always good to see him play and win and we are going to see so much more of Federer in the future, he is going to win more grand slam tournaments.” This Bjorn Borg makes a lot of sense
http://www.australiantennis.net.au/tennis/roger-federer-the-best-player-ever

Now, for ‘borg’: “didn’t you see the irony man ? The Greatest of all time # 1 is not able to compete with the Greatest of all time # 2 … 9-18 and 2-8 is something which cannot be defended no matter how hard you try.”

You see it as defending. I see it as correcting your flawed arguments.

For example, Nadal is certainly NOT the No. 2 on the greatest of all time list. Nadal is not even in the top 5, in my opinion and in the opinion of certain tennis greats not tied to the tennis media. I would rank him about 8 in 135 years of tennis history (given that 60% of his 10 major titles came on one tourney and his 102 weeks at No. 1 is only seventh since 1973).
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/xzx-australian-open/gallery-fn77kxzt-1226250654969?page=1

You’re parroting Mary Carillo’s absurd argument that Federer’s losing record (mostly on clay) against Nadal is evidence that Federer is not the greatest tennis player of his era or the greatest player of all time.

Let me repeat: tennis greatness is based on significant titles won and dominance of the overall field (as evidenced by No. 1 ranking). In 1999 Agassi had a 1-4 losing record to Sampras (Sampras beat Agassi in Wimbledon final, World Tour Finals final, L.A. final and Cincinnati semifinal, lost a meaningless WTF round robin). Yet Agassi was the ATP Player Of The Year, ITF World Champion and Year End No. 1. In other words Agassi was the best player in 1999, despite losing 4 significant matches to Sampras. No person was desperate and asinine enough to question Agassi’s overall dominance in 1999 despite his 1-4 losing record to Sampras, clearly the greatest player of the previous six years and arguably the greatest player in history since Rod Laver.

Even though Nadal is not as successful as Sampras, the same principle applies to Federer. Thus Federer remains by far the best player of his era and of all time, despite having a losing record mostly on clay to Nadal. Federer has 22 major titles, his 237 consecutive weeks at No.1 far surpasses Steffi Graf’s 186 consecutive week record for female players, and Fed’s dominance of the ATP record books is unsurpassed.

In any case, how can Nadal be the best of Federer’s era?

- Nadal in his prime years has lost 10 of his last 12 matches since 2009 Cincinnati to a player his age Djokovic whom aging Federer has beaten 7 of 11 times during this period.

- Nadal in his prime years has twice lost the number one ranking in less than a year (Federer in his prime held the No. 1 rank every week for 4.5 years). During Federer’s era, Nadal was No. 1 for a paltry 102 weeks compared to Federer’s 285 weeks (237 consecutive weeks).

- As well, even though Nadal has a 18-9 winning record (mostly on CLAY) over Federer, Nadal loses to more of the other top ten players compared to Federer. Nadal has only a 90-50 win-loss record over top ten players. If you remove Nadal’s 18-9 over Federer, he is only 72-41 (63%) over the rest of the top ten. That means Nadal lost to 37% of the other top ten players. What’s worse is that Nadal gets a disproportionate amount of his wins on clay, where he faces less top ten players. On the other hand, Federer has a 146-74 winning record over top ten players, so he has beaten 66% top ten players. If you remove Federer’s matches with Nadal, Roger’s record over the rest of the top ten players is 137-56 (71%).

- Even comparing their records since Nadal’s first grand slam at 2005 French Open, Federer has won 16 major titles (12 grand slam and 4 year ending World Tour Finals) to Nadal’s 10 major titles (60% at French Open). Had Nadal developed an allergey to red clay dust, he would have won only 4 grand slam titles.

Since we know that Nadal is not the best of Federer’era nor is Nadal the second greatest of all time… Therefore, the only intelligent conclusion we can reach is that Federer is the greatest of his era and that Nadal is not a threat to Federer’s GOATness.


Dave Says:

Polo, hah! I could have used an Olipad tablet to type the post — from the Italian Olivetti ‘company’, not the French player.
http://www.olivetti.com/cmsfiles/PHOTOS/Olipad_05.jpg
alison, it would have been faster to read had i had time to edit and chop it up into smaller bits.
malher, you’re welcome and you made my day too :)

madmax: “the persona of nadal cracked when he showed himself to be jealous of Roger, deep down, by saying that Roger had left the players to ‘burn’ (and much more than that)….He had to endure all the crap that nadal was saying and even when these hurtful things were said, Roger still defend nadal, like a brother.”

My speculation is that what Nadal did was tactical, given Federer was in Nadal’s half: Rafa knew what he told the Spanish media would be echoed to the world media exactly the way he intended. This created a fire for Federer to personally deal with (as President of the ATP Players Council, Federer probably spent hours talking with Nadal and various players). It distracted Federer, wasted his time and mental energy instead of practising and focusing on winning the Australian Open. Federer has been voted to the president of the ATP Player’s Council since mid 2008 — think how much time he has wasted on ATP politics and player issues, and how it has probably affected his focus on tennis.


