8 Things I Think About Thought About Roger Federer’s Australian Open Win And The GOAT
by Sean Randall | January 31st, 2017, 10:35 pm
  • 248 Comments

It’s time to wrap up what was best called an unpredictable Australian Open which culminated in a win by Roger Federer over Rafael Nadal in a final absolutely no one saw coming a month ago. Once again, just when you think you know tennis, you don’t.

1. The Win
What an incredible effort by Federer to not only get up off the mat from a 3-1 deficit in the fifth, but to rip off five straight games — five of the best of his career, he acknowledged — to snatch victory from certain defeat.

This was Federer, a guy who was 35, who hadn’t played in six months and who hadn’t beaten Nadal in over nine years in a Slam. And there he was, running five straight games, playing near-flawless and somehow, with well over three hours in the fight, he was out Nadal-ing Nadal. Beating off the ground and just as impressively, beating him mentally.

Nine years, six straight losses and here he was staring down Nadal who had the break lead. And he broke him twice.

That said, over 48 hours later, I still don’t know how Federer pulled that off! Even more astonishing when you consider how he began the event. What was it, four consecutive shanks against Jurgen Melzer?

2. It’s The Backhand Stupid!
I said going into the match Federer’s chances hinged on his serve and his backhand. His serve — 20 aces — went as we thought it would. He was also hyper-aggressive, was decent off the forehand, but boy, Federer was hitting his backhand arguably better than ever. And without it, he loses that match because that was Nadal’s go-to.

Fourteen winners with 23 unforced errors off that side is what Federer finished with on his backhand. Good numbers in general, but incredible against a guy like Rafa who made a living picking on that side. And Nadal did just that again, but this time Federer was firm and even, at times, offensive which stunned not only me but must have shocked Nadal and his team. I don’t think anyone thought Roger’s backhand would be that strong.

Granted, the quick court didn’t take the Nadal spin, but Federer still had to answer and answer he did.

3. The GOAT Debate
It’s over…for now. Roger goes up to 18, Nadal is still stuck at 14 and likely will never get that second Australian Open and the second Career Slam that goes with it.

Ok, so the head-to-head is still heavily in Nadal’s favor and it’s more than likely going to end that way, but look what Federer just did. He missed six months, came back to beat four Top 10 players (hasn’t been done in 35 years), win three five-set matches (hasn’t been done in over 10 years) and then he came back from 2-0 down in a fifth. And he did it as a 35-year-old, becoming the oldest Grand Slam men’s champion in 45 years since Ken Rosewall won the 1974 Australian Open. And he did it beating Rafa. That’s just too good.

Again, had Nadal won the match he takes that GOAT title with him back to Mallorca. And up 2-0 in the fifth, it was his to win. Except he didn’t. Rafa blinked, Federer didn’t.

4. Federer’s Future
Maybe the second biggest stunner of the final Federer’s admission afterward that he wasn’t sure if he was going to come back to Australia to defend his title.

Of course he’s not talking necessarily of an imminent retirement or a farewell tour, but he is cautioning that another serious injury at his age could end his career. So hearing those kinds of words for the first time from him do shock.

Yet in the near term, this win will do wonders in expediting his return. So much for giving Roger 2-3 months to work his body and confidence back into form. But now there will be expectations in Dubai, Indian Wells and Miami. And I think this will put him back in the title hunt at Wimbledon and the US Open. So things are looking awfully good for Federer provided he can remain healthy, which at 35 can be the toughest opponent there is.

5. That MTO
So this is a topic of much consternation for many Nadal fans. Medical timeouts are never good, especially when you have to leave the court during a crucial moment in the match, such as right before the start of a fifth set of a Grand Slam final like Federer. Even though it’s within the rules, that would and should raise an eyebrow or two. And understandably it has.

I was wincing seeing Roger leave, not out of fear of serious injury, it was just felt wrong.

But the problem in this situation is right after Federer left the court for some eight minutes to get treatment, Nadal immediately broke Federer when he returned and then held the very next game for a 2-0 lead. So if anything, it clearly looks like Nadal benefited from the break rather than Federer!

Nadal still had momentum after the MTO and really maintained it up until the 3-2 game, a good 20 minutes after the timeout. So no, Nadal didn’t lose the match because of the MTO. I just don’t see the argument. Sorry Rafa fans, find something else to harp on.

6. Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray
What happened? The tour WAS yours. YOU guys were supposed to dominate. And yet neither of you made it to the final weekend let alone the quarterfinals. And honestly, I don’t think anyone missed you guys at the end. Sadly, that’s how tough it is to follow two legends like Roger and Rafa.

7. Rafa’s Back?
I don’t know how “back” he is. Like Federer, Nadal isn’t at his peak either, and probably never will be again. But this result does light a spark that he can make a run at the French. The key will be how he rebounds next month at Indian Wells and Miami. Can he beat Djokovic, Murray and even Federer? And maybe had he had the extra day off and not Federer, that may have changed fortunes. Had schedules been reversed, I think we’d have seen a different outcome.

8. This Australian Open Kicked Ass…And It Kicked My Ass!
I was hoping to have this piece out Sunday night/Monday morning, but the many early mornings, the lack of sleep and juggling a work/family life finally did me in Sunday afternoon. But getting sick for 36 hours or so was worth it! The high drama of losing Djokovic to Denis Istomin, Murray to Mischa Zverev, then a memorable Federer-Nadal final, what an unbelievable start to 2017. I can’t even imagine what’s to come…


You Might Like:
Roger Federer’s Updated GOAT Resume
Pete Sampras On GOAT Debate: Federer’s The Greatest, But Nadal’s Now In The Conversation
Fedal Wars: In The GOAT Debate, Are Nadal Fans Rooting Against Federer To Win His First Davis Cup?
Rod Laver: Novak Djokovic And Roger Federer Are Equals In The GOAT Debate
Pete Sampras: If You Look At The Numbers, Roger Federer’s The Greatest We’ve Ever Seen

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

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

248 Comments for 8 Things I Think About Thought About Roger Federer’s Australian Open Win And The GOAT

skeezer Says:

@Sean
You are forgiven. Great piece👍
Notes:
#3 Preach it!
#5 MTO I would only add Feds history with these kinda things vs Rafa. You kidding me? Not an issue. Imo this is why the question was asked to Rafa when asked, he says “no opinion”, which meant no big deal.
#6 Totally agree!


AndyMira Says:

1]….Agree!!BRAVO ROG!!!

2]….Backhand!Yeah…Crazy crazy STUPID!!

3]….GOAT debate?heck sean!Rafa considered Roger and Laver a GOAT even before Rog secured his 18th!

4]….Welcome back Rog!!!

5]….MTO??..”Sorry Rafa fanS…find something else to harp on”…As far as i’m concerned,Me,willow,Okie and J.S not say a WORD about the MTO…only Giles…that means..FAN and not fanS…

6]….Novak and Andy?….”And honestly,i don’t think anyone missed u guys in the end”….WRONG AGAIN SEAN!!…I MISSED THEM!!…Plenty of fans missed them…Showing LOVE to the Great Roger Federer and The Great Rafa nadal is okay sean but PLEASE RESPECT those two greats as well!!….GOSH!!

7]….Rafa’s back?…Oh,let’s pray and hope!

8]….Yeah agree with u sean…this AO was full of action,frustration,shocked,drama,excitement,tears and hope..


Chrisford1 Says:

In WWI, America’s 2nd Greatest Ace was Frank Luke, with 18 kills. However, 14 of his kills were from seeking out and shooting down observation balloons, only 4 kills were in aerial combat against enemy airplanes. Third greatest ace from America had 15, all from dogfights.

Which was the more noteworthy pilot??
Frank Luke died in the war, and was named the Arizonan Balloon Buster. But that name was more of a slam than praise..


skeezer Says:

@CF1,
Whats your point? That once again your full of a hot air balloon? Like your failed over and over weak era argument?
Let me help you here. Fed has 18 Grand Slams. You don’t, Djoker doesn’t nor anyone else. End of story.
GOAT.


John Bullock Says:

While I don’t necessarily disagree that Federer has the strongest claim to GOAT (certainly of the active players), I think too much stock gets placed on the number of Slams won.

Djokovic will probably never catch Federer in Slams, but even Federer has not enjoyed a period of dominance like Djokovic in 2011 and 2015, nor been able to hold all the Slams at once.

Rafa *might* be able to catch Federer in Slams (though it would have been more likely if he’d won here) but he has had the better of Federer most of the time (admittedly largely a style thing) and has dominated on one particular surface more than any other player ever. Including Federer on grass.

Murray… well unless he has an absolute barn stormer of a run for the next five years he’ll probably never really get into this debate.

I’ve older players say that Majors weren’t that big of a deal in their day, and had they known everyone would be so enamoured with them they might have tried harder to win more. I do think Roger is GOAT, personally, but not just because he’s won so many Slams.


DC Says:

In any sport including tennis, the dream and desire of every player is to
1- achieve top most ranking
2- win the major tournaments.

Everything else – h2h, minor tournaments won, aces served , blah blah etc are just statistics collected while trying to achieve the above mentioned two objectives

Plain and simple, Fed is the owner of these two , by a huge margin. No one played tennis with a dream of having a positive h2h against another. It’s all about ranking and majors won.


Chrisford1 Says:

Skeezer, the analogy is obvious. After 2008, when Djokovic and Rafa arrived at all court form, Andy became a threat and new Slam trophies became dogfights not Fed popping stationary balloons as he did in past years.
And again, Federer is an undisputed great player.
He has won dogfights against Djokovic and Nadal after the easier days when he racked up 12 Slams ended.
But his records are padded. Much as Margaret Smith Court’s records were padded with all the Australian National Championship trophies along with the wins in the early years when it was renamed the Australian Open. Pay was low, travel grueling, and few played except locals and NZ players.


Willow Says:

I Think some people are running out of straws to clutch at ! ….


Chrisford1 Says:

DC –
No one played tennis with a dream of having a positive h2h against another. It’s all about ranking and majors won.

Actually everyone that has played wants to beat the person across the net and advance as far as they can. And if they consistently beat most players, they rise on their H2Hs. Which also is about winning %. The truly dominant players of yesteryear, Sampras and Borg, were almost untouchable on a couple surfaces – but clay was Pete’s nemesis and Borg’s was US hardcourt and the AO not being considered a real Slam when Borg was favored to win on Melbourne grass if he ever bothered to show up.
The Big 4 are all, all-court players. The H2Hs between the 4 are very interesting and clearly matter, especially in the 2 very close rivalries with the most matches played in the Open Era.
Novak vs Fed and Novak vs. Rafa
And Rafa’s H2H dominance over Fed matters.
One thing that motivates Novak and Rafa is the goal of being the toughest, best player vs the guy with the largest pile of nice trophies.
I’ve never seen a better player than Rafa in 2010, until two runs by Novak Djokovic. His first being 3/4ths of 2011 and his Grand Slam win just about everything time from 2015 to midway through 2016.


DC Says:

@Chrisford1
What you say is true, however h2h is something that happens when you are trying to win.
No one sets a goal to have the best h2h against a particular player. I’m sure Nafals goal is to win more majors than to have a better H2H against Nole.

Fed, just because he has played so well during the long decline of his careers, which started 7-8 years ago, will end up with worse h2h than he would have had he retired like the other greats did.

If Nadal has very strong h2h against his competition, why hasn’t he won more slams than Fed; why hasn’t he be ranked no1 more weeks than Fed/Nole. These stats clearly demonstrate that a good h2h doesn’t mean you win more majors or spend more time at the top of the ranking.


Sirius Says:

Willow Says:
I Think some people are running out of straws to clutch at ! ….

so true


Miles Says:

Chrisford “After 2008, when Djokovic and Rafa arrived at all court form, Andy became a threat and new Slam trophies became dogfights not Fed popping stationary balloons as he did in past years.”

It was in 2008 that Federer had glandular fever – luckyily for his rivals, he was never quite as good again!


rognadfan Says:

First off, #8 is ditto for me, except I didn’t write a any thing.

That said, can’t agree more on #2 that the BH won the 18th slam for Roger. Other strokes were going to be there (well for the most part) but the BH was the biggest question mark. I’d even say, it was doubtful to most of us (because Rafa).

Totally agree on #6. But more interestingly for me, this shows a clear lack of an important dimension in modern game, playing good tennis in fast hard courts. Fast courts always produce the most exciting tennis in my mind. I think both Murray (I think he lost absolutely because of the fast court where he was always rushed by the net play of Zverev, it would have been drastically different in yesteryears’ AO courts) and Djoker both lost because of the their ‘relative uneasiness’ in coping with the fast court conditions.

