Federer

[golfaddict1]

1 hour ago, maxchoboian said:

Borg got the chicks.

Connors was engaged to Chris Evert and married a Playboy Playmate of the year (still married too).  Not too shabby.  

[954gator]

7 hours ago, nptb17 said:

Michael Chang was my favorite tennis playing growing up.

I still play with one of Aggassi's original tennis racquets.  Back in the day when Pro's actually used the retail racquets they advertize (and the retail's were actually worth their price). 

[ThunderRam]

On 1/28/2018 at 8:14 PM, maxchoboian said:

World rankings in tennis take all play into account, not just the Grand Slams, and Federer has been ranked #1 more weeks than any other male player ever. He's at the top in a lot more than just Grand Slams. He'd probably win a few of the NASCAR races too.

It doesn't take into account David Cup or Olympics.

Also, Fed has been around longer than the other guys too and largely w/o competition until they came around. There's a chance Djokovic could surpass the total weeks ranked #1 when it's all said and done. And he would have done so playing during a time of intense competition by comparison.

Both Rafa and Djokovic own him head-to-head -- all time and in Grand Slams.

IMO, you can't be the GOAT when your rivals have your number.

[ThunderRam]

16 hours ago, 954gator said:

@ThunderRam

Nadal is definitely the king of clay, but lately Fed has gotten the best of Nadal in their recent matches.  

 

Agreed. Roger's resurgence, especially at his age and after a 5 year drought, is quite impressive. Men's tennis has never seen anything like it.

But Rafa still dominates their all-time head-to-head 23-15 and 9-3 in Majors (6-3 in Finals). Some like to point to Rafa's dominance on clay (13-2), but he's more than held his own on Roger's best surfaces (9-11 hard court; 1-2 grass). That's often overlooked.

16 hours ago, 954gator said:

These next two years will be very interesting for sure.  I just think Fed's strengths are easier to maintain at an older age than Rafa's.   

I totally agree. But many of us, myself included, thought Rafa's style of play wouldn't last into his 30's but he's been able to bounce back after some major injuries. He's not as good as he was 8 years ago, but still a threat to win a few more.

6 Majors on hard courts and grass is pretty damned good considering those surfaces don't play to his strengths.

[ThunderRam]

15 hours ago, nptb17 said:

DJokovic is better than Nadal.  Before their last match Djokovic had won like 5 or 6 in a row.  He hits threw Nadal and bombs him with his serve.

Maybe, maybe not. At one point Rafa was way ahead head to head, but Joker's recent run of dominance the past 7-8 years has him slightly ahead 26-24, but Rafa still has a decided edge in Grand Slam matches at 9-4 (4-3 in Finals).

[ThunderRam]

15 hours ago, 954gator said:

Now if Nadal had a killer service game....

He's actually improved his serve, which helped him win 2 slams last season. It's not Fed level, but still better than it had been and he's getting more free points.

[ThunderRam]

11 hours ago, nptb17 said:

Michael Chang was my favorite tennis playing growing up.

I'm a big Chang fan too. During my playing days, I had parts of Chang and Nadal in my game (obviously nowhere near their levels). I always appreciated and admired Chang's relentlessness. That guy could get to nearly every ball.

[ECHS05]

During my lifetime, Ive been the best at pretty much everything, Professional Tennis (to include Table), Nascar, PGA, NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, etc...

When I played them, Feder was always better than Nadal.

Once I retire, Im selling my Xbox.

[ThunderRam]

22 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

For me, at his best, Nadal is the greatest of all time. When you consider how much of his career has been spent recovering from all sorts of injuries ( knees, back, wrist, etc. ), you have to assume without them, his grand slam totals would have been more, why Federer's  would have been less due to the head to head.

 

I tend to align with your thinking. But it's just so hard for me to hand out the title of GOAT to anyone. There are just so many factors to be considered. My answer would change based upon longevity or who was the best for a season or short period of time (for example, some forget how dominant and great Ivan Lendl was).

For me, I can make arguments for Borg, Rafa, Federer or Djokovic. I think they are the greatest 'all-around' players I've seen. If Andre Agassi had been more committed to his career early on, I would have added him to that list. He was a great all-around player regardless of surface.