Dave Says:

Wog Boy: Here are some resources that might help you to go beyond boundaries, stretch your limits and test yourself:
- Video: “The Last Lecture: Really Achieving your Childhood Dreams” by the late Prof. Randy Pausch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo

- Book: Evolve Your Brain: The Science of Changing Your Mind (by Joe Dispenza)

- Book: Performing Under Pressure: Gaining the Mental Edge in Business and Sport (by Dr. Saul Miller)

- Book: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (by Stephen R. Covey) or 10 Secrets for Success and Inner Peace (by Dr. Wayne W. Dyer)

- Book: Covert Persuasion: Psychological Tactics and Tricks to Win the Game (by Kevin Hogan, James Speakman) or Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways To Be Persuasive (by Noah Goldstein, Steve Martin, Robert Cialdini)


Polo Says:

Borg has to cling on to something. His H2H is his last and only resort to keep on going. Without it, what’s left? Save him from despair and allow him his only solace.


Wog boy Says:

Dave,I did say in one of my posts that I am a uni drop out (my old man never forgave me for that) and that I am in my 50s and as far as I know, brain cells are dying out and can’t be regenerated from 30s or 40s onwards, so how the h#ll are you expecting me to do all that homework that you gave me? I couldn’t (or wouldn’t) do it then, never the less now :(
Thank you for believing in me, I will make an effort to find all these books and links when I find time between my work, tennis, family, paying off mortgages and other social and religious commitments. Is that good enough?


Borg Says:

Polo,

H2H – Only solace – but a big one indeed !!


Kimberly Says:

My speculation is that what Nadal did was tactical, given Federer was in Nadal’s half: Rafa knew what he told the Spanish media would be echoed to the world media exactly the way he intended. This created a fire for Federer to personally deal with (as President of the ATP Players Council, Federer probably spent hours talking with Nadal and various players). It distracted Federer, wasted his time and mental energy instead of practising and focusing on winning the Australian Open.

___________________________

Come on! Pray do tell, what’s your excuse for the other 17 times? Lots of respect for many fed fans here but this post sounds totally delusional. I could buy into madmax explanantion of underlying jealousy perhaps, but this lame excuse for the semifinal loss is totally delusional.


Mark Says:

You guys are like women constantly bitching about RAFA NADAL THE GREAT!! Just think if Rafa wasn’t knocked out by the Sod and hadn’t pulled out of Wimbledon, both in 2009 the Arrogant One would have 2 less slams to his tally. He is very good at beating the lower ranked players!!!!


Dave Says:

Kimberly, kimberly. These three books might help you learn about Office Politics:
- 21 Dirty Tricks at Work: How to Win at Office Politics by Colin Gautrey and Colin Gautrey
- The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Office Politics by Laurie E. Rozakis
- Dear Office-Politics: the game everyone plays by Franke James

Like any business, pro tennis has “office politics” as well.

Btw, the very first of the 18 matches was very simple: before 2004 Miami started, it was reported Federer got a bad flu shortly after winning 2004 Indian Wells (dropping only one set against Henman, Agassi, Fish, Gonzalez, Chela, Pavel). Federer had to delay his flight by a few hours coming into Miami as he was throwing up and missed three days of practice. Federer considered withdrawing from Miami altogether, but rain postponed his first match by a day so he played. Weakened Federer struggled past young Nikolay Davydenko 7-5 in the third set of his first round match at the NASDAQ-100 Miami Masters. Having been softened by Davydenko, weakened Federer lost in straight sets 3-6, 3-6 in only 70 mins to next opponent, 17-year-old newcomer Rafael Nadal, ranked No. 36 in the world. It was Federer’s dumb decision, as the new World No. 1, to play Miami out of obligation to the tournament and sponsors. His loss to Nadal gave Rafa the confidence that he could beat a top player like Roger. Nadal played a great match but was he really that great at the time on hardcourts? Nope. Nadal lost his next match to No. 22 Fernando Gonzalez. Nadal never won more than one match in his next six hardcourt/carpet matches in 2004, including losses to Roddick and Hewitt. Bizarrely, after losing Canada and Cincinnati, Nadal even flew to Poland to play a clay court tourney before returning to the USA to play the US Open, where Roddick thrashed Rafa in straight sets 6-0, 6-3, 6-4 in 96 minutes. Federer was the only top 10 player Nadal managed to beat on hard courts in 2004.

-

Mark, mark: Rafa should thank Davydenko and Federer’s flu bug for helping Nadal believe he could beat Federer in 2004 Miami. Just think, had a healty Federer beaten Nadal in their first match — like other top ten players did on hardcourts that year — how differently their rivalry might have turned out.

You have forgotten that in 2009, Federer beat Nadal in straight sets on clay at Spain’s Masters (Madrid) in front of Nadal’s fans just before 2009 French Open. Before you jump to the excuse that Nadal had a long semifinal match, I remind you that Nadal got a walkover in the R16 and that Federer played Nadal at 2006 Rome under much more physically demanding conditions.


Dave Says:

Polo: “Borg has to cling on to something.” Polo, see my above response to ‘borg’, which took a few hours before it was approved by the moderator.


Dave Says:

Wog Boy: congratulations for being a university drop out. You’re just like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, John Glenn , Howard Hughes, John Rockerfeller, Michael Dell, Ted Turner, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Ralph Lauren, Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Woody Allen. Now you have no more excuses.

As for your brain, think of it like Federer and Djokovic serving: since you have the patience and take the effort to appreciate Novak’s ball bouncing and time he takes to serve, you should be able to find the time and make the effort to read these books. Don’t worry about your brain cells as you still have enough stem cells in your body (a limiting factor is lower growth hormone levels). It may take a few weeks or months for the brain to start making the necessary connections, but it will happen eventually and gain momentum.