Yes the immediate future looks bright for the Fedal. Especially Rafa for the FO and Roger for Wimbledon but Novak and Andy will definitely have equal, if not greater, share of total titles in the Season, I think.


DC Says:

with the slightly faster conditions resulting in a Fedal final, which means more spectators, more revenue and record shattering viewership, look for the other major tournaments to make conditions faster.
To continue to maximize revenue generation from the sport , its in the best interest of the organizers of the sport to further add to the longetivity of Fedal and also allow some of the newer generation to win a few slams and make them stars. To achieve both of these, its imperative that the physicality aspecs be minimized in the sport. Make conditions more condusive to shot attacking shot making rather than making the sport a test of physical fitness.

I wont be surprised to see faster conditions at Wimby ( and maybe the other two as well) to give at least Federer another shot at another title.


Monterey Says:

The weak era argument is fundamentally absurd. This is how it goes:

Federer won so much because he played in a weak era.
And how do we know that it was a weak era?
Well, because Federer won so much.

Can you see how ridiculous this is? The real and only purpose of weak era arguments is to undermine and diminish the achievements of a particular player, in this case Federer.

What a great disservice to all the players of the ATP that played during Fed’s time. What an insult. He had to beat 7 players to win any one of his majors, and not just Roddick, Phillipousis, Baghadis , etc. I love it how people say, oh well, he only had to beat tomato cans like these guys to win his early Slams. No. He had to beat 7 tough players to win.

There is no empirical, scientific way of measuring “strength of the field”, which is what you would have to do to make any claims about a “weak” or “strong: era. You would have to analyze the comparative strengths of the top100 or top 150 players and not just cherry pick a few here and there as is always done.

Just say well done and appreciate all the effort and talent to win a Slam, no matter what era.


Pitchaboy Says:

A lot of hand wringing going on here. Rafa and Novak will be gone at 35. The debate over GOAT ended last Sunday. What was achieved that day was other worldly.


Pitchaboy Says:

The current era is so strong that the young guys dominating it like Novak, Andy etc cannot beat a 35 year old guy coming off surgery and 6 months rest. Speed up the court a little and these golden retrievers go bust.


Deidre Says:

Incredible win by such a great player and hats off to Rafa for giving it his all. Whether another player ever comes along to rival these two is yet to be seen but for now let us just enjoy what we have. All too soon they will be gone!


rognadfan Says:

@Monterey,
I totally agree. But I’ll also add this to what you said: In fact the overall field during 2004-2007 was actually a lot stronger than what some of the delusional Novak fans keep singing about (it’s mostly to undermine Fed’s achievements and accentuate Nole’s. I think there are fewer Nadal fans who bring this up; tho it’s not totally lacking).


DC Says:

For the weak era proponents, I would like to bring to their attention the weak era of the 80s when a 17 year unknown named Boris Becker won the Wimbledon. – it truly must have been the weakest era of all times.
In 1990, world no 20 named Pete Sampras won the US open- sure it had to be a weak era.

And while we are at it..Why not claim Einstein to be a mediocre scientist who flourished in a weak era of scientists.


Daniel Says:

#3 – What GOAT debate? there isn´t one anymore;-)


Tennis Vagabond Says:

Yes, Einstein took advantage of the weak field between Boltzmann/ Mach and Bohr/Pauli/Schrodinger. His only truly contemporary ‘rival’ was Rutherford, and he was an experimental specialist!


Monterey Says:

Yes, the weak era theorists live in a strange Orwellian world where poor Roger can never win.

You see, the more he wins the more his legacy is undercut. He can win so much only because he has no competition. Therefore more is really less in this alternative fact world. And if he only had, say, 7 or 8 majors because Roddick, Nalbandian, Gonzalez had a few each ( and of course Nadal, Djokovic, Murray later) then how good can he really be if he only has 7 or 8?

It’s a shape-shifting, amorphous concept, this weak era thing. Meaningless but highly useful as a propaganda tool for those unable to appreciate Fed’s brilliance.

And I guess Nadal played in a weak era too considering that his career overlaps Fed’s to a large extent. If everybody’s weak, then who is strong?


Tennis Vagabond Says:

Its easy to forget just how good Roddick, Safin and Hewitt seemed at the time; they knocked Pete off when he was still at the top of his game. They made him look obsolete. Their quality is attested to by how many Slam finals they made (i.e. beat the field other than one ma). Federer stopped Roddick 4 times in Slam finals, and 3 more in QF or SF. Roddick would be up close to Edberg in Slam count if not for Rog. Same with Hewitt. Roger snuffed their careers out, because during his prime he was that good.

So, unless you believe that for some reason, the entire ATP was weak during that era, it is a fact that Roddick and Hewitt had champion-worthy records against the field.

By the way, I watched the entire Baghdatis run at Oz when he made the finals; he was on fire. I was sure he would be a superstar. He fizzled, but for that run he was elite level. Similar with Philipousis: the media built him up as the future of tennis. Didn’t pan out, but for a brief while he sure looked good.


DC Says:

Weak era, h2h are concepts popularised by Nadal fanatics. That’s the only way they can downplay the greatness of Federer.
If one of Nafals achievement is his h2h against Fed, doesn’t that obviously mean fed is greater than Nadal !! You definitely wouldn’t be boasting of h2h stats against players who are weaker than Nadal


DC Says:

Since Fed ranked no 17 won a slam at 35 in a tournament where Nole, Rafa and Murray were present, we can conclude that the Nadal, Nole, Murray are weak players thriving in a weak era.


Berghain Says:

Federer doesnt have to win anything anymore this season, really. Perfect start. One more Wimbledon would be insane though. The less Masters tournaments he plays the better, at 35 he should only be focusing on 3 tournaments. Ranking is an issue though.

Tx has definitely become weird since Feds Win. Weak era talk is getting so old and boring.


Willow Says:

They are not Rafa fans DC, i think you will find they are actually Novak fans ! ….


pitchaboy Says:

If I wanted to watch an endurance test, I would watch the marathon or cross country bicycling. Since the days of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras I have watched tennis for attacking play and shot making. The last decade has seen tennis grow into a boring game where the golden retreivers have taken over. They work on the philosophy of putting the ball back over the net one more time until the opponent makes a mistake. Matches go on for longer than cricket matches and it becomes a test of our endurance as well.


Berghain Says:

VP if you are around thanks for the nice wishes you sent me.

Total schön von dir :)

I know you were rooting for him, thats why he won ;p – thx


Margot Says:

GROAN GROAN GROAN GOAT GOAT GROAN
WEAP WEAP WEAP WEAK WEAK WEAP


Willow Says:

Margot exactly lol, its never been a caveat of tennis that ive cared all that much about, prefer the idea of greats instead ….


Willow Says:

Berghain i agree with you, same old argument that goes round and round in circles ….


Chrisford1 Says:

Monterey – “There is no empirical, scientific way of measuring “strength of the field”, which is what you would have to do to make any claims about a “weak” or “strong: era.”

=====

Very ill-informed. In any competitive field where changes to prep or strategy are considered vital – military, business, other sports – you must empirically assess if the opposition is stronger or weaker than in past times. Careers are made in being able to successfully do just that sort of analysis
in all competitive fields.
And the obvious argument on why it is so easy to spot the tennis weak era of the mid-2000s is the ease by which the young 3 – Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray – swept aside the old guard to become #2,3, and 4th ranked. And how Feds big wins sharply tailed off as the Big 4 formed.
Fed, of course, is a true bona fide Great who had been romping in an era of Lilliputians in the 4 previous years.
Of course the weakest part of the weak era was the year Leyton Hewitt ruled as #1 before “The Religious Experience” took over. Once Federer came into form, Hewitt was dominated by Fed, then subsequently demolished by the other 3 once they had learned the ropes. The story is largely the same with the rest of Feds 2004-2007 opposition -all owned more or less by the 3 “young guns” who had joined Roger at the top.


SG1 Says:

Loved watching Federer finally crank up his backhand and hit it on the rise as he should have been doing years ago. I’m a Rafa fan but I also hit a one-handed backhand (which makes a me a fan of that shot) so to see someone take it to Rafa’s forehand with the one hander just blew my mind.

To my mind Roger built a lot of GOAT cred with this win. As I’ve said in the past, I didn’t put tons of stock in his first 7 slam wins as the competition (with the exception of Nadal on clay) wasn’t stellar. But, his last 11 majors were won in the middle of perhaps the most difficult era in which to win majors. And he has remained dominant for nearly all of his 14 years. Mind boggling stuff. Winning majors at 35…in this era….it’s a singular achievement and worthy of him being considered the GOAT.


Danica Says:

I certainly missed both Nole and Andy, Nole above all. But, that’s the nature of sport.

I am still puzzled at this GOAT title for Rafa had he won. Why? Because of the second career slam? You know I love the guy and admire his achievements. But how can a player be a GOAT without any WTF title, let alone modest results during the fall season? Rafa will remain the King of Clay, Clay God, GOAT on clay… but I find it hard to understand how his 15th slam would’ve moved him ahead of Roger.


Margot Says:

@Willow
It’s no use….to paraphrase a well know saying, I might as well be spitting in the wind!


Willow Says:

Danica all true, but Rafas an all time great, and that more than enough for me, i wish he had won the AO just to have a second career GS, something no player has done in the open era, but he didnt so its moot ….


Daniel Says:

Agreed Danica,

He is now 5-7 in Slams outside Roland Garros, and had he won he would be 6-6, with his second best win at 2 on each. He doesn´t win in HC in more than three years and his 2 titles last year were guess where? clay.

He still is a an all time great with a clay superiority that translate to toehr surfaces but compared to Fed and Djoko he is not in their league outside clay. Murray also could be in the mix if he wins AO for example and a few others Slams, as he is more capable of. Nadal needs to win outside clay for him to make a case. Which at almost 31, looks harder to see.

Let´s face it, this AO was a cinderella story for Fedal, hard to see they making mutliple Slam finals other than Nadla on clay and Fed maybe on Wimby.


Monterey Says:

CF1,

You seem like a passionate and intelligent tennis fan. But I don’t understand your devotion to the weak era concept. It is essentially an empty concept

The issue is very simple and very clear.

Someone mentioned Einstein earlier. Well, it’s bit like the Theory of Relativity. Time is relative to the traveler. In this case we can say time is relative to the tennis player. We can only judge a player in relation to his own era, his own frame of reference. What may seem like a weak era from one frame of reference is not that at all from another. From Fed’s point of view, all those major wins were very difficult. You have to be traveling with him and see what he sees and not what you observe from the comfort of your living room. He once said in response to this sort of thing, paraphrasing, You try return Roddick’s serve or rally with Nalbandian or Safin….

And what kind of scientific and statistical analysis do you perform to determine such an amorphous concept such as strength of competition? How do you evaluate the top 150 pros in the world at any one time? Because these are the players that Fed and other elite players have to deal with year round. Winning a major is always a great accomplishment, no matter what era you’re playing in. Assessments of strength of competition are purely subjective. It’s always damn tough to win a major.

And that’s how it should be.


Monterey Says:

Sorry, forgot to add:

Over on Tennis.com, a poster said Fed was a “garbage collector”, collecting garbage majors from garbage players back in 2003-2007.

Pretty funny…..never heard that one before. Yes, I know about “padding his resume”, playing mental midgets, tomato cans, a bunch of nobodies, etc., etc…..

Amusing, for sure.


Willow Says:

Would love to see Rafa another GS,especially if its away from clay, other than that Roger can be the GOAT for all it concerns me ….


Berghain Says:

Just look at these highlights from the so called ‘weak’ era.
Roddick vs Hewwit 2005. If these guys were playing like this today I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t beat any of the top 5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP4lOHTwBK0
If it was such a weak era why didnt Sampras stick around till 35 and win Majors. Yet Fed is winning slams and making finals in his mid 30′s in this ‘super strong era’
Makes zero sense!
Hey but some people will always see it differently. Just have to accept it. As long as 99 percent agree- i can live with that. :)


Willow Says:

Margot lol ….


Monterey Says:

Thanks for the clip, Berghain.

Hewitt and Roddick were tough competitors. Champions and No. 1s as well.

But for some they were “garbage”……what a damn shame.


Sirius Says:

“You seem like a passionate and intelligent tennis fan.”