 

11 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

Like I pointed out,  Nadal up until last season, was not Nadal.  In 2013 he beat Djoc at U.S. Open, then won the French in 2014 and hurt his back right before the U.S. Open, where he was playing great and was the prohibitive favorite. Since that point, he has struggled with various injuries and trying to get back his form and confidence. He wasn't, and still is not, the same dominant Rafa. In fact, I had claimed amongst my friends that he was finished, and that his body would never allow him to win a major again because the 5 sets were too demanding  and his confidence was shot. He amazed me last season. Djoc is going through something similar now with his elbow. He is not the same player, and his confidence is not their also. It is extremely hard to regain the number 1 status, especially mentally where it is all important at that level.

 

Yeah, there's a fine line with Rafa's confidence. When he's confident, he's near impossible to breakdown and beat. But he struggles to maintain it at times. I remember when he finally lost at Roland Garros largely due to his parents divorce. His head just wasn't right.

And once his Djokovic broke through against him and he and Uncle Toni refused to change things up ... he lost his confidence big time. Injuries to his wrist played a big part too.

But I like what I've seen from him since Carlos Moya took over as coach and Uncle Toni took a backseat. Last season was a great year and I even thought he had a great chance to win the Aussie last week (he was playing fantastically), but the unforeseen injury put an end to that.

22 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

What do you think of Pistol Pete ? When his game was on, there was no one better in my opinion. Also had a lot of injuries, plus the fact he only made the semi' at the French once in his career. His serve and volley was the best, and I think his game could counter against today's baseliners. His consistency on ground game  would always be the argument against him, however.

I don't have Pete among my best all-around as he pretty much relied on that serve and volley game. He couldn't slug it out with Fed, Rafa, Borg, Novak or even Agassi when it came to ground strokes.

But you are right in that, when his serve and volley game was on, he could beat anyone. There would be so many times someone like Agassi would have him on the ropes but his serve would save the day. It was so damn tough to get breaks of serve against him. And the big server always has the advantage in tiebreaks.

I so would have loved to see a string of 10 matches between prime Sampras and Federer. Roger never had to face anyone like Pete. They played once in 2001 when Sampras was nowhere near the same player and it went 5 sets (7-5 in the 5th). That was also the year Wimbledon changed to an all-rye grass that produced higher bounces -- which hindered serve and volley tactics and aided the baseliners. So not much can be gleaned from that match.

Pete and Roger have 15 Wimbledon titles between them. If timing had been different and their primes would have collided. No chance either one would have come close to the 7 and 8, respectively, they each won.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:14 PM, maxchoboian said:

World rankings in tennis take all play into account, not just the Grand Slams, and Federer has been ranked #1 more weeks than any other male player ever. He's at the top in a lot more than just Grand Slams. He'd probably win a few of the NASCAR races too.

Yeah because sitting in a 4000 pound car going 200 mph with 36 other drivers without getting killed for 4 hours is easy. I mean no different than rush hour, right?

[maxchoboian]

21 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Yeah because sitting in a 4000 pound car going 200 mph with 36 other drivers without getting killed for 4 hours is easy. I mean no different than rush hour, right?

I'm not a big race car guy, and didn't realize a lot of drivers were killed each race. My fault.

But to be fair, rush hour around here has way more than 36 other drivers.

[maxchoboian]

8 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

It doesn't take into account David Cup or Olympics.

Davis Cup is a team contest among players from the different countries. Federer has teamed with countrymen in that event, and it's not a coincidence that Federer has led the Swiss to their only Davis Cup championship ever. The Olympics is a tournament that takes place once every 4 years...hardly a big determinant of world ranking (and Federer's Gold medal and Silver medal don't stack up too poorly).

8 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

There's a chance Djokovic could surpass the total weeks ranked #1 when it's all said and done. 

Someone will pass him eventually. I'm not guaranteeing that Federer will always be the best ever, I just think so now.

8 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

Both Rafa and Djokovic own him head-to-head -- all time and in Grand Slams.

IMO, you can't be the GOAT when your rivals have your number.

Federer and Nadal have