And stop making excuses. It’s not the Serbian way :) Just do.


Mark Says:

@ Dave. yeah, yeah, yeah!!!


alison hodge Says:

yeah i have to agree with kimberly on this one as much as i agree with daves post about fed,and everthing hes achieved,which granted is second to none,but to say it had any bearing on that semi final is completely ludicrious,all ifs and buts and exactly like dave says pure speculation.


Nixon Says:

Dont worry guys….Dave will go back to his hiding after his next meeting with Rafa.

Dont you guys get the pattern ??
He will be all over the blogs with his loooooong posts when Federer beats those average lower ranked players…..and suddenly he will go into a hole when he gets thrashed by Nole or Rafa.
Just wait for two more weeks….Nole or Rafa will send Dave back to his hole.


Nixon Says:

“And stop making excuses. It’s not the Serbian way :) Just do.”

Yes….making excuses is Dave’s way and not the Serbian….LOL


Dave Says:

alison, you and kimberly both need to read more carefully:
I said my speculation was that Nadal took the tactical (and I should have added “classless”) action to publicly complain about Federer; that Nadal knew exactly what he was doing; that Nadal’s deliberate intention was to start a fire to distract Federer, waste his time and mental energy from focusing 100% on winning the AO tourney; and that Nadal achieved his goals as Federer probably wasted hours talking to players and reporters, and putting the fire out. I said it’s speculation — but it’s reasonable speculation, not “pure” baseless speculation. There is a long history of politics and game playing in pro tennis (if you’ve been a manager in a company or a president of an association you might understand that these political things happen all the time). Nadal is no angel (see link), even though some of you have naively bought into the image he has cultivated with the help of his paid PR staff.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12766/

What monumentally ludicrous is that both you and kimberly jumped to the conclusion that I claimed Federer lost his match against Nadal only because of what Nadal did. I never said that. As well, both of you do not how much a bearing all the distraction had on Federer’s loss. so quit pretending to know it all.

And Nixon, as a lamp post you missed the point of the discussion between Wog Boy and myself. ROFL


Nixon Says:

Good one below….LOL

Dave Says:
Most Federer fans are happy that Federer gets a rare opportunity to play Nadal on non-clay surfaces, since Nadal has the surface advantage when playing on the clay (which makes up the majority of their matches).

This is only the second major since the 2007 US Open that Federer and Djokovic were not drawn in the same half of the draw. In other words, Federer has had to deal most with Djokovic at this stage in the Grand Slams since Novak became the No. 3 player.

Roger Federer has the edge in form over Nadal. Many experts agree that Federer is playing a level higher than he did at the World Tour Finals, even though he is on outdoor hardcourts now. And even though his first serve percentage at the AO has been lower than at World Tour Finals or Doha. In “Another Roger romp”, the Australian newspaper The Age described the Federer-delpo match: “The 16-time grand slam champion dismissed Del Potro by stealth rather than bluster… It is a thing of beauty to see him pick apart an opponent like this, and tennis has nothing to match it. Novak Djokovic is the No. 1 male player in the world, and Federer has not won a grand slam tournament since 2010, but he still wins the top-ranking for aesthetics, hands down. There were a few Swiss fans with painted faces in the house chanting and yelling; the others just gasped at the genius of his shotmaking…It was not that Del Potro served badly; a highly respectable 67 per cent of his first serves landed in play, most of them around the 200km/h mark. But Federer read them, blocked them back into the court to make his opponent keep playing. Del Potro would win only 57 per cent of points when his first serve hit the target.”

Federer crushing Nadal at the World Tour Finals was the most one-sided match ever played between the Big Four players in terms of percentage of total points won (Roger won 67%, Rafa 33% — see link for match stats between Big 4 players) as well as the second fastest match (only Fed’s 2007 WTF semi over Rafa was two minutes faster). Rafa tried to re-frame that match, just two months ago, as “three months ago”, lol.
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=193260

In their last five setter at the 2011 French Open final, an exhausted Federer had his best ever results against Nadal at the French Open (Roger should have won the first set), despite the disadvantage of being sapped by Djokovic in their epic semifinal as well as having the tougher route to the final (with a steady diet of top players, good claycourters, past and future top 10 players, and French/Spanish player)

Fools like Todd Woodbrige continue to trumpet “the psychology” of Roger’s win-loss record mostly on clay against Rafa, despite Federer’s demolition of Nadal in their last match at the World Tour Finals. Federer achieved this regardless of any mental baggage that his critics believe supposedly haunts his packed-with-successmind. Federer has the clarity of realizing that most of his non-clay losses to Nadal were due to health and back injury reasons (doesn’t matter what we believe, it’s what Roger believes). If anything, Nadal’s embarrasing loss just two months ago could be a toxic factor in Nadal’s mind. The last time Federer demolished Nadal (at 2007 WTF), Rafa survived a couple of shaky matches on clay in 2008 Monte Carlo and especially 2008 Hamburg (against a mononucleosis-compromised Federer) before getting payback at the 2008 French Open.