You probably haven’t seen his repetitive posts about the Madrid masters semifinal of 2009 that left nadal injured and djokovic “hobbled” until US open 2010. Or the post about the net touching of djokovic at the French open semi in 2013 which is the reason djokovic lost that match. Or how weird the structure of Arthur Ashe stadium is that it “funnels” the air in a way that it hampers the performance of Novak. His other posts generally contains the terms “weak era”, “feds padded stats” etc etc

Seems like a nutcase to me


Willow Says:

Sirius oh please, not the FO 2013 semi net touching, i detest that match, because of that incident, cringe and grind my teeth when i hear about it, please dont set him off ….


Sirius Says:

Willow, what do you mean by don’t set him off? Are you familiar with cf1′s “net touch” posts?


Willow Says:

Sirius oh yeah lol ….


El_Flaco Says:

2. It’s The Backhand Stupid!
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

As I said on another thread, the racquet was a key component. No way Fed could perform on his backhand the way he did against Nadal if he was still using the smaller frame.


pitchaboy Says:

You could argue that Novak is a “garbage collector”, collecting garbage titles with Rafa and Fed on the down slope. All these arguments are a bunch of bull. You have a guy who won slams consistently from 2003 to 2010, a seven year period. He dominated that era and past his era of dominance, has picked up 2 more majors and reached the finals in perhaps 3 more slams. When Novak dominated in 2015-6, everybody else looked mediocre. It was the same when Fed dominated from 2004-7. Therefore, Novak fans, get over it and come back to the table when your boy gets to 18.


rognadfan Says:

One thing for sure, if David Nalbandian was around and at his prime in 2010-2016 he would have won a few majors.


Milan Says:

Federer is not even Top 3 all-time, let alone being GOAT

Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales and Bill Tilden are greater than Federer.


Markus Says:

Milan, you forgot the great Pat Cash on your list of players greater than Federer.


kriket Says:

It’s silly to say nobody missed Novak and Andy, implying that somehow everyone wished they never existed. It’s the same story as when Novak started beating Federer and Nadal, only no such harsh words were used, but something like “we have had enough of Fedal finals, it’s time someone else came to shatter the status quo”. Maybe you did not miss them because you’ve basically watched Novak in the finals for years and Murray to an ecxtent, but I doubt everyone would like to watch Fedal finals for the rest of their lives. It was fun to see one vintage final, it’s ridiculous to say that somehow now Đoković and Murray are forgotten. Of ourse they weren’t missed after years of domination.


kriket Says:

The GOAT debate has serious problems, because Federer who should be GOAT has been dominated by Nadal, who in turn was dominated in his peak 2011 by Đoković. Now, how can you be GOAT if another player from your peak era dominated you? And then you both got dominated by yet another player?

That’s the GOAT riddle nobody can solve, and that’s why the goat debate will never end, because it’s unreasonable to claim any of those three is goat. Federer has the most slams, Nadal owned Federer, and Novak has a won a Grand Slam, something that even GoatFed never did. Plus their careers ain’t over by a long shot, the point that Federer proved in this AO final. It’s just impossible to solve.


Markus Says:

So, Richard Krajicek is a better tennis player than Pete Sampras then?


Markus Says:

Oops, sorry. Remove the question mark from my post. It should not be a question but a statement of fact, based on kriket’s logic.


skeezer Says:

“Now, how can you be GOAT if another player from your peak era dominated you? And then you both got dominated by yet another player?”
What is domination? Better to dominate one player, or dominate the FIELD of players throughout your career more than anyone else? What has more relevancy?
That is because it doesn’t tournaments and records achieved don’t work that way. You play against a FIELD of players, not one guy. If it was all just about one other guy why do you have Tennis Tournaments? Just have Rafa, Murray, Fed play against one another to determine who is better than who. ( Well that kinda happens @WTF, guess who has dominated over the years that tourney? ).
Trust me, the players know how the system works and respect the Slam counts and all time other records, not dominating one player.

“Plus their careers ain’t over by a long shot, the point that Federer proved in this AO final. It’s just impossible to solve.”
No, its not. Laver was heralded for decades as the GOAT until Sampras came along and clipped his GS count. He then was heralded arguably as the GOAT until Fed Clipped his record. That is how it goes, not WAIT and see when my favorite is done.


Markus Says:

The truth is, Andy Roddick is a better player than Djokovic…and so is that old guy Karlovic.


Markus Says:

…so, Djokovic better stop dreaming about becoming GOAT because it does not matter if he wins everything, Roddick is still better than he is and that will not change.


el_matador Says:

well,the “young gun” from super strong era andy murray had to wait until 2013 to win a wimbledon..every year before,he would face rafa or roger in a slam and his run would be over most of the times..and in 2009 wimbledon he had a great chance to reach the final as rafa was absent and andy had an old guy from a weak era named andy roddick to beat..but this poor old guy from a weak era beat him and almost won the final too!how insane!
another poor old man from a weak era,david nalbandian..I remember those matches where he schooled rafa and roger..absurd..


rognadfan Says:

Well Well Well! Look how the haters like Giles are scavanging a fake news all over internet. Actually not that surprising, look what’s happening in the USA, the fake news actually determined what their democracy looks like. So, the haters always find such a pathetic nonsense to hang on to.


Humble Rafa Says:

When I read backhand potency…I thought it was some kind of miracle drug. Not that I need it but would recommend to some older frenimies in the Switzerland area I know, who are struggling to make things happen in that department.


Humble Rafa Says:

A friend called me yesterday to “announce” that a big goat has 24 grandslam titles. Has been watching the same match over and over and giving phantom titles.


AndyMira Says:

LOL HR!!


Michael Says:

Leaving aside this GOAT theory which can only be a matter of perception and wholly subjective, what Roger did at over 35 is sheer incredible and ridiculous bordering on the absurd and I am not exaggerating it.

If a man over 35 can do this in the so called toughest era faced with huge challenges, it demolishes the myth in one stroke of Roger dominating during a weak era piling up many of his slam victories. Can anybody show such incidence in the so called weak era ?

Moreover, Roger could have amassed greater slam victories if he had been lucky. He had two match points back to back in both his encounters against Novak at the US Open which he couldnt convert. Just a single ace down the line would have done the trick. But that is Tennis.


rognadfan Says:

Hmm.. the humble one, just woke up from the trauma and is showing post match traumatic disorder. He is even hallucinating. But don’t worry, if anything, this match showed a silver lining for Rafa. He is relevant for the clay season again.
And Rafa is my #2 favourite player.


Sean Randall Says:

Monterrey, I called Djokovic “Garbage Man” (or later, “Collector”) long ago: http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-03-01/907.php

El Flaco, yup, the racquet switch gave Fed new life.

With respect to era, Fed benefited by coming along when he did, there’s no question, and I wrote about it here: http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2006-10-25/104.php (over 10 years ago!)

But gosh, he’s 35 and look at the results of the last six Grand Slam he’s played:
17 Aus – Win
16 Wim – Semi
16 Aus – Semi
15 USO – Final
15 Wim – Final
Again, at 35 is this era, that’s pretty good.


Berghain Says:

Micheal I think honestly people forget or never watched Federer play back when he was winning everything. Thats why its easier to say a weak era. Check out these highlights – he was sooo fast. Ridiculous shot making too. If he could play like this now?
Federer vs Ancic ● Wimbledon 2006 QF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL0OddzUig4


skeezer Says:

Sean,
And you also said this back then;
“An no I’m not short changing Fed. This is not a Fed thing. Fed would still be dominant even if the other players were better, he’s that good. Again, if Fed played in the 90s he’s still No. 1 and still racking up Slams. Doesn’t matter who’s across the net.”


Chrisford1 Says:

Monterey – I agree with you about eras and how you just can’t compare players 25, 30 years apart. Even 10. But 3-5 years apart in age, you get overlap of primes so you can compare the guys of 2004-07 with the ones from 2008-12. While Feds cohort of decent players did beat Big 4 members from time to time, Rafa and Novak swept them aside in rankings place as teens, then Andy came along , to take the 1,2,3, and 4 spots.
And outside the 3 besides Fed that are the multi-winners, you also had Tsonga, David Ferrer, Verdasco for a bit, the ever consistent winner until he sees Big 4 across the net – Berdych….all seem to have the talent level of the non-Legends in the mid 2000s.

I bring this up not to throw shade on Roger, but to point out that the careers of all 4 continue and we will only have all their careers to look at down the road. Who was GOAT who was GOAD (greatest of the decade) , what greatness is judged on may shift as well. But not now.
Which is why I caution the “Swiss God is the GOAT” sort of fan. All 4 will play more tennis, and maybe a computer like that used to rate American football QBs performance, or golfer odds by algorithm done for bookie customers will e adapted to tennis. ELO is a start.
My faves to pick the top guys are normalized 2017 points applied to points gained at all tournaments in the past not just Slams, consistency, H2H records, ability across all surfaces.


Margot Says:

@Berghain 11.36
Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon is one of my tennis highlights.
Actually shown on the TV too. Of course the young upstart went out next round…..
@Sirius 3.15
Re last sentence. Yep!
@rognadfan 9.33
In fairness to our American brothers and sisters exactly the same happened in the UK over BREXIT.


madmax Says:

Haven’t read all the posts yet – but Sean, this has been a long time coming.

Your point:

This was Federer, a guy who was 35, who hadn’t played in six months and who hadn’t beaten Nadal in over nine years in a Slam”. Hang on. Let’s be clear.

a) Rafa has not made all the finals that Roger has
b) Roger has not made all the finals that Rafa has

I think the way you expressed it, is like Rafa has made all the finals and Roger just has not been there to beat him.

Twice last year, Roger made the finals of GS and Rafa did not. So let’s write a fairer piece here.

That said, this was a great, GREAT, final, from both men. Really was. Am still watching it now.

This is the most astonishing I think:

“Ok, so the head-to-head is still heavily in Nadal’s favor and it’s more than likely going to end that way, but look what Federer just did. He missed six months, came back to beat four Top 10 players (hasn’t been done in 35 years), win three five-set matches (hasn’t been done in over 10 years) and then he came back from 2-0 down in a fifth. And he did it as a 35-year-old, becoming the oldest Grand Slam men’s champion in 45 years since Ken Rosewall won the 1974 Australian Open. And he did it beating Rafa. That’s just too good”.


Willow Says:

Margot Federer beating Sampras at W was one of my favorites, and i will add that i became a fan of his, then i saw Rafa beat Agassi and i became even more of a fan of his, and it also meant the changing of the guard for both ….


Willow Says:

Squirrel its like comparing apples with oranges IMO, i suppose Fed fans will say Fed, Serena fans will say Serena, love her dress BTW however i digress, anyway i think Federer had tougher competition, and i think Serena had very little, i doubt she would care though, i think its probably fairer to say Serena is the best ever female tennis player, and Federer the best male tennis player, and leave it there, IMO the reason ive never bought into GOAT discussions, is because of all the different caveats, i remember once someone said it was conners on a link because of the career titles and wins, go figure, my two cents ;-) ….


Willow Says:

Squirrel you know where your nuts are lol, sorry couldnt resist no offence ;-) ….


squirrel Says:

hahaha good one Willow, lol. I fortunately know where my nuts are ;)

Yeah, I’m with you, I don’t really believe in GOAT either, that’s why I never commented in that debate. I believe that Federer and Nadal are both legends and all-time greats, with each having their own records. But they’re definitely two best tennis player ever (men and women), as evidenced by their slam record (which is why I’m pulling for Nadal to win at least one more to separate him from Sampras).

Having said that, it’s ludicrous to suggest that Serena is greater than Federer though…


Willow Says:

Squirrel thanks, please keep posting, as i love your posts, and yes i completely agree on all youve said ;-)


squirrel Says:

You too Willow! :)


Willow Says:

Thanks Squirrel, believe me i dont think ill be top of many peoples christmas card lists here, but my achilles heel is when someone actually says they like my posts, CHEERS ;-) ….


squirrel Says:

Why you said that? I love your posts, sincerely, and many posts here like yours as well, you’ve been mentioned many many times, I’m sure you’ve seen that! You’re popular ;)


Willow Says:

Squirrel thanks, some do some dont i guess, lets just say ive had my moments though ;-) ….


Daniel Says:

Roland Garros can be the turn of the tide. Right now the talk is mainly Fedal, mostly Fed and if Nadal can keep this form and improve for clay.

