Was Federer lucky to have won 16 Grand slam ?

[maniac]

Since - when are you watching tennis? Sampras is the MOST mentally tough player I have ever seen. I'm sure you aren't aware of many a Sampras encounters. I suggest you read up rather than throwing random statements. He didn't "choke" on clay courts. Losing is not equal to "choking" - he didn't have the skill to win on clay courts. Simple as that. And when did I say Nadal or Sampras is better than Federer? I said mentally they are better not in terms of tennis skill. You need to stop getting your panties in a twist everytime I write something even remotely close which is not good to Federer. Federer is A BETTER and MORE COMPLETE tennis players than I have ever seen. He's an ATG player but not a GOAT - I don't think there exists one. Probably, Steffi Graf (not an appropriate comparison but need to make to get the point across) is the closest complete tennis player I have seen. And hey, here's something for you to suck on - Laver thinks Rafael Nadal "is not far behind" Federer and is "very close". But sure, keep ignoring that! Because for people like you there is a counter and 1 more slam means he's gone 1 step further. That measure is imbecile because you are disrespecting people like Laver, Margaret Court, Emerson etc.

Ok now I am confused 1-You say Federer is the most complete player you have seen 2-You say Rod Laver agreed that Federer is one of the best players he has seen-Not the benchmark but a compliment nevertheless for Federer 3-You say Sampras was ahead of Federer but agree he was not good enough on clay 4-Now you say calling Federer the GOAT is disrespecting other legends-If iI say SRT is the greatest batsman I have seen ....how is that disrespectful to Ponting or Lara? 5-You said you never said Nadal was ahead of federer 6-You rate players on their mental toughness-Isn't that more of an subjective parameter than an objecyive one that is Federer's record in comparison to other legends? I hope this is not one of your Nerd Talk puzzles because I am completely lost,maybe you can help me decipher it

[Crookbond]

Of course Nadal is not far behind. But he is behind nonetheless. And if he is behind,Federer must be better no? As far the best grass court player goes,Sampras and Federer are on an even keel. But again we are speculating.

Yes - We are just speculating and hence I don't want any ONE player to be declared as GOAT. All the names I have mentioned above are GOATS in their own right. Rafael Nadal may or may not be - that will only be seen in days to come. If what Laver says is TRUE, I believe Nadal will reach that Pantheon (or probably already is - since he's not far behind) one day.

[Crookbond]

Ok now I am confused 1-You say Federer is the most complete player you have seen 2-You say Rod Laver agreed that Federer is one of the best players he has seen-Not the benchmark but a compliment nevertheless for Federer 3-You say Sampras was ahead of Federer but agree he was not good enough on clay 4-Now you say calling Federer the GOAT is disrespecting other legends-If iI say SRT is the greatest batsman I have seen ....how is that disrespectful to Ponting or Lara? 5-You said you never said Nadal was ahead of federer 6-You rate players on their mental toughness-Isn't that more of an subjective parameter than an objecyive one that is Federer's record in comparison to other legends? I hope this is not one of your Nerd Talk puzzles because I am completely lost,maybe you can help me decipher it

:facepalm: I am dissecting based on different skills. IF I say Nadal has a better physique than Federer, does that mean Nadal is better than Federer? No - It means in the "physical" department he's better. This was just an example - don't quote me on this :mad: [1] Federer and Steffi Graf are the most COMPLETE players in terms of tennis skill [2] Sampras and Nadal are the most mentally tough players - this doesn't mean Sampras/Nadal are better tennis players than Federer they just are more mentally strong. Federer is not sh!t too but Nadal/Sampras are better. Just like Sampras is not sh!t compared to Federer but behind in terms of tennis skill the same logic in the mental department. You are equating Sampras' lack of skill on clay courts to "choking" which is seriously :WTF: There's a way to discern between the two. If you really want what choking is, I will take out one of Federer's game (just once or twice probably) but hey I don't want to hurt your sentiments. [3] Federer along with Laver, Emerson, Sampras, Grag, Court, Navratilova are GOATs. Yes, not a single player but a group of them. Calling just one player GOAT is disrespecting others because you are speculating on what you have been watching. The others MAY have been good too! So a great in one era, is a great in another [4] Federer and Sampras are on the same level in terms of skill on grass courts [5] Nadal is head and shoulders above anyone on clay courts

[Raghav_12]

Didn't Nadal win his first title in 2005? FO. Nadal reached world no.3 in 2005 itself. He was not absolute nobody. If anything Federer's worst period was before 2003. Not after 2007 where he won 5 titles.