Federer’s memories of the 2009 Australian Open final match against Nadal are irrelevant because Roger knows that — despite the dissappointment after having put in the extra-hard work to recover his game from debilitating mononucleosis the year before — his bad back let him down and affected his movement and serving (only 51% in a 5-setter!) in key stages of that 2009 match. Reputed tennis journalist Tom Tebbutt: “Federer had a back problem after the Australian Open at the beginning of 2009, an event marked by his substandard play in the losing the fifth set of the final 6-2 to Rafael Nadal… He then withdrew from the hard court tournament in Dubai before playing the hard court events in Indian Wells, Calif., (losing to Andy Murray) and Miami (losing to Novak Djokovic). The latter match was marked by him uncharacteristically smashing a racquet in anger on the court and then saying he was happy to be getting off the hard courts with the clay-court season about to begin. He has said that his back got better and he finally had free movement starting at the Italian Open in May, and that showed as he won the next event on clay in Madrid, and then the French Open and Wimbledon.” Yet a probably back-injured Federer still had 19 breakpoints, and won more total points than Nadal did. A 100% healthy Federer would probably have won that match. So of course Federer relishes the chance to play Nadal again, to set the record straight against Nadal in his absolute prime… just like he did against Del Potro in his prime two days ago. That’s why Federer has been careful to reiterate that Nadal and he (Roger) have no injury excuses for this match. [Nadal still opportunistically reminds us that his 5-hour Friday night 2009 AO semifinal match against the equally slow playing, mentally shaky No. 15 Verdasco -- whom Rafa owns -- "was much harder. After the (semi-final) I couldn't move the next day" even though Nadal had Saturday off to recover before playing the Sunday final, and Nadal is surely much fitter than John Isner and Nicholas Mahut. Furthermore, Federer's 2006 Rome tough quarterfinals, tough semifinals and 5-hour plus final against Nadal on clay played on three consecutive days was probably much more taxing].
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/match-tough/federers-back-needs-a-break/article1301682/

The factor that might most hurt Federer tonight? Having had the toughest draw of the Big Four players (meaning he was under more mental pressure to be ‘on’ in every match), opponents who gave him less rhythm (Kudryavtsev, Karlovic, Tomic), opponents who each played very different and none with anything like Nadal’s topspin, less match practice from Andreas Beck’s walkover. Nadal, who should have been two sets down to the mentally-soft Berdych, has had an easy draw against No. 167 Kuznetsov, No. 190 Haas, No. 119 Lacko, his buddy he owns No. 19 Lopez, mentaly-soft No. 7 Berdych. Delpotro probably would have beaten Nadal that night.

It would not surpriseme if this match lasted three closely-fought sets in les than three hours, especially if Federer serves well… maximum four sets. Nadal will probably find out quickly tonight that his usual strategy of pounding the Federer backhand is now less effective, which might force him to reveal some of the tactics he has been planning to use against Djokovic.

January 25th, 2012 at 3:16 pm


alison hodge Says:

dave i do not pretend to know it all,i like yourself am just giving my opinion for what its worth,yeah ok fare enough nadals no angel,and believe you me he does rub me up the wrong way with some of the things he says and does,and for what its worth i think he was well out of order to take a pop at roger,your right i dont know it did not have any bearing on roger,but then again you dont know it did either,im not a mind reader are you?


Dave Says:

alison hodge: if a person uses words like “ludicrous” or “delusion”, she had better back up these conclusions with reasonable arguments or facts — otherwise it deserves to be rebutted. The point is not whether I am as good/bad a mind reader as you are, the point is (a) whether my argument was within the realm of possibility and (b) whether there was any evidence to invalidate my argument. I did admit my argument was speculative. However, since you don’t have any evidence, you can’t say that my speculative argument was not possible and there it cannot be said that my argument was “ludicrous” or “delusional”. Indeed, given that Federer seems to be a little emotional and does seem to care about what is said about him, it’s quite possible that this bit of mental garbage might have affected him. Who knows that it didn’t?


Wog boy Says:

Nixon, it did not have bad connotation, on the contrary, but thanks anyway for coming to my side, doesn’t happen often:)

Cheers

Dave, you are so persistent, OK no more exuses but don’t give me any time frame, please. I am pretty busy man….and this is not exuse, OK !

Cheers

BTW the way, you couldn’t resist to have go at Novak’s ball bouncing , naughty, naughty Dave!


Dave Says:

Nixon, you’ve appeared outta the blue after having dissapeared into a cave from being disgraced in the 1970s.

You must have spent half an hour searching for my old posts. And what a good post you copy-pasted, worthy of publication in the mainstream media. It even had part of the explanation for Fed’s defeat: “The factor that might most hurt Federer tonight? Having had the toughest draw of the Big Four players (meaning he was under more mental pressure to be ‘on’ in every match), opponents who gave him less rhythm (Kudryavtsev, Karlovic, Tomic), opponents who each played very different and none with anything like Nadal’s topspin, less match practice from Andreas Beck’s walkover.”

Regardless, thank you for putting me in the same category as tennis correspondents who have won awards for their tennis writing. At the end of the 2011 French Open, award-winning Sports Illustrated tennis correspondent Bruce Jenkins argued that Djokovic was yesterday’s news, that Federer and Nadal remained the ones to watch, and Fedal’s tennis was the best possible tennis: “It’s remarkable how quickly Djokovic disappeared from the conversation. There’s no discounting his near-record winning streak and his complete dominance of the tour through May, but there were times during this (French Open) final when I reckoned I was watching the best possible tennis between the most desired competitors. That was a universal belief, certainly, during Nadal’s unforgettable win over Federer at the 2008 Wimbledon. We have arrived at an exceptional time in the game’s history.” All this from the same journalist who predicted Djokovic would beat Federer at the 2007 US Open.