If Nadal wins there, he consolidates himself as second (surpass Sampras) and may target Fed´s tally (His longevity in this AO run at 35 can motivate him).
But if Djoko wins, he puts himsefl back in the picutre, one Slam shy from Sampras and Nadal and will have a second achievement only he would have: Second Career Slam together with his Djoko Slam (four in a row) at 13 majors. Suddenly he is right back in the GOAT discussion and will overcome the lapse of last 3 Slams. It will make Wimbledon more interesting because, Murray will want to prove himself there again, Fed will always have chances there and Djoko himself (achieving the chanel Slam, with RG and WImby back to back, which he didn´t reach still).
If Murray wins, career Slam and solidifys his number 1 ranking. He will be favorite and co-favorite for Wimby and USO and can finaly have a 2 years Slam victory.

The thing is, with this 3 now, any Slam they play and the history book can change. Of course, any Slam has history attached to it, but for these three, right now as they all will be 30+ during RG final, things are heating up to final stages. Fed may stll play till his 40, but he won´t compete for majors after 2018 (vbeing very conservative), Nadal with his style give him 2 years most competing for Slams. Djoko is a question mark.

Tennis is a “what have you done for me lately” and we always build on frenzi of last win.


Willow Says:

The USO seems to be the most open GS, any of the top players can win there or lose there, having said that W is known for plenty of shocks ….


Daniel Says:

Agree Willow, USO is the one with most contenders.

- RG: Nadal, Djoko, Murray and Wawa (one of these 4 will win it)
- Wimby: Murray, Djoko, Fed, Raonic, Dimitrov (one of these 5 will win it). They are the ones who can play well on grass and have the game to do it.
- USO: Djoko, Murray, Stan, Raonic, Fed, Dimitrov, Nadal, Kei, Zverev jr (can´t see Cilic repeating there, he is getting old) and the others top 20 don´t have Slam in them anymore. Didn´t include Thiem because he can´t last long, still maturing. But he is my pick to be in top 10.


Daniel Says:

Still have to see how DelPo evolves, this not playing AO was bad for him. But if he start gearing up he is a contender for all Slams as well, he reahced semis in RG and Wimby and won USO before. But he´ll need a good draw. Even if he can beat one of the top 4 he seems to lose too many of the big clashes. He will have to string at least 2 great wins almsot back to back to do it.

Also, as Sean mentioned, Federer´s recent form in Slam he played is excellent., He is basicallt target them, putting himself in contention and evevn with 35 and hampered by sequence of best of 5 experience and his emtnal strengh is showing. He is winning a lot of matches he coudl have lost.


Tennis Vagabond Says:

Willow, it certainly looks that way, but the way the tennis landscape has shifted over the last year, the USO is a long way away.

I would urge Fed fans not to get carried away expecting Fed to take over the tour again; this was a miraculous achievement. Don’t sully it by expecting more. As Skeeze says, Its all gravy.

Having watched the 5th set again, I can really see what some of our smarter-than-me posters have been saying: Fed hugged the baseline and took the ball on the rise, constantly. I’m sure the court surface helped him, but this could be the first Fedal match where that attack high to Fed’s backhand never took hold.

Both players were near perfect in that 5th set. Fed’s heart and grit carried the day over Rafa. (for once).

Looking forward to seeing DelPotro back. Is Mexico his first tourney? Looks like there’s a couple weeks of minor league stuff and then some good fields in Rotterdam and Mexico.


Daniel Says:

Agree TV, regarding Fed. As it is, this was a huge comeback (if not one of the hgreates ever after 6 months off), but his motivation can be affected for next tourneys,. let´s see. I think he will only be really pumped up when grass seaosn starts again.

Curious to see Delpo. I think he will play Buenos Aires or his first will be Acapulco?


AndyMira Says:

@Squirrel 6:56 am and willow…Agreeeee with u guys regarding GOAT!…What the heck is important about GOAT??If Fedfan want GOAT..just take it…I don’t think rafa wants that as much…heck!he’s already a BULL!..and SERIOUSLY,when you’re already a BULL,there is no way Rafa want to change his status from the raging bull to a GOAT!…Argh!!Don’t understand this fuss!!!


skeezer Says:

As a fan I would be happy if Fed just skipped the Clay season, have a possible run at Wimby and play a light summer HC circuit before USO. But that is just me…..I agree although it was a superman effort the reality is @36 he probably cannot keep this level up if he plays the whole grind of the tennis season.


Daniel Says:

Skeeze,

Agree, but the problem is, if he doesn´t play Miami he will be 3 motnhs without match play (not that it matters much this time), from March to June before Halle. At least play Madrid and also RG has a day rest in between, he can go there for a few matches as well depending on his draw. Or skip it completly and start practicing hard on grass from May onwards. I rather he play another grass in Stutgart than wear himself on clay.


skeezer Says:

Giles,
What are you whining about now? Do you remember 2009 AO(maybe you weren’t born yet)? ERafa played the longest match in AO history and then on short notice had to play Fed in the final( again the way the scheduling worked out Fed had the longer rest). Rafa fans were complaining then. His match went very late against Hot Sauce. What happened? Nadal beat Fed in the finals( in another LONG match ). So much for the “rest” theory.

Daniel,
Yeah I agree. I know he likes IW so maybe skip Miami( one the slowest HC’s on tour )? Anyways, I think we both agree on the lighter scheduling….


Giles Says:

skeezer. I do indeed remember AO 2009. Isn’t that the one where Fed cried during the trophy ceremony? Lol. Back to your question, Rafa was 8 years younger then!!!


Willow Says:

Yeah no offence to Federer fans, i think that AO win will now be the exception rather than the norm, i doubt very much that both the top two players will lose that early again in a GS, one probably but both is a bit of a fluke TBH, and he might have to also deal with a resurgent Rafa, although the jury is still out on that one i suppose ?, Novak will be a ? going forward depends if he still has that desire, but hes very good on clay, and is probably the favorite now even above Rafa, it depends on the lead up events i would think, W and grass is where Andy excells and his game is well suited to grass, unfortunatly Rafa would need a miracle to win there again, Novak has also lost early there so i wouldnt be surprised if he lost it again or won it again, Federers game is also suited to grass, but there are alot of players now good on grass, the USO is the one thats most difficult to predict, open for alot of players, could see many players that have won it before winning it again, or indeed someone new, my two cents ….


SG1 Says:

Skeezer,

To be fair, they were both a lot younger in 2009. Recovery may not have been a factor for either at that time. Rafa is an old 30 in tennis terms and Roger an even older 35. This was just an amazing match for both. Sometimes, the folks here just have to take things for what they are realize that as it’s just a tennis match. So Rafa lost…so what? He’s gotten the better of Federer a bunch of times. Stuff happens.


SG1 Says:

about 50% of the time since 2003, Roger has been one of the players in slam finals. It’s just nutty to think about.


Tennis Vagabond Says:

SG1, wow.


Daniel Says:

You are right SG1, he made 28 Slam finals out of 55 slams since his first final in Wimbedlon 2003 to AO 2017 (14 years) = 28/55 = 51%

If you count only Slmas played, he skipped 2 Slams (RG and USO 2016), that number goes up to 28/53 = 53% of all Slams he played in this Spam he made the finals.

That puts an end to any weak era conspiracy.

Comparing the toher 2, time period between first and last finals.

- Nadal
From RG 2005 to AO 2017 (12 years): 21/48 = 44% finals made
Slams played in this spam (he skipped: AO 2006 and 2013; Wimby 2009 and 2016; USO 2012 and 2014), minus 6. 21/42 = 50% finals made

Djoko
From USO 2007 to USO 2016 (9 years): 21/37 = 57% Slam finals played.
No Slam skipped.

Djoko has the higher rate now, but fewer years (mostly on peak years). Let´s see how these numbers will be in a few years, assumign they will still be making finals.


Truth Says:

Sirius, a nutcase is you. You came out of the woodwork because you believe Fed was the one that controlled the pathway for his Slam success.
Novak didn’t appear, so Fed got extremely lucky. Nadal was washed up in the Slam department in 2014. Nadal needed help to win French Opens in 2012 and 2014.

1 slam joke draw doesn’t equal Federer invincibility & Slam count domination, idiot. Gloat over Djoker’s problems, and suffer after the new slam additions from Djoker.

Fed also desperately needed a clown like the injured Benneteau to choke at 2012 Wimbledon.
You are the one that thinks the 2003 weak era lazy, money grubbing players that abused umpires and moved like elephants were at the level of nishikori or berdych.
Not everyone with no Slam win is worse than a one Slam wonder.
Fed lucked out, just like Costa & Gaudio lucked out with no real fighting opponent.
Fed certainly couldn’t beat anyone dominant until all the opponents had lost interest or suffered injuries and struggled badly with poor movement.
Not fake injuries. Fed has a fake injury but plays games to insult opponents.
He is a fraud with fake sportsmanship awards.
Only when the worn down Nadal showed up, Fed took advantage.

Talk about weak. Roddick was a joke and was given special treatment to avoid being banned for disrespecting tournament organizers, abusing and harassing players, linesjudge & umpires.
He failed to get rid of his daddy Fed’s nemesis Djokovic.
Roddick screams GOAT FED, like he screamed GOAT FED before choking at the 2009 Wimbledon final.

Hewitt was just lucky in 2001-2002, at the right time when Sampras struggled with his low blood cell count. Federina had lost so many matches to Hewitt, when Djoker got better and better against Hewitt.


Markus Says:

I like it. Federer wins and suddenly all his detractors suddenly get extremely agitated.


Markus Says:

I put too many suddenlys there but I guess the Federer detractors are too agitated to notice. Hehehe.


Markus Says:

A weak era is when a player becomes number one when his main opponents are a guy almost 6 years his senior and another guy who is hobbled by injuries. That’s a weak era if there ever is one.


SG1 Says:

I have to say that I do subscribe, at least to an extent, to the weak era theory because Ivan Lendl was the victim of a strong era. His slam count would have been considerably higher if he had not had to contend with the likes of Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, and Chang etc. It’s kind of difficult to win double digit majors in an environment like that. And Lendl played most or all of those guys at or near their prime. Conversely, plug Lendl into an era where there are less of those guys kicking around and it’s pretty much impossible that he doesn’t win more majors. Just because it’s difficult to quantify competition level doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant. It just means there’s no way to measure it. There are many things in life that are relevant but aren’t quantifiable.


Berghain Says:

“You are the one that thinks the 2003 weak era lazy, money grubbing players that abused umpires and moved like elephants were at the level of nishikori or berdych.
Not everyone with no Slam win is worse than a one Slam wonder”

Truth – get some help asap.

Fed just beat Nishokori to win AO.
Roddick/Berdych h2h 6-4. Between 2009 and 2010 Roddick won 5 straight. Wait wasnt Berdych in his prime?
Between 2009 – 2010 he won 4 straight vs Dokovic.

You talk so much shi#!

Markus this guy is a nut, and you should bring out the nutcracker.


skeezer Says:

So what your saying then if Nadal, Murray, Djoker were not around Fed should have 30 Slams?


skeezer Says:

^@SG1


Markus Says:

Hehehe, OK Berghain, here’s the nutcracker: 18

Since that number came up, a lot of people have gone crackling nuts!


Sirius Says:

Truth,
“Sirius, a nutcase is you.”
I think people here understands who the nutcase is.

“Nadal needed help to win French Opens in 2012 and 2014″
what help did exactly nadal get? could you elaborate please??

“1 slam joke draw”
LOL

“Fed also desperately needed a clown like the injured Benneteau to choke at 2012 Wimbledon.”
right. just like cilic in 2014, k.anderson in 2015 at wimbledon choked against djokovic


DC Says:

There was never a question to who the goat ever was. This win of fed should end any further discussions on this topic
I do not understand why we are still talking about it
Unless Nadal or Nole don’t win 18 or more slams, we can reopen this topic.


Chrisford1 Says:

DC – Sorry , people will not follow your “rules of discussion?.
Especially since they are stupid.