Nadal was teenager in 2005. He turned 21 in 2007 only and you know after that what he has done to Federer. A teenager Nadal who didn't even have a game for any court other than grass became no 2 or 3, says all about that era.

[Raghav_12]

Yes,another fact lost on people trying diminish Fedz legacy. Nadal won his first slam in 2005 and was ranked number 2 in the world. He could have beaten mugs like Safin,Hewitt,Roddick and Federer and easily become number 1 in the world.He was 19 but already a great player. Yet he became number only after a full 3.5 years post wimbledon2008 beating a glandular fever affected Federer 9-7 in the final.Kudos to him for doing that but Federer's last great match was the Tennis Masters Cup final in 2007.Once he developed glandular fever,he was never the same.You could see it in the semi at the AO against djokovic.

So a 19 year old who didn't even have a game for all courts became no 2 and if he doesn't tell anything about that era than nothing else would.You questioning that why Nadal didn' become no 1 at the age of 20, then you should go and find out how much Federer had achieved by the age of 21 or 22. But wait until 2002 there were players like Sampras, Agassi, Rafter and an Ivanesevich. But, nobody is answering simple question, do you think Federer would have won more GS if Nadal had not emerged post 2007?

[vvvslaxman]

Nadal was teenager in 2005. He turned 21 in 2007 only and you know after that what he has done to Federer. A teenager Nadal who didn't even have a game for any court other than grass became no 2 or 3' date=' says all about that era.[/quote'] No era is best in that case. There are so many fluke wins in Tennis over the years. I remmeber micahel stich beat Stefan edberg in wimbledon. Amazingly Edberg did not lose a single game to Stich!! Didn't Nadal lose to David ferrer in straight sets in Australian open? If he is that great a player why did he lose to him that badly? Why did Nadal get knocked out in the second round by a random dude 27 year old Rosol? Fact is every player has a peak . Sustaining peak is difficult regardless of quality of the opposition. In 2010... Nadal won 3 major titles. In 2011 Djok won 3 major titles. Federer achieved that feat thrice. Is there a chance they could repeat that? I doubt.

[vvvslaxman]

So a 19 year old who didn't even have a game for all courts became no 2 and if he doesn't tell anything about that era than nothing else would.You questioning that why Nadal didn' become no 1 at the age of 20, then you should go and find out how much Federer had achieved by the age of 21 or 22. But wait until 2002 there were players like Sampras, Agassi, Rafter and an Ivanesevich. But, nobody is answering simple question, do you think Federer would have won more GS if Nadal had not emerged post 2007?[/QUOTE] NO he might not have won.

[vvvslaxman]

An FYI Leyton hewitt won 7 of the first 9 meetings against Federer. But next 16.. was a completely different story.

[Raghav_12]

This post belies your seriousness in this discussion.

[vvvslaxman]

Prove me wrong.

[vvvslaxman]

[Raghav_12]

Start a poll with the question that you answered in negative.

[adi B]

Some pearls in this thread gleaned from some of the tennis experts who know more about tennis than Laver,Mcenroe and Borg combined. -Borg is not an ATG - Federer won 17 slams, 6 Tennis Masters Cups, a zillion masters titles,almost 300 weeks at #1 being mentally fragile and by getting lucky -Wimby 2012 is the only slam Federer deserves - Safin,Hewitt,Nalbandian,Roddick,Gonzalez,Ferrero,Davydenko were absolute mugs; all Federer had to do was to show up and he would win the slam. - Federer is a mental midget;during his peak years (2004-2007) he went to 5 sets 7 whole times (yes 7 times in 3 years;how dare he!) winning 4 of them.He had no business losing the remaining three (BTW he won more points in two of those and had a foot injury in the third) - H2H is the only determining factor in determining who the better player is; nevermind the surface and also discounting the fact that a player needs to succeed against the remaining 99% of the field. There are a countless more of these but I am sure everybody remotely having some knowledge of tennis can see what I am getting at. Remind me again;who is the number 1 player in the world today?

love u brah.. maar daala :two_thumbs_up:

[vvvslaxman]

What is your explanation? I say his peak is gone.