You seem to confuse posts of predictions written by soothsayers, seers and prophets with posts of opinions and analysis.


Dave Says:

Wog Boy, come on, you know it’s the ball bouncing quip that’s going to get you to start reading and start applying everything within the next ten days. No pressure, no excuses, no time frame (just ten days… )


alison hodge Says:

dave i did not say i was a mind reader,as i have already said i was just giving my opinion,if you wish to rebut my comments that is entirely up to you,your right i dont know the facts but then again niether do you,its possible yes ,but neither of us know one way or the other,is what im saying thats all,im done on the subject now.


Skorocel Says:

Again, mr. dave is on a roll! I probably should’ve stayed quiet and ignore this nonsense (looking at the penultimate quote of yours, I’ll probably do that in the future), but one just can’t resist ;-)

=========

„In 1999, Agassi was crowned best player of the year despite losing 1-4 to Pete Sampras that year (Andre’s only win was a meaningless WTF round robin match).“

Yeah, and when Federer beats Nadal in the same stage of the same tournament, it’s “suddenly” meaningful, right?

=========

„Just because Nadal’s main claim to fame is having a superior H2H over Federer does not give Nadal claim to Federer’s hard-earned accomplishments over the field.“

Who said that?

=========

„Federer and Nadal are 5 years apart and from two different tennis generations, despite Nadal maturing earlier than usual. Federer dominated every player in his generation, while Nadal in his prime has a losing record over a player from his age group.“

From 2004 to 2007 (Federer’s best 4 years on the tour), Nadal & Federer played no less than 14 matches. Still not enough to open your eyes, dave?

=========

„Thus Federer remains by far the best player of his era and of all time, despite having a losing record mostly on clay to Nadal.“

Lastly I checked, he was 2-3 vs Nadal in slams outside the clay. But who knows, maybe the AO 2012 + AO 2009 + Wimbledon 2008 were also played on clay (?)… I don’t follow tennis that much, to be honest, so therefore I can’t comment on that, dave. Maybe you should know better… LOL and LOL ;-)

=========

„Federer has 22 major titles, his 237 consecutive weeks at No.1 far surpasses Steffi Graf’s 186 consecutive week record for female players, and Fed’s dominance of the ATP record books is unsurpassed.“

He still didn’t beat Sampras‘ 286 weeks at the No 1. spot, nor did he even equal Pete’s 6 year-end No 1. finishes… Say what you want, but that’s a major accomplishment from Sampras & pretty big chink in Fed’s resume, now that he’s been hailed as the GOAT…

=========

„In any case, how can Nadal be the best of Federer’s era?“

Again, who said that? It’s only you dave, who is purposedly „reviving“ this issue, so that you can bombard us with all the nonsensical stats which not even the biggest Federer worshipper can come up with…

=========

„As well, even though Nadal has a 18-9 winning record (mostly on CLAY) over Federer, Nadal loses to more of the other top ten players compared to Federer.“

Yet he still has a positive H2H vs the Fed + Djoker + Murray trio… How come? I know, clay… LOL ;-) Forget that Djoker won Rome & Madrid + got to the FO semis thrice. Forget even Fed’s 4 Hamburg + 1 Madrid title, his 1 FO win & another 4 finals. Whenever these two play Nadal on clay, Nadal’s wins always count as a „walkover“ (i.e. they don’t count at all), because losing to the greatest player on clay is always forgivable – just as it is forgivable to lose a Wimbledon final in a „mono year“ or get thrashed 1, 3 and 0 in a major final, isn’t it? ;-)

=========

„Had Nadal developed an allergey to red clay dust, he would have won only 4 grand slam titles.“

I thought your quote about questioning Nadal’s will to win his AO 2012 QF match vs Berdych in light of what he’d face in the semis (after Federer blew JMDP away, that is) was a pearl, but this one surely beats it!

=========

„Federer’s memories of the 2009 Australian Open final match against Nadal are irrelevant because Roger knows that — despite the dissappointment after having put in the extra-hard work to recover his game from debilitating mononucleosis the year before — his bad back let him down and affected his movement and serving (only 51% in a 5-setter!) in key stages of that 2009 match.“

Exactly. After splitting the 1st 2 sets, Federer had no less than 5 (five) breakpoints towards the end of the 3rd set, which, had he converted just one of them, would’ve given him a chance to serve for the set (and also to take the momentum firmly on his side). Unfortunately for him, his bad back prevented him from this to happen, as he couldn’t hit the return & the subsequent shots in the rally as good as he did in the 1st, 2nd & 4th sets, where he got the break… LOL ;-)


Paul Says:

Dave: “My speculation is that what Nadal did was tactical….”

@Dave,
I agree that this is speculation on your part… pure, plain and simple.

This is also a line of thinking that is really worthless, unless you have non-speculative non-wishful thinking evidence, of course.

As a fan of Roger myself, I implore you to refrain from entertaining negative thoughts about other tennis players. Our idol is way above trash of any kind. We Fedfans don’t conjure up baseless, non-sensical thoughts to explain a Federer loss. He is human. We’ve been spoiled for so long, I know it’s difficult. But stay above the fray, man.