FedExpress Says:

Sean, when will be the funk and trunk section updated? ;)


FedExpress Says:

And does Truth really believe the shit he writes?


squirrel Says:

Agree DC, why still discuss this? Especially on weak era…move on. But I do agree with SG1, competition, although unquantifiable, exists, but it is very subjective as well. I don’t belive in weak era during Fed’s regin (2004-2007) as I really enjoy Roddick’s, Safin’s and Hewitt’s game. But I guess that’s subjective as well :)


Willow Says:

When push comes to shove Federer has 18 GS, twist it, spin it whichever way you want, but that is really all that matters, well perhaps not all that matters, but its what matters the most in the end, i doubt Federer will care if Rafa or Novak have more Masters, played in a strong or weak era, which is all subjective, and seems to be used as some emotional bias against Federer anyway, the point is he has 18 G read it and weep dear readers ….


squirrel Says:

Haha well said Willow! You’re always the voice of reason here :)


Willow Says:

A Player can only beat whomever is stood across the net and thats it ….


Willow Says:

Squirrel lol i try, but thanks, i wish my favorite had 18 GS, but on the other hand 14 is still figgin amazing, especially as theres only one player with more, cant complain, it would be greedy, and im not greedy, my parents brought me up never to be greedy ….


squirrel Says:

hehe Willow, you never know, he really has a chance of 18 seeing by his performance last weekend. But that’s what makes this rivalry interesting, so much possibilities and both are capable of pushing each other. It’s going to be interesting to see the tally when both put down the racket. So long as their fans being civilized, chill and not vile! haha


Willow Says:

I Love Murray too, and i would love to see him get another 3 or more to tie in with Becker and Edberg, which i think is pretty doable ….


Daniel Says:

Agree, Murray should have nore than 6 Slams. hope he gets there. He has less milage than Djoko ofr example and can win Slams this year and next 2 if stay healthy. Motivated he is and current #1, who now can play very well on clay. He will co faorite for ecery Slam he plays at least next 6-8!


Markus Says:

Willow @5:03: Willow knows her math and has her priorities in the proper order.


Willow Says:

Humbly bows Markus ….


Margot Says:

If I wanted to wallow I could say, Andy Murray is the victim of a very strong era, and invite you folks to cry me a river and join my pity party………..
Or take a rational stance, shrug your shoulders and say, “That’s life.”


Markus Says:

Margot, don’t call Andy a victim, call him a survivor of a “very strong” era. He got three majors (hopefully more) with 2 Olympic golds, a Davis Cup and became number one. We cannot cry for him. He has done very well…and he is not finished yet.


AndyMira Says:

@M…Andy just made an amazing breakthrough last year…an incredible journey in his career..he’s already found a path M…who’s to say that he’s not going to do it again?Who knows when Rog ‘steal’ a limelight atm…Andy can play freely and not feel too much pressure?I’m still with u and Andy all the way M…I want to see him achieve so much more..

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/videos/Andy_Murray/40371/andy-will-keep-going-and-he-will-win-again/


SG1 Says:

skeezer Says:

So what your saying then if Nadal, Murray, Djoker were not around Fed should have 30 Slams?

—-

Maybe not 30 but close. Perhaps Nadal or Djokovic would be into the 20′s if the likes of Federer weren’t around.


Giles Says:

These fedfans have gone barking mad!!! 🐕 Too much 👄


SG1 Says:

Giles,

I’m a Rafa fan, not a Fed fan.


Chrisford1 Says:

About the discussion on how many atches various Big 4 would have won but for another big 4 guy, taking the Final. Fed had 5 years of no other Big 4 level player, getting 12 Slams before the competition caused Feds trophy gathering to fall off sharply. I think the competition hurt Rafa and Andy the most, And it is easy to see Rafa having 4, 5 more but for Novak Djokovic.

Peak Rafa was 2007-2013. After making #1 taking down Fed at Wimbledon in 20008, the champ started out the 1st part of looking like Djokovic in 2015. In 2009 he whupped Fed at the AO and then Indian Wells . Delpo overpowered him in the Miami QFs, then Rafa took Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Roma. Djokovic after losing MC and Roma to Rafa, dug in and the two had the Madrid Classic match. Both were injured in the no-holds barred war. Novak was then out in the FO 4rd Round, Rafa made it to the 4th round where family woes, Soderling, and knee injury combined to take him down. The knee meant he missed Wimbledon, and still wasn’t right for the USO. Djokovic recovered physically, but was mentally out of sorts the rest of the season and into 2010.
Rafa had great odds for 2 Slams in 2009 lost in full or part due to inury.
Then he had his greatest year in tennis and started 2011 by far and away the best player on Tour. But he ran into Nole 2.0. and lost 4 Slam Finals to Djokovic. Taking the 2911 French only because Roger zoned in the semis and took down Djokovic.

Of the 6 Slams – it is fair to think but for Djokovic, would have had 4 more. He owned Fed and Andy at that point. Only Djokovic stopped his assault on Fed’s records.


skeezer Says:

“About the discussion on how many atches various Big 4 would have won but for another big 4 guy, taking the Final..”
What discussion? Dude you are famous for making up your own criteria.
“Ifs”, woulda coulda shoulda don’t change the facts of the tennis record books. Deal with it.
18.


Bob Lewis Says:

Lots of weak era noise, but you know, there’s no guarantee that somebody would have dominated that 03-07 period at the same level that Federer did. I dint see anyone else winning 5 in a row at both Wimbledon and Us Open.


Michael Says:

I will not get into the GOAT debate, because I do not believe in that sobriquet.

But with this incredible victory, Roger has solidified his indisputable position as the best performer in sporting history and has achieved the pinnacle of glory. Whether this record will stand the test of time and generations is unclear. Nonetheless the supremacy of Roger will always be relished an cherished even if this record gets broken later.

Tennis history will always remember him for the player he was, on and off court manners he symbolized and the style, grace and elegance that was his repertoire.


steve-o Says:

It’s never just luck when Federer beats Nadal, especially in a Grand Slam.

He figured out that by stepping into the court and taking his backhand early and really driving it, he could use his strengths (precise footwork, amazing timing, hand-eye coordination and reflexes) to do what Djokovic and Wawrinka do with raw power: consistently hurt Nadal in the crosscourt BH to FH rallies.

Before he would try to protect his backhand, either by running around it to hit forehands or trying to rush the net. That would work for a bit, but it put too much pressure on his game and he would make errors, or he would get tired. This time he went for his backhand instead of trying to protect it, and he was able to sustain it for five sets.

The new racket definitely helped. And Ljubicic’s influence shouldn’t be overlooked–he’s the first of Federer’s coaches from Federer’s own generation, and he’s actually played Nadal, and he used a single-handed backhand.

This is a breakthrough match for him: if he plays aggressive baseline tennis like this, always looking to step forward, take the ball early, and finish quickly, he can keep rallies shorter and conserve energy in long matches. If he stays healthy I think he can play something pretty close to a full season.

Nadal is the heavy favorite for the clay season, including RG. I don’t see how anyone can not put him as the favorite there.

Pretty clear now Murray will not be the dominant #1 that Federer and Djokovic were, although I expect him to do well over the rest of the HC season and keep his ranking until grass season. Djokovic may win a couple more majors but I don’t think he will ever dominate as he did in 2011 and 2015.


DC Says:

Chrisford1,

Talking about hypothetical scenarios and making assumptions on outcomes of these hypothetical scenario rs to prove a point; that’s what we call nonsense


skeezer Says:

@Michael
There is no GOAT debate.

CF1 is just a Djoker lover who can’t accept reality. She’ll keep twisting scenarios till it comes up Novakian. Same ol same ol.

Steve-o good to see you here again agree on all points, DC well said!
Bob Lewis & Markus 👍


amit Says:

“Chrisford1 Says:

About the discussion on how many atches various Big 4 would have won but for another big 4 guy, taking the Final. Fed had 5 years of no other Big 4 level player, getting 12 Slams before the competition caused Feds trophy gathering to fall off sharply.”

well,andy murrayis first of all not abig threat to roger till now, rafa and novak are.. and moreover i completely disagree regarding non-availabilty of big 4 back then.. there alrready was rafa from 2005 itself as a major force winninf 2005 fo, then from 2007 itself there was novak, and both were challengIng fed.. though both were just not that good on ne hand, and fed was on a diffeent level back then,WHETHER IN TERMS OF COURT PLAY ORIN TERMS OF MOVEMENT/REFLEXES.. his play has really deteroriated since then, and still he keeps beating these two in every alternative match.. if rafa and novaklose to a slower and avbraqge fednow,cant imagine what peak fed woulda done to these two.. lol

we all know what hewitt and safin did to pete, who must be obviously lesser than nole/rafa for many like you… LOLMAO!!! ;p

and 2 mins silence for those who think safin/rod/hewitt/nalby were below par just coz they faced the hungry young express-paced moving invincible fed back then…


amit Says:

nottomention fed having delkat with pete/agassi back then…is pete below novak/rafa or agassi below murray in your humble opinion??? :p LOLzzz


amit Says:

not to mention fed having dealt with pete/agassi back then…is pete below novak/rafa or agassi below murray in your humble opinion??? :p LOLzzz


amit Says:

i dont understand the logic of somepeople who think fed must have dominated at the rate of 3 slams/year fora decade to be rated ahead of novak(who?) or even rafa.. frankly none waspreventingrasfa from winning outside FO from 2005 onwards except that he couldnt… and sdame apllies for novak from 2007onwards.. its not written on stone that fed is responsible for their inability to snatch majors from fed… all great players, including fed have a tendency to make even a good playing field lookbad,just coz they are that good… period..


amit Says:

at least rafa was contestingfed when fed was still in his prime, but novak was getting schooled until fed was 30 years old or more.. lol


amit Says:

djoko owning fed is a nice joke,he never did, and he never would …


Margot Says:

Now, now Skeeze, you know perfectly well CF1 is a bloke. No woman etc etc….
Tsk! Tsk!


DC Says:

By2005 , experts had started claiming fed to be the “future goat” and by 2009 Fed had established himself as the goat.
With this win, Fed has established himself as Goat+.
It’s going to be a tough task for Nole or Nadal to topple Fed , there is a lot of hard work for the next couple of years. And as usual,expect Fed to defend his records. The younger generation is also going to be a challenge for attrition based older players like Nole/Nadal to defend.


skeezer Says:

Margot,
A Bloke? So he is a Bloke then etc etc 😀👍. Thanks for clearing that up.


Trey Says:

The number 18 is a big one, no doubt. However Nadal is 31, and Djoker is only 30, that is plenty of time to scratch and claw their way to #18. Both get four chances at it every year. I’m a Federer fan, and for the time being I believe he IS the GOAT!

However that is a open-ended discussion, tennis doesn’t just end here. Nadal may have it worse. His physicality and creeping injuries may derail him sooner rather than later. Djoker on the other hand, has a Federer type body and playing style. I can see him playing until his mid 30′s as well. Only his sometimes wavering mental fortitude gets in his way.

In the end, Federer made it hard for any player ever to take the GOAT title from him. He not only owns the grand-slam tally, but many other ridiculous records, too many to mention here. As of right now, he is safe at the summit, standing alone.


Willow Says:

Trey can Nadal himself decide when he wants to retire please, his fans are always getting it rammed down their throats, about how he wont be playing when hes Federers age etc etc, can he just be left alone to play now please ? ….


James Says:

There’s a clear logical flaw in anyone touting 2004-07 as the “weak era” because Fed won everything.

Lets remove player names for a minute. Suppose a player comes along who is SO GOOD that he wins everything – even other strong players can’t win anything. In that case, by the arguments touted above, this era will be falsely labeled “weak”.

Stop with this nonsense. Stop feeling jealous that Fed finally put the GOAT debate to rest. Why don’t you talk about the fact that Nadal had a 5 year age advantage over Fed – so starting 2008, that became a factor (when Fed approached 27 and Nadal hit his peak at 22)? Why don’t you talk about the fact that Djokovic and murray both have a SIX year age advantage over Fed, yet he has regularly beaten them all along?

Its clear as crystal. Accept it.