[Yoda-esque]

So a 19 year old who didn't even have a game for all courts became no 2 and if he doesn't tell anything about that era than nothing else would.You questioning that why Nadal didn' become no 1 at the age of 20, then you should go and find out how much Federer had achieved by the age of 21 or 22. But wait until 2002 there were players like Sampras, Agassi, Rafter and an Ivanesevich. But, nobody is answering simple question, do you think Federer would have won more GS if Nadal had not emerged post 2007?

You still don't realize the futility of your argument,do you ? Let me state the gaping holes in this argument one last time and hope that it stops you from asking your barrage of another set of what-if questions.

• The entire argument is one big what-if scenario,nevermind that it does not take into account various factors like the form ,age,fitness ,courts,balls,ailments.

• It does not take take into account the year in which all of them miraculously hit their peak form

• It also make the most glaring and flawed assumption that Nadal would be playing as he did in 2008 and 2010 for all years and Federer playing beyond his 2007 years. Nadal hasnt won a hard court tournamant for 2 years now and 75% of his titles even now after 2007 are on clay in 25% of the season.He is virtually AWOL for the rest of the tennis calendar. So what makes you think he could dominate 2003-2007 Fed on other surfaces ,nevermind Djokovic?

• It assumes Djokovic would be playing like his 2011 year for all his years

• It completely discounts players from Federer's era Roddick was a very formidable player in 203 and 2004 until Connors changed his playing style. Safin was a beast in the late 2004 and early 2005 seasons.Just watch the 2004 Masters cup to see what I mean. Hewitt was an amazing counter puncher and was very consistent. Blake/Gonzo/Ljubicic/Nalby/Davy/Ferrer/Berdych might not have won slams but have taken out Nadal in slams

There are a million other reasons I can state but I dont have the time to do that now. And if you still want the answer to your pointless argument,check the ICF poll.What can I say? Now what point of your argument would you like me to cede to so that you can have a graceful exit from this thread?

[adi B]

nadal is the greatest player i have seen on a particular surface i.e clay,better than maybe a fedex or even sampras on their favorite surface i.e grass... but federer=GOAT.. straight and simple

[vvvslaxman]

nadal is the greatest player i have seen on a particular surface i.e clay,better than maybe a fedex or even sampras on their favorite surface i.e grass... but federer=GOAT.. straight and simple

Much like Sehwag on flat pitches :cantstop: .

[Sooda]

+1 The "Career Grand Slam" are just like some new terms to put more honor. I've never heard them earlier until Federer won a French Open - I swear!

Agassi too of course, its impossible now a days to do a calender year slam, the only active player is probably Serena beause at her best she is so much better than anyone else

[Mariyam]

I mean do you think he would have won so many GS ' date=' had Nadal and Djovic debuted and peaked earlier ?[/quote'] Was Einstein lucky to have discovered relativity? I mean do you think he would have made such an everlasting impact on science, had Newton,Pascal, Khayyam and Aryabhatta been his contemporaries?

[BeautifulGame]

There is nothing could have/should have or would have kinda logic about the fact that Federer numbers benefited a lot from lack of depth in ATP circuit between 2003 to 2007. I had asked two questions in my earlier posts which none of Federer-ist chose to answer. 2. I had asked how many think that Federer's number of GS would have been even higher if Nadal and Djoko had not emerged. I can understand why Federer's fan avoiding an answer to this question. Yoda-E, I am not trolling here. I just honestly believe so.

Yes probably because Nadal would probably have retired due to injuries by now if he had emerged earlier meaning Federer would have won few French opens too.