Roger does not need anybody to defend him. The number of GS titles and, and especially, weeks at the top, speak for themselves.


alison hodge Says:

yeah a great post from paul,rogers the worlds greatest ever player,no need to belittle other player to prove that point,it goes without saying.


Dave Says:

Skorocel: To improve the possibility of enlightenment, you need to be in a meditative state. Put on headphones and listen to this clip as you (slowly) read my post…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZa3up0GeQc

1. Skorocel “Yeah, and when Federer beats Nadal in the same stage of the same tournament, it’s “suddenly” meaningful, right?”. You disingenuously confused and conflated two different issues to make up stuff:

- My reference to Sampras-Agassi’s 1999 1-4 H2H was evidence that even menaingful H2H had no bearing on Agassi being crowned greatest player of the 1999 year by both ATP/players and ITF (despite the fact Sampras’s 4-1 record over Agassi is twice as good in percentage wins as Nadal’s 18-9 over Federer… despite the fact Sampras’s four wins were meaningful at Wimbledon finals, WTF finals, LA finals and Cincinnati semifinals… and despite the fact Sampras was the World No. 1 for 6 consecutive years before 1999) — this was rebuttal to ‘borg’s argument that “Nadal has demolished his GOAT status. Unless he is able to turn around his bad H2H against Nadal, all his claims of being GOAT will look hallow.” This precedent of principles and standards that applied to Agassi must also apply to Federer, otherwise it is just double standards and hypocrisy.

- My reference to “Federer lost 2-5 to Nadal during this period. However, one of Federer’s wins over Nadal is the most lop-sided career win between the Big 4 players in terms of percentage of total points won and second fastest win ever (Fed’s 2006 WTF over Nadal was 2 minutes faster). And he did it at age 30.” http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=193260 was about a totally different issue that made it meaningful, duh. The issue was to rebut ‘borg’s argument that “Nadal has beat you 8 times. You should really feel ashamed of such a kind of record against your main rival.” by comparing the records of Nadal in his prime and Federer past his prime since 2009 Cincinnati. Thus it was relevant to expose borg’s double standards by reiterating that (a) Nadal in his prime has a 2-10 (0-7 in last 7) record against his main rival from his own age group/generation (Djokovic) while only a 2-5 record against his rival from a different generation (and one of Federer’s wins was meaningful in that it was the most lopsided victory among the Big 4 in their careers). Capiche?

2. Skorocel “Who said that?”.
- my comment “Just because Nadal’s main claim to fame is having a superior H2H over Federer does not give Nadal claim to Federer’s hard-earned accomplishments over the field” was a rebuttal to tennis commentators like Mary Carillo and others who presume that Nadal’s wins over Federer — whom many consider the greatest player of all time — builds a case for Nadal to be considered the greatest player of Federer’s own time. As I have shown in the link to the ATP World Tour Records above, Nadal’s record of accomplishments to date remain inferior to Federer’s record of accomplishments over the field in Federer’s era. Beating Federer does not change the fact that Federer remains the greatest in his era — greatest does not mean perfect or have to fill every gap. But the greatest player has accomplished more and filled more gaps than his rivals.

To be continued…


Dave Says:

3. Skorocel “When From 2004 to 2007 (Federer’s best 4 years on the tour), Nadal & Federer played no less than 14 matches. Still not enough to open your eyes, dave?”

- Yeah, it really opened my eyes wide when I realized that had Federer and Nadal played 50% of their matches indoors and on another 50% on grass, then Roger would have had a 100% winning record over Nadal between 2004 to 2007, lol. At least 50% of those 14 matches between 2004 to 2007 were on Nadal’s favourite surface clay because Federer was so consistent he reached many clay finals (even today, 70% of Nadal’s titles came on clay). On the other hand, between 2004 to 2007, Nadal tended to go deep in hard court, indoors and grass only when he was on a hot streak (otherwise Rafa lost early even to no-name players). Please don’t give me the excuse that Nadal was still learning when Borg won so many titles indoors and on grass at a young age.
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2010/11/29/the-federer-nadal-rivalry-rekindled/

4. Skorocel: “Lastly I checked, he was 2-3 vs Nadal in slams outside the clay. But who knows, maybe the AO 2012 + AO 2009 + Wimbledon 2008 were also played on clay (?)… I don’t follow tennis that much, to be honest, so therefore I can’t comment on that, dave. Maybe you should know better… LOL and LOL ;-)”

- All your LOLs in the world do not change the fact that your comment is irrelevant and weak as an attempt to rebutt my comment “Thus Federer remains by far the best player of his era and of all time, despite having a losing record mostly on clay to Nadal.” Skorocal, I don’t know whether you understand the meaning of the word “mostly”. But last time I checked Nadal and Federer have played 14 of their 27 matches on clay. As well, 5 of their 10 grand slam matches were on clay. And when Federer lost those 3 grand slam matches outside clay, 2008 Wimbledon final was played when Federer was recovering his game from mononucleosis, 2009 Australian Open final when Federer was probably affected by back injury (as Tom Tebbutt’s article indicates) and 2012 Asutralian Open semifinal when Federer was 30.5 years old against Nadal in his peak/prime.