Tennisfansince1976 Says:

@chrisford1 if you consider AO 2009nfinal a whuppin then I’d hate to see your idea of a competitive match! I’d suggest you watch that match on YouTube again. That was a highly competitive match match with a razor thin margin played on courts made very gritty and slow. Fed could easily have won in 3 or 4 if he served better and played big points/break points better. But alas he did not. That said Rafa had definitely taken over the mantle of world number one in 2008 Wimbledon and kept it thru the first half of 2009. A couple of points though. First off Fed is 5 years older than Nadal, and 6 years older than Djokovic. Being the quality players they were always going to take over from Fed sooner or later. Maybe he could have held it off a year or 2 longer but it was going to happen.
Another factor is the slowing of the tour in new millennium. Most tournaments have unquestionably slowed the condition of their courts in the ought through a combination of grittier courts and heavier balls.
This is unquestionably advantageous to Nadal and to some extent Djokovic. Nadal is a natural slow court player who has made some tweaks to his game to be more competitive on faster surfaces. Fed is the opposite. If you analyze their head to head through this prism it is quite instructive. They have played 35 times officially. 23-12 Nadal. On slower courts, clay and hard courts like Miami and Indian wells Nadal is 19-4 while on faster courts like Wimbledon, Dubai, indoor and I’ll include this year’s faster AO Federer is 8-4. So it seems like the bulk of their matches have been played on Nadal’s terms and he has protected his turf very well. He is indeed a better slow court player than fed. I certainly won’t dispute that. Fed has had less opportunities on courts that suit him but has generally protected his turf as well.
You keep claiming that the Nadal/Djokovic 2009 match almost killed both of them but at the end of the day it was just a hard fought fought physical 3 set match. Just a few months earlier Nadal survived the 5 setter versus Verdasco that was much more monstrous and then played five hard sets against Fed. He was not specifically injured in 2009 Madrid. He was developing knee tendinitis long before that.
Lastly you keep claiming that Nadal has dominated Federer since 2008. I don’t even think they’ve played that much. They haven’t met at Wimbledon since then. First fed dropped losing quarters in 2010 and 2011. Since then he has been better won it once, lost 2 finals and a semi. Has nadal even made the quarters? They have never met at the us open. Nadal picked up 4 victories in Fed off year 2013. Fed got to play Nadal a mere once in his 2015 down year.

Also Borg was excellent on hard courts, excellent on any surface. Although remembered as being up there with Nadal as best ever on clay in Sweden he grew up on clay during the outdoor months but the rest indoors. Even early on he was good indoors. Check out the 1975 5 setter at Wct Dallas over Laver on youtube. He mostly got unlucky at the Us open. He didn’t like playing under the lights. He still got to 4 finals there. Losing to Connors on the green clay in 76. That was the first tennis match I ever saw. In 78 he had a very bad blister that hampered him greatly. List to connors in straights. 79 he lost to tanner under the lights. And of course he lost to prime McEnroe in 5 and 4 sets in 80 and 81. Anyone doubting Borg’s aptitude for fast court tennis should watch the straight sets beat down he put on Lendl at wtf 1981, staggering level. Also the straight sets demolition of Connors in the 1981 us open semis.


Truth Says:

Slowed conditions? Too many excuses from Fed fans. Fed had an advantage of playing on slow courts.
Fact is, Fed needed Djoker to go away after 2010 and now his sycophants think Fed’s super brave and the hottest thing ever!
Fed’s 2002-2006 bluffing opponents couldn’t even play on fast courts or slow clay.
Yet, Fed required luck to beat Roddick on grass twice and lost 2 of his last 3 matches to the very “semi-retired, injured and powerless” Hewitt…
2 Grass Lapdogs to Djoker but “2 nemeses to Fed”.
Fed skipped Davis Cup to avoid losing to his turkey Roddick.
LOL How humiliating to tennis fans and ex-players!

Hewitt and Safin weren’t really showing up mentally or physically, and Roddick was a guaranteed Slam turkey.

Roddick and Hewitt conveniently got “injured” for years on clay.
Roddick cried in agony and moaned when he played Davis Cup, like he never watched tennis before in his life… At least he had similarities to Fed, regarding phony spoiled brat antics and fear of playing Davis Cup!
It would’ve been hilarious if it was fiction.

You mean slow fraud players that claim to have competed in the competitive Roddick era.LMAO😆😉
I guess tennisfansince1976 believes Roddick and Hewitt were one of the best fast court players, when they choked against guys like Djoker, Tsonga and Berdych.
Even the “one dimensional” Nadal beat Hewitt and Roddick.
That’s Fed’s description of Nadal. One dimensional.
The GOAT FED only needs some inborn physical problems to greatly affect Nadal and Djoker.

Double standards. This YEAR is very “weak”, BUT if Fed plays, it’s “balletic, flawless, tough and classic razor thin margin tennis”. Nadal is washed up and lucky to reach a final. It’s not a beloved final, and you know it.

Nadal made it look tight when he choked in the middle of the 2008 Wimbledon F ttiebreak and coughed up his serve 5 times per Slam final. Nadal still hammered Fed 6-2 at 2009 Aussie Open.
It was NOT EPIC even though Fed called it epic.
True to his arrogant, evil fake character, Fed weeped for Laver and stole Nadal’s glory time.
It’s ironic that Djoker is called the worst names, but Fed is the coddled, SUPREMELY OVERRATED, FAKE “Sportsmanship Award” Emperor with no pathetically stupid clothes and manbag.


skeezer Says:

^scroll


Berghain Says:

truth – roddick – scroll.


Willow Says:

Lifes too short for TX, and the same old repetitive crap from posters like Truth, change the bloody record, J-Kath has the right idea OUT ! ….


Markus Says:

The only people more mad than Truth are those who read his posts and even more mad are those who respond to them.


Truth Says:

If you see: FED – Scroll, you’d be mad because he beat Nadal twice in 10 years of Slams.
I’m not mad. The mad ones are denying that Lendl and Fed were slowed down by far superior and PRESENT and ABLE opponents.
No U.S. open meetings because they both are overrated at the U.S. Open.
No true injury excuses for Fed.
Fed even begged for luck in the Miami 2005 5 setter.
Nadal was physically weak back then. What a coincidence.

THE BOASTFUL GOAT Fed showed up rarely against RAFA the clay courter and blamed playing on too much clay for losing to Nadal…LOL!! Yeah, give FED extra love. It’s only fair!
Funny that Fed begs for injured opponents to appear in order for Fed’s GOAT success to continue, but he claims to be so TRUTHFUL and STRONG.


kjb Says:

@Truth

Your jealousy is hilarious. Keep it coming. 18 and counting baby!


skeezer Says:

CAPS = desperation for attention.
More “scroll”.


squirrel Says:

Truth

Scroll :)


Margot Says:

Lol, “alternative facts” is back.


Tennis Vagabond Says:

X-Blog Staff:

When is the Funk and Trunk going to be updated? We Fed fans have waited a LOOOOOOONG time for him to get the Funk back! This is a more prestigious honour than any Slam! (It is little known, but among players, the Funk/Trunk +/- is the true source of GOAT status).

Please acknowledge it before it disappears in a cloud of red clay!

sincerely,
The Tennis Vagabond


Markus Says:

18 has become my favorite number. So let my type it again because I like the look of 1 and 8 together, one for representing the number one, the best one and 8 for the shape of infinity so: 18. Beautiful to
behold.


Giles Says:

Markus used to be an intelligent poster but my how he has changed!
Lol. Now his favourite number is 18, I suppose previously his favourite number was 17.
How old is Markus??


Betterer Says:

Chrisford1:

Going by your so-called weak era theory, did Fed win AO17 in a super strong era aged 35?

Or perhaps.. 2015-16 was one of the weakest eras ever with only a 34 year old guy being the real challenger to a world number 1.

I am surprised to admit that Humble Rafa seems to be a more neutral fan relatively. Personally, I do not think GOAT debate should be done for active players who are still winning slams (at least contenders), but as skeezer put it:

18. Live with it.


Chrisford1 Says:

Fed lovers never “get it”. The weak era argument is not about claiming Fed is a talentless bum of no merit other than being lucky merit. That is a giant strawman. The argument is that while the weak era did have a few very good players and one great one (Fed) – the “pretty goods” were an inferior competitive product compared to what hit them and Fed hard. 3 teens that rocketed up the rankings and pushed aside the “pretty goods” like Hewitt and Roddick and took over the 2,3, 4 rankings behind Federer. Began going right at Fed and causing “The Maestro” fits.
When they arrived, Feds’s winning of big trophies (Masters 1000s, WTF, Slams) sharply abated. 12 Slams in the Weak Era, then 4 won when Rafa or Nole or both were not in shape to contend, and Murray still hadn’t learned how to win big. (
For slower reasoning Fed fans, that is the definition of a time of a weak era in sports, business, political office, etc.

Big fish in a small pond flourishes, but then encounters 3 sharp toothed young rivals that came from downstream. Big fish’s once easy pickings get harder.


Berghain Says:

Hey Wogboy,

Nice to see you back on tx.

Wondering what you think of Lubijic’s influence on Fed this AO. I dont think he gets enough credit. I noticed in the 5th set after a long rally Lubijic was pumping his fist against his chest with eye contact on Fed, kinda like Nole sometimes does. I think he definitely has helped Federer a lot.

CF1

What do you think of the lynch mob against trump?


kjb Says:

Everyone knows the weakest of all weak eras is 2012-present. When Grandpa Fed got back to #1, which was followed by Nole getting back to #1 and his only competition was ol Grandpa Fed and another veteran Swiss player, Stan, who didn’t start winning unntil the weakest of weak era. 18 and counting baby. With no one other than Novak, and Rafa/Stan on slow courts able to beat geriatric Fed even now, lets all enjoy the weakest era in the history of the weak eras, weak era…….Madrid 2009……oh and Fed has beat Murray 5? 6? times in a row, looks like he still hasn’t learned how to win big.


Wog Boy Says:

Hi Berghain,
Just temporary;)
Agree, the way Roger played against Rafa has Ljubicic written all over it, though low bouncing fastest ever AO court helped him too and not existing Rafa’s serve. His BH was aggressive and deadly producing angles that killed Rafa (like Stan), no chipping ball back like before.

Don’t start me on the other one, what media is doing is nothing short of hysteria, I am seriously worried that somebody is going to shoot Trump. When I was in Melbourne bunch of women (by the looks of them junkies and dole bludgers) were protesting for women rights against Trump…I mean in Melbourne?! It was hundreds of police deployed, with horses and other equipment, I am paying for them.
Lucky I work with lot of Americans these days, cruise season in Sydney and they paint completely different picture of what biased media is doing. One of them (Silversea cruises) told me yesterday that it is enough to look at USA voting map to see sea of red states (republicans) and only west coat and few on northern east coast are blue, that is how convincing was Republican victory and he also told me (he was from Arkansas) that Hillary hasn’t won one single county in Oklahoma.


Sachinroger Says:

If Djokovic played his peak game against ROGER in 2004…then Djokovic fans may understand Djokovic is nothing but most luckiest champion ever


Danica Says:

Hahahaha Sachinroger, good one. One can only LOL at that statement.


DC Says:

2004-2007 was such a weak era, that the world no 2 for. The majority of that era,Nadal ,could not win a single non-clay slam.
And Suddenly, after Fed got Mono which hampered his game, the era because very tough.

Nadal with his defensive attrition based game is lucky to have played in the era of homogenised surfaces, else he would have been classified as a clay wonder forever, which he truly is.


DC Says:

2004-2007 was such a weak era, that the world no 2 for the majority of that era,Nadal ,could not win a single non-clay slam.
And Suddenly, after Fed got Mono which hampered his game, the era became very tough.

Nadal with his defensive attrition based game is lucky to have played in the era of homogenised surfaces, else he would have been classified as a clay wonder forever, which he truly is.


Betterer Says:

Regardless of what my name might indicate, I still don’t undermine the achievements of any champion of any era.

Rod Laver – Greatest achievement of double calendar slam (doesn’t matter if one was before open era, he actually replicated it).

Bjorn Borg – Crazy champion to have those streaks at FO and Wim. Retired too early.

Roger Federer – People admire him as much for his style of play, and grace as for his 18 GS. Longevity is a main reason why so many are writing about him as GOAT now. He is a rare breed who actually let go of his ego, and adapted his game to stay competitive after the next generation of champions eventually caught up. We are yet to see if the other 3 members of the Big4 have it in them to replicate the same kind of adaptability and longevity.

Rafael Nadal – I have no qualms in admitting that he has the best ever lefty forehand. Like a matador who could keep running after the ball forever, and wears his opponents down by brute force. I wonder how much more he could have been with a serve as good as Federer.

Novak Djokovic – I call him the phoenix. He simply refuses to die in a crunch match. I both despise and admire him for that reason. He has become so much of a clutch player that you almost subconsciously know that he is going to pull out of trouble and win. And win he did, in so many tough 5 setters by routing the opponents 6-0,6-1 in the final set after neck-to-neck 4 sets. However, I can only wonder that from 2007-2014 FO, he was 6-7 in GS finals, and 6-1 from 2014Wim-2016FO. Yes Becker probably had an impact, still he didn’t drastically change his game so it must surely indicate something about the strength of the field during that period (with Rafa not in shape to contend like a certain someone puts it).

Andy Murray – I feel bad for the guy to be playing in this era. However, I am yet to find a single facet of his game that is truly unique and great like the others of this generation. His game seems like an inferior version of Novak in all aspects, including his returns. I do hope he proves me wrong going forward.

Stan Wawrinka – Late bloomer for sure. But brings out his demon level once in a while, and has won 3 GS while crushing the competition in awakened mode. One of the most gratifying parts about AO’17 was Fed managed to subdue Wawrinka in awakened mode (sets 3&4).

Sorry about the long post. I just wanted to be clear that biased as I might be, but I certainly do not look down on other champions. Notable champions missed in my list are Rosewall, Connonrs, Emerson, JMac, Sampras, Agassi, etc. as I haven’t watched them play much and/or do not know about them.


Okiegal Says:

@Wog Boy……..Obama didn’t carry one county in Oklahoma either…..I know, I was there…….lol!


Miles Says:

Why is it, when I read comments from Truth and Chris, I’m reminded of a time when I got trapped in a corner of a room at a party by a guy who talked incessantly about trains?

They are just soooooo tedious!


Wog Boy Says:

Okie,
I am an outsider, not American, but in my living memory that dates back to John F. Kennedy, Obama was by far the weakest US President, all talks, but no substance, Clinton clan puppet and trust me, I am not the only one that think so. Another outsider opinion, he did his best in the last month of his rule (by signing certain documents) to make the life of his successor as hard as possible what no US President did before, not that I know.


Wog Boy Says:

That must be the same pool that predicted landslide victory for the lousy democrats, headed by the war criminal Hillary, check out this map, the map of the people she couldn’t con, ordinary American people, so much of the red color:
http://www.270towin.com


Wog Boy Says:

^^ poll


Wog Boy Says:

How can anybody in their right mind question 306 vs 232 is beyond me. and they even had head start of 55 electoral votes from that failed socialist experiment called California:))


Margot Says:

^ In 2012 Trump tweeted: the Electoral College is a disaster.
So he disagreed for a start.
Hypocrite.
Meanwhile:
Clinton: 65,844,610 48.1%
Trump: 62,979,636 46%
How anyone in their right mind can question the fact that Clinton won the election is beyond me.


skeezer Says:

Hopng we see some faster HC’s this year, but there is no way Clay is changing, it is what it is. Same at Wimby, unless they dig up everything again like they did around the millennia.


the_mind_reels Says:

@Wog Boy: while you’re certainly entitled to your opinions, I for one wouldn’t mind you not mouthing off about places you aren’t from (like California). Last time I checked this wasn’t a forum for partisan politics — just extremely partisan tennis talk! Fascinating to hear such conviction about Americans from someone who lives so far away.

As for Oklahoma…guess who’s surprised? Nobody. Because a democrat hasn’t carried *any* county in OK since 2000.


Daniel Says:

California and socialism is a bit too much, the place is the epitome of capitalism and American Dream, and the wealthiest state in US. Just because there are some “green” and “tech” folks doesn’t make it socialist.


Danica Says:

Oh, I would love some socialism in the States as we do not have even a decent maternity leave, let alone vacations, normal health care and affordable higher education.


Okiegal Says:

About Oklahoma….Obama couldn’t carry a state where his gggggreat grand parents are buried…..right here in Pontotoc county where I reside.
They are the Creekmores and the McCurrys……the McCurrys migrated on to Kansas where his mother was born…….

The electoral college was established by our forefathers for two reasons. The first to create a buffer between population and the selection of a president and second as part of the structure of the government that gave the smaller states extra power……I get it…….I like it when my person wins because of the EC but don’t when my person loses when he won the popular vote. You can’t please ALL of the people ALL of the time……..Democrats calling for this to be changed…..and is it possible? Sure….but not probable??? I don’t know but believe there will be a move for this change to happen.


Okiegal Says:

On American politics……the bottom line……the constitution has the final say……like nit or not……


the_mind_reels Says:

@Okiegal: I haven’t seen anyone here disputing what the U.S. Constitution says. Though it sure will be fun seeing if Trump himself is able to stay within the confines of what the Constitution has laid out!


steve-o Says:

Wog Boy, many of those states which voted for Trump are very sparsely populated. On the map many of those red states look like a sea of Republican territory, but comparatively few people actually live there–as you would know if you had actually visited my country.

In many states that went for Trump in the electoral college, his margin of victory was very small in terms of the number of voters. But most states award their electoral votes via winner-take-all, so if a state goes 50.1% for Candidate A and 49.9 for Candidate B, Candidate A gets 100% of the electoral votes. In this sense, the electoral college distorts the impact of a small popular vote victory by magnifying it into a huge electoral victory.

The facts are that Clinton’s victory margin in the popular vote exceeded the margins of ten other popular-vote winners who became president. Nor is Trump’s electoral vote margin a “landslide” as he would have everyone believe.

It is our undemocratic electoral college–which a mere sixteen years ago allowed another popular-vote loser to become president, with help from our Supreme Court–that allowed Trump to win by appealing to a rather narrow band of the electorate, particularly those who live in rural areas.

According to the 2010 census, only 19.3% of Americans live in rural areas, the other 80.7% live in urban areas. Yet it is voters from that 19.3% who proved decisive in the key states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan–about 80,000 people, a number of voters that could fit into an American football stadium.

As for Oklahoma, they have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968, and as the _mind_reels pointed out, every Republican has swept all counties since 2000–so I am not impressed by your friend’s assertion. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you see.

You don’t know much about America and certainly not about American politics, and ten minutes’ conversation with a cruise ship worker doesn’t make you an expert or give you “the real picture.”

Nor do I appreciate your comments about who does or does not constitute a “ordinary American.” You are either an American citizen or not. That is all that matters. None of us are any more or less American than the others.

I don’t talk about your country’s politics because I don’t know anything about it, and I’ll thank you for exercising the same courtesy.


Wog Boy Says:

@he_mind_reels
If you font like it scroll it, besides, doesn’t really matter wher one lives today in the era of internet and I work with Americans a lot, so mine opinion is largely based on what I hear from them.

“Meanwhile:
Clinton: 65,844,610 48.1%
Trump: 62,979,636 46%”

Sorry, that doesn’t count, for a reason, but check this one out:

http://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html#.WJogbIE8aEc


Okiegal Says:

@Mind reels………Okey dokey.!!


Okiegal Says:

@WB……..Thanks for the link in your 2:31 comment……great explanation of this thing we call the electoral college…..interesting!


sinha71 Says:

Okiegal Says:
On American politics……the bottom line……the constitution has the final say……like nit or not……

Mmmm… not quite, Constitution is only as strong as those in power willing to enforce it (which seem to be lacking). Otherwise, it’s just ink.


Wog Boy Says:

No probs Okie, sore losers will be sore losers;)


Okiegal Says:

@WB,…….YEP!!

@sinha71……..Whatever you think!


Margot Says:

steve-o @ 2.22pm
Wasting your breath as far as WB is concerned, but I was very interested in what you wrote.


Berghain Says:

Oh I see I opened a can of worms here.

WG stick around, no fun with-out you :).

Im gonna stay out of this one tonight, as I have had a long day.

Ill only add its best to accept the results and move forward.

Be back soon.


Wog Boy Says:

steve-o,

You spent so much time to explain one thing, that you are not happy with the outcome of election and the system that has been in place for hundreds years and I never heard so much crying about it until this year, sorry, you wasted your time, but if that made you feel better I am happy for you.

The American(s) I was talking with and I’ve been talking for the last 25 years is (are) not my friend(s) nor cruise worker, they are my customers, tourists and their profile is, very well educated, older and fairly wealthy. If you don’t like their opinion it is your tough luck, but they are entitled on one same as you are and it is up to me which one I will accept, not up to you or Margot or XX.


Berghain Says:

Whether this is a fast moving coup to rob Trump of the presidency remains to be seen. Popular vote or not if that is the case – as far as im concerned – democracy is dead in the US.

Ok that was all from me.


Wog Boy Says:

Berghain,

:))


Danica Says:

Steve,
You think that Al Gore was seriously a candidate after two disastrous Clonton’s mandates? The votes will be adjusted always to follow the pattern of a D potUS – R potUS – D potUS – R potUS… Remember this in 3 or 7 years. The next new potUS will be a D.


Chrisford1 Says:

Berghain – “CF1
What do you think of the lynch mob against trump?”

============
You asked and others opined, so here’s my two cents:

Trump was elected by voters disgusted with anti-Amerricam, class warfare liberals and their allies in lawfare, the media, and academia.
Perhaps most of all, disgusted with the perpetual outrage machine the Democrats have assembled and the pervasive atmosphere of PC and calling anyone who disagrees with them “racist, sexist, Islamophobic, and haters of all the 100s of millions of noble 3rd Worlders demanding to be let in.

I would say the pendulum is swinging rightwards not only in America, but many other 1st and 2nd world nations. Trump is a harbinger of things to come. So was Brexit, as Eurocrats pushed far too hard for EU member nations to welcome the deluge of 3rd Worlders wanting in to get in cities and thrive on goodies paid for by Europeans. All while rejecting the nations morals and culture, setting up their own “no go zones” native whiter Europeans enter at their own risk.

As Trump goes on, no doubt he will enrage the Left further with not only blunders and being a blowhard along with policies the US has vital need for the Democrats and Republican establishment ignores.
But consider the lack of Leftist shock!! and outrage!!! when the whole stinking Labour Party PC apparatus was exposed in the UK with the Rotherham kiddie rape scandal.
The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men. Abuses described included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children. Labour town council and police reporting to them hushed the whole thing up, lest they be accused of racism from making arrests in Rotherham or other Brit cities where Muslim gangs were playing the same child prostitution game.

Not only did the Brits act like cowardly and disgraceful wussy boys, Sweden was caught hushing up Muslim rapes on “infidel whores ” burglary waves and other crimes, and Merkel was caught with German Federal police and media hiding the Cologne sex assault fest on 509 German women that were reported, committed by 1500-2,000 Muslim men that plotted doing this on New Years Eve 2016.

Leftists are saying “ignore all that stuff, the real villain is Trump. Booo! Hiss!”. It’s not working, no matter how much lefties march and squeal and claim special Victimhood status.


Chrisford1 Says:

Okiegal Says:

On American politics……the bottom line……the constitution has the final say……like nit or not…

==================
Minor correction. The Constitution is simply an operating manual for a nation to run by. The Founding Fathers were not visited by God and thus made an inerrant, perfect document with final say forever over all – like Muslims believe the Koran to be.
The Civil War is the best example the original document was badly flawed and the difficulty of amending it – when slave states had no intent of allowing Amendment. All other nations in the Western Hemisphere peacefully ended slavery, save Haiti. They simply passed laws or did a quick revision to their Constitution making abolition the law of the land. The US also had the votes to end it by 1850 or so. But couldn’t. The US Constitution meant the matter had to be decided by gun, cannon, and torch in America.
The Constitution itself acknowledges “We The People” as creators of the national operating manual – have the final say. The can burn the original and create a revised Constitution if they have the courage to admit it is outdated in many areas and needs revision as much as US States and other nations constitutions do..Typically one revision by convention, etc., very 50 years.


skeezer Says:

TENNIS X STAFF,

PAhleassse! Enough already.


Berghain Says:

Damn Cf1 you know your stuff. Just checked in before bed time. Will say I think meany powers are trying to reverse the swinging of the pendulum – scary to think what maybe will happen.

Sorry Skeezer its my fault, I started it. I find it interesting. Funny enough on a tennis site you find sometimes interesting views.

Peace!


Okiegal Says:

@Chrisford1…..It is still ruling on the electoral college issue…….was my point…..sorry Skeezer….I had to respond to Chris…..proper etiquette…..bub bye!


squirrel Says:

Wog-Boy
“Meanwhile:
Clinton: 65,844,610 48.1%
Trump: 62,979,636 46%”

Sorry, that doesn’t count, for a reason, but check this one out:
————————————-

I’m sorry, that doesn’t count? As in for final outcome? Sure, but the popular votes do say a lot about the what the majority of Americans preferred…

Electoral college vote is a very biased and unfair system. For example, three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to-end-the-electoral-college_b_12891764.html

I hope the change the system…


squirrel Says:

*they change


sinha71 Says:

Racism is alive and well.

No data supports Trump’s persistent claims that immigrants are responsible for an outsized share of crime.

https://t.co/tewMFqtQBN

“But no data has ever supported Trump’s persistent claims that immigrants are responsible for an outsized share of crime. The research that has focused on immigrants and crime has actually concluded that immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal activity — and their presence may even make communities safer. Studies show that immigration has no effect on crime rates and that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, or be incarcerated, than the general population. In fact, violent crime actually declines in areas where foreign-born communities have grown.”

How Anti-Immigration Activists Misuse Rape Statistics

“This article will show that according to crime victim surveys, the actual rate of sex crimes has been more or less unchanged in Sweden between 2005 and 2014, despite the fact that immigration has increased during the same time period. Instead, the increasing rates of reported rapes are influenced by expansion of the legal rape definition, an increase in the tendency to report rapes, police efforts to classify each individual rape as a separate crime and their tendency to classify any sex crime that could potentially be rape as rape. It will also demonstrate that reported rates between countries such as Sweden and Denmark cannot be naively compared to do the large difference in legal rape definition and police registration methods.”

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/debunkingdenialism.com/2015/12/12/how-anti-immigration-activists-misuse-rape-statistics/amp/


sinha71 Says:

Finally just one more…

“Sweden, the story goes, used to be very peaceful, very safe, very blond. Then it started letting in darker-skinned people. Soon there were news reports of attacks on Swedes. Now, Sweden records the highest incidence of rape in the world.

The Sweden story has become absolutely viral. You’ve probably read a version in a Facebook post, or heard it in a speech or debate. It is the argument-ender of the intolerant: To make the case against refugees, or immigration, or “Islam,” you recount a couple of stories about refugee-camp horrors, some random anecdotes of sex crimes involving brown people in various countries, and then drop the Sweden story.

Behind it you’ll find the resurrection of an old, deadly appeal to fear – that people of certain skin colours are natural-born predators who threaten white women. It’s a version of lynch-mob logic that happens to appeal to the liberal and tolerant as much as the hateful and intolerant.

And it falls apart as soon as you speak to anyone knowledgeable in Sweden.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-rape-crisis-isnt-what-it-seems/article30019623/


squirrel Says:

Preach it sinha71! :)


Miles Says:

Squirrel – there is no such thing as ‘the popular vote’, if there were, candidates would attempt to win it!

There are 3,141 voting counties in the USA – Trump was victorious in 3,084 of them!

Clinton won just 57. Fifty seven! By winning 4 of the 5 boroughs on NY city, Clinton gained 2 million votes on Trump nationally. A similar thing happened in parts of California. Face it, Trump had national support and the refusal of some Democrats to accept his presidency is actually undermining the democratic foundations of the country.


Miles Says:

Margot writes: How anyone in their right mind can question the fact that Clinton won the election is beyond me.

I’m amazed you don’t know how the USA constitution works! The so-called ‘popular vote’ does not decide anything! If it did, NY and California would be permanently in charge!


squirrel Says:

@Miles

I understand what you’re saying. Yes, Trump won fair and square the election, and you’re right, the Democrats need to accept his presidency, in order to also respect and not undermine democracy.

My point was just to counteract what Wog Boy said. He implied that the majority of Americans preferred and wanted Trump as the president when the majority of Americans voted for Clinton.


Margot Says:

https://lawfareblog.com/its-not-foreigners-who-are-plotting-here-what-data-really-show
Racists hate facts so here’s some.
@Miles
I know full well how the constitution works. It seems rigged to me, as steve-i implied. My point was Clinton won the popular vote.


Danica Says:

About 60% of Americans that can vote, voted. Of those 60%, some 5% voted for third party candidates. So 55% was divided between Trump and HC (who had to steal votes in preliminaries. People wanted Bernie over her.) So, saying that the majority of the US citizens wanted HC to win is a bit far fetched.


Truth Says:

90% of the rural areas voted for Trump. Killary can’t win if she only had a small monority of the country and Obama fanatic votes.
That’s why it’s named “the president election”,
not the “racist, token minority president fanatic election”.
Lies, skin color fear mongering and violence can only get you so far in politica.

The Demtards in big California/NJ/NY cities,
- Hollywood trash like the SNL writer that attacked Trump’s little son,
- the talent deficient Taylor Swift, Ashley Judd & Madonna
voted for Killary Clinton.
If you call the election after counting just the saturated big Demtard population in CA, NJ & NJ, then it’s not a country election.
Isn’t that special?


sinha71 Says:

Stealing votes in preliminaries even more far fetched (unless your name is Comey).

More accurately, less than 55% voted.

Despite Trump calling it a “landslide victory”, electoral college margin placed 44th out of 54 in history – one of the smallest.

Clinton outpaced Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%).

Trump lost the popular vote by greater margin than any other president (5 times more than 2nd largest margin).

There have been 54 presidential elections since the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804. (Before that, presidential electors cast two votes each, making it hard to compare them to present-day elections.)


Truth Says:

* NY & NJ


Danica Says:

And blaming Russians on lost elections even farer fetched.
Ridiculous.


Truth Says:

Anthony Weiner was not the reason Killary lost.
Bill Clinton can cry and throw hissy fits.
Bill can now concentrate on his real paternity test for a prostitute’s son.

Despite the lower voter count, Obama voters decided to vote for Trump.


Berghain Says:

Not the first time the Popular vote lost the election and wont be the last. George Soros actually predicted Trump would win the popular vote and loose the electoral college.
Had the situation been reversed all the anti-trump campaigners would be making the opposite argument.

Seriously though maybe 1 or 2 states should just secede so people could stfu already! then it would be 48 states trump and Hillary or whoever can have the other 2. Then you can discus your lgbt rights all day. Wonder what ppl would say then! should of never asked the question as I see days later this is still a Thema.


sinha71 Says:

Not at all. Comey announced investigation Oct. 28 when Clinton was at 82% and a week later she had plummeted to 64% so it had a significant impact and relied on gullibility which was the bigger factor.


Wog Boy Says:

“My point was just to counteract what Wog Boy said. He implied that the majority of Americans preferred and wanted Trump as the president when the majority of Americans voted for Clinton.”

squirrel,

Stop making a fool of yoursef lying, I never said what you implied in trying to dig youself out of nonsense that you created yourself. I said “it doesn’t count” since there is no such a thing as popular vote in US election and I added “for a reason” excatly the one that most populus states would choose president every single time, that is where those 2.8 million extra votes for HC came from (California and NY) and according to quite a few extremly well educated Americans that spoke with (no cruise workers) that is why the dystem has been put in the place hundreds years ago, to prevent those states choosing the president every single time.


Wog Boy Says:

I’ll give you an example, almost twenty years ago I looked after mariachi band in Sydney that Mexucan embassy brought in to perform. I had the chance to speak with person that was in charge of them, she was from LA and she was an American-Mexican, I asked her how many Mexicans live in Cali, she answered “we are getting close to the half” and added “we are just taking back what is ours without the war”, I was taken aback whit this blatant answer and stopped asking.

Question: How many like her voted for HC and would that be view of manority of Americans? Think twice before you answer and think deep.
I have to go mow, my American customers are waiting for me, another ship in the harbour.


Wog Boy Says:

^^ majority


Margot Says:

And billionaire Republican fund raiser and close friend of the Donald, Betsy DeVos gets the job!
“Draining the swamp?” Oh the irony.
BTW she wants to “advance God’s kingdom throughout the US.” Now that’s a unifying principle. Not.
Thought a fundamental of US constitution was the freedom to worship, or not.


Okiegal Says:

@Miles 9:53…….You are correct…..exactly why our forefathers set up the electoral college in the first place…..heavily populated areas. This is my understanding too. Sorry again Skeezer……


Okiegal Says:

Eeek Trump hijacked a Roger thread…….I just now noticed this! Lol


sinha71 Says:

Margot, it’s all about misdirection and inconsistent information. By design. Shock and awe.

Fascism is alive and well in America (as with much of the rest of the world with populism).


Truth Says:

Oh yes. How are the terrorists that killed thousands of US people, to see virgins in the afterlife?
I guess the virgins and Allah were so good to terrorists?

Why are insane or deluded, brainwashed people treated as normal people?
If Dems can’t distinguish between an angry good person and a smiling bad person in a suit, who’s at fault?
You think most people came to this country to be tolerant of atheists, humble and not greedy for money?
The descendants of slave owner and slaves are so obsessed with ramming their traditions & religions down everyone’s (including a refugee’s) throat.
Holidays and school activities based on fake stories and commercialism.
Scare the kids to paint easter eggs & wear Halloween costumes, scare the kids so that they have to buy gifts for strangers and decorate classes with Pilgrim drawings in school.


Wog Boy Says:

Truth,
They died in vain, virgins are not good..to much work to do and not much gain..ok ok lighten up people;)


Chrisford1 Says:

Margot – I am old enough I remember the Yiddish copies of The Forward at NYC news stands. Basically, Leftist Jews that were /are hard core socialists. Had Marx and Engels busts on their Forward skyscraper when it was built for the Forward! But actually never embraced communism and Stalinism like harder core Left-Fascists did.
Trump, for tennis, is like George Bush I. Played the sport at a decent level when he was younger, then recreationally, for exercise when his legs weren’t there anymore for full matches. Trump has been a high profile (shocked!) sponsor of the US Open. Had many famous tennis players invited to his charity golf events. Once the leftist hate and outrage machine finally simmers down on his victory, Trump might emulate Bush the Elder and have lots of tennis stars and young American players at the White House for some events. Silver lining of the dark cloud for those that favored the “empowered by nepotism” and thoroughly corrupt Hillary over the big orange faced blowhard.


Thomas Says:

Great to see Fed win another slam!

As for the butthurt “Hillary won the popular vote” morons, guess what-it doesn’t count. You play by the rules of the game. Let me try and explain it like this. Voting is not compulsory in America. Now, imagine you’re a Trump supporter in California. California is a very liberal state. At the end of the day, a Trump supporters vote isn’t going to count jack shit in Cali as the democratic nominee(in this case Hillary) is almost certainly going to win anyway. Now, if the US went by the popular vote, those Trump supporters votes in California WOULD make a discernible difference to the outcome and they would be far more likely to make the effort to vote. Now, there were undoubtedly Hillary supporters in Republican/red states who had the opposite problem, but the point is we don’t know how many extra voters from either side would have shown up if the national popular vote was the parameter by which the election was decided.

If the popular vote was the parameter by which the election was decided, both candidates would have campaigned differently. Trump would have spent more time campaigning in Red states like Texas, and less time campaigning in “swing states”. Same goes for Shillary. The point I’m making is that we’ve no idea how things would have panned out if the popular vote was the parameter by which the president of the US was decided. The dumbass, deranged “popular vote” who deny that Trump rightfully won the election are something like this: They are like that guy who plays a game of chess with someone, but their opponent checkmates them despite them having more pieces on the board than their opponent. The guy who loses at the end of the game then says “Buut I had more pieces on the board, I am the real winner despite you checkmating me!”. Idiots, you agree to the rules beforehand, and if you lose by the rules agreed to beforehand you lose. You don’t say “If the rules were this, she’d have won!” coz you’ve no idea how things would have panned out if things were like that.


squirrel Says:

It’s funny, so many people here defending the fact that Trump won with the electoral college votes, when no one argues the fact that he won fair and square the presidency. People are more focused on the fact that he’s already doing the lousiest job as a president for a mere two weeks in the office. These people never want to discuss that. But I guess they’re in love with his executive orders especially the travel ban, that is clearly and undisputedly racist. Good lord, what kind of world do we live in now…


Danica Says:

Thomas,
Easier to compare to tennis – many a time a player who won more points, or more games, loses.


Truth Says:

Interesting. Why would Trump have needed to campaign in several more states when Killary was struggling to win even several counties per state?
No one in their right mind expressed gratitude that Killary said yes to Obama wars with “collateral damage”, and that Bill Clinton “ruled them” and “SERVED their feminist” Monica Lewinsky.
I have no interest in “women’s marches” and their orgasmic supporters.

Hos Madonna and Taylor Swift can use as many men as possible to get Dems in the White House, but I prefer real people, real presidents & real politicians.


sinha71 Says:

^^^Except with potentially very different consequences.


skeezer Says:

For those who feel the need to talk World Politics, Tennis X has been gracious enough to accommodate you with a section to rant:

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2017-02-08/25307.php

Top story: Ostapenko Beats Larsson Who Tells Swedish Media She is Gay at WTA Seoul