5. “He still didn’t beat Sampras‘ 286 weeks at the No 1. spot, nor did he even equal Pete’s 6 year-end No 1. finishes… Say what you want, but that’s a major accomplishment from Sampras & pretty big chink in Fed’s resume, now that he’s been hailed as the GOAT…”

- The greatest player of all time is the player who has — on balance, overall — accomplished the most on more measures of success relative to all other players (e.g., see my wikipedia link to the ATP_World_Tour_records above). Federer does not have to be perfect and fill every gap there is. An intelligent tennis expert would laugh at the contention that Sampras’s 286 weeks at No. 1 (achieved over 11 spans, during which he lost the No. 1 ranking 10 times in a weaker era and held the No. 1 rank for only 104 consecutive weeks) supercedes Federer’s 285 weeks at No. 1 (achieved over just 2 spans, during which he lost the No. 1 ranking just 2 times in a tougher era and held the record for 237 consecutive weeks). As well, Pete Sampras “6 year-end No 1. finishes” are not the bar since Pancho Gonzales was No. 1 for 8 or 9 years (albeit using a subjective system in another era). Regardless, Federer’s quality of success during his No. 1 years far exceeded Sampras’s (Nadal as No. 2 won more ranking points than Sampras did as No. 1). Intelligent tennis experts understand these qualitative differences — that’s why Federer has been hailed as the GOAT by more tennis experts.

6. Skorocel: “Again, who said that? It’s only you dave”

- Your comment pertained to my comment “how can Nadal be the best of Federer’s era?” You only have to leave the cave and listen to tennis commentators echoing Mary Carillo’s blabber: “”Nadal’s going for his 17th win against Federer . The greatest player of all time can’t beat the greatest player of his own time?”

To be continued…


Dave Says:

7. Skorocel: “Yet he still has a positive H2H vs the Fed + Djoker + Murray trio… How come? I know, clay… LOL”

- It doesn’t change the fact that Nadal (1) loses to more of the other top ten players compared to Federer and (2) has achieved less, overall, compared to Federer even since 2005 French Open.

- Nadal had benefitted initially in his rivalry with Djokovic because Rafa matured earlier and was able to take advantage of their matches on clay. Since 2008 Australian Open (when Djokovic entered his peak), Nadal has a 10-12 losing head to head to Djokovic, despite the fact that 6 of Nadal’s 10 wins were on clay. Like Federer, Djokovic also had to overcome the mental disadvantage of losing many clay matches to Nadal (Novak lost 0-9 consecutive clay matches to Nadal, while Federer was 2-9)

8. Skorocel: “I thought your quote about questioning Nadal’s will to win his AO 2012 QF match vs Berdych in light of what he’d face in the semis (after Federer blew JMDP away, that is) was a pearl, but this one surely beats it! (“Had Nadal developed an allergy to red clay dust, he would have won only 4 grand slam titles”).

- It sounds like you are the “Nixon” who wasted his time searching for my old posts from weeks ago. You need to learn to be less serious, and more cool… like me. OK, I’ll help you on this — what I simply meant was that take away the 70% of Nadal’s titles that he won on clay, and he would have only 4 grand slam titles on hardcourt and grass. Nadal has failed to defend (the next year) every non-clay title he won in his career.

- You make up stuff. I did not question Nadal’s will to win his AO 2012 QF match vs Berdych. You seem to have a problem comprehending things, but what I said was: “Nadal, who should have been two sets down to the mentally-soft Berdych, has had an easy draw against No. 167 Kuznetsov, No. 190 Haas, No. 119 Lacko, his buddy he owns No. 19 Lopez, mentaly-soft No. 7 Berdych. Delpotro probably would have beaten Nadal that night (the way Nadal played against Berdych).

9. Skorocel (or should we call you “Nixon”?): “After splitting the 1st 2 sets, Federer had no less than 5 (five) breakpoints towards the end of the 3rd set, which, had he converted just one of them, would’ve given him a chance to serve for the set (and also to take the momentum firmly on his side). Unfortunately for him, his bad back prevented him from this to happen, as he couldn’t hit the return & the subsequent shots in the rally”

- For once you’re able to provide a rational explanation to supplement what was analyzed by respected tennis journalist Tom Tebbutt, who has coverd about a 100 grand slam events: “Federer had a back problem after the Australian Open at the beginning of 2009, an event marked by his substandard play in the losing the fifth set of the final 6-2 to Rafael Nadal… He then withdrew from the hard court tournament in Dubai”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/match-tough/federers-back-needs-a-break/article1301682/


skeezerweezer Says:

Some of these earlier anti Fed posts crack me up, lol.

Demeaning the mans greatness and place in history is really just a bunch of jealous posters.

They can’t deny his greatness, they just want to bring up and focus what he HASN’T done, not what he HAS. The guy has his faults, he is not perfect, and doesn’t “win” in every detailed statistical category. No one has ever said he has had to.

Dissecting what he has not done will not do anything to change the all time historical records and GOAT status. Only time and effort from someone else will do that, and we are eons away from that scenario as of today.


Dave Says:

Alison, it’s very simple: if Nadal wants to make speculative comments about Federer (se link) then we have the right to make speculative commnets about Nadal’s motivations for making such speculative comments about Federer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/9016038/Australian-Open-2012-Rafael-Nadal-claims-Roger-Federer-cares-more-about-his-image-than-fellow-professionals.html

Furthermore, there is a big difference between “belittling other player to prove that…rogers the worlds greatest ever player” and speculating about Nadal’s motivation for belittling Federer with speculative comments at the start of the Australian Open. Stop confusing the issues

And alison, i did not say you are a mind reader. What I did say was that my speculation is plausible and that if a person does not know the facts or have evidence to the contrary then you should not make statements such as “to say it had any bearing on that semi final is completely ludicrous, all ifs and buts and… pure speculation.”

Paul: see above. I’m not a Soviet-era Commissar who instructs you what you cannot say pertaining to a topic. So don’t tell me what I can and cannot say on behalf of “We Fedfans”. Nobody made you the leader of Fedfans, so don’t self-anoint yourself as spokesperson for millions of others — it’s delusional. And what’s nonsensical is that you attack my comments as “worthless”, “baseless”, “trash”, “nonsensical” without any logical arguments to back your speculative claims.


alison hodge Says:

dave sigh,yeah yeah whatever you say,you have made your point well and truely,end of.


Steve 27 Says:

Who is this Dave? a machine?, a statistic person?,the toadies of Federer, his steward, his lapdog?, the Swiss Lewinsky? The Hound of the Baskervilles?

Enough of the silly excuse of flatterers Federer and his mononucleosis, compared to that of Mario Ancic and Robin Soderling, is nothing. That ill retired Croatian and Swedish is in a difficult situation now, and the Swiss in that time he stopped playing in 2008? He won a major, reached two other finals, the 4 semi-finals, played for the second time the Wimbledon final without dropping a set, as in 2006. Yes, tell me who lost to Karlovic, Roddick, Simon and Blake but is due to the disease?. Nadal in 2009 after his injury and defeat with Soderling was not the same, lost to Del Potro in Montreal and badly in the U.S. Open, with his nemesis Davydenko in Shanghai and London, with Djokovic in Cincinnati, Paris and London , with Cilic in Beijing, again with Soderling in London. And we’re talking about someone of 23 years, which is supposed in his prime, but only fans of Nadal defeats allege excuses to tell said the others, but this character Dave gives a biased version of things and loose a barrage of more excuses to defend his idol Federer. Trust to own the truth with statistics but disrespectful to the other with his sarcastic responses, this egocentric gentleman egocentric assumes that the Swiss is perfect, how old you are Mr Dave? He struggles to admit that Nadal beat him well in that 18-9 that apparently, so it hurts you. Is that you, master of statistics, this data are worthless? Is that you, master of the statistics. Is that clay is a smaller area for you, Mr. Dave? Nadal did not play in har tru as Borg for 3 years, compare the statistics of the Swedish and Spanish from 22 to 25 years in the U.S. Open and tell me who made them better? and please, everyone knows that peak performance is from 22 to 26, 27 years for the tennis players. And you expected the Spanish perform well from 18 to 21 when the same Swiss did not even reach the quarterfinals in Australia and the United States, please be more objective in your claims. Where has the Swiss in the last two finals of the U.S. Open?. oh yeah, it was removed before and you wielded the excuse of age now, but not in the case of Nadal. Are you a flatterer, which has only one version of things, that irritates the opinion of others that you can not see the broad sense of the matter and is carried away by their emotions, feelings, what you want it to be, but he knows something does not work reality. as the French say: “C’est la vie”,Mr Dave.


Sienna Says:

I wish Dave would do a thesus? or atleast make a good write up about the ongoing delussion of the weakera discussion.

Guys like Ferrer, Fish, Melzer are living proof that Feds generation was actually very strongbecause there are many player to reach peak in the so called strong generation.
Fed still is a dominant force in that strong generation after whipping the weakgeneration he was supposed to be part off.


Lucia Says:

Better than Federer? That’s something only a motehr would say.Yet, I feel the need to play devil’s advocate here. Like another certain player, it’s too much attention he, or anybody else for that matter, doesn’t deserve. Unlike her, I can see where it comes from. Whether he’s consciously “manipulating the media” or not – I for one happen to think his impersonations are pretty funny and well spirited, and it wasn’t any different before americans started licking his ass – and despite his inappropriate behaviour on court at times (which is hardly different or worse than many others’ around) I happen to think he’s an above average player. Granted, I haven’t seen him playing live, but I highly doubt they can photoshop that. Finally a player who may have (may, not necessary has) come to challenge this monopoly of two. So even if he was the most despicable person in the world, as long as the rules aren’t being bent in his favor (are they? I do not trust the US Open, but other than that we’re gonna have to wait and see) that would still be good news for tennis. Maybe not for Nadal lovers, but smile – maybe he’ll kick Fed out on a semifinal sometime and Nadal is finally gonna have a chance of winning a Grand Slam on a surface that looks a little less red…Just kidding. Don’t hate me.


Lisa Says:

Well rested Federer, you have a chance to win Madrid Masters 1000 and be #2 in the world tomorrow.

Top story: Federer v Dimitrov, Nadal v Coric In Basel; Murray, Ferrer Alive In Valencia
Most Recent story: WTA Finals: Halep Makes Semis, Will She Allow Serena To Join Her?
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Oct 20 WTA - Oct 20
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Roger Federer2 Maria Sharapova
3 Rafael Nadal3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 David Ferrer5 Na Li
6 Tomas Berdych6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Kei Nishikori7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Marin Cilic8 Ana Ivanovic
9 Milos Raonic9 Caroline Wozniacki
10 Andy Murray10 Angelique Kerber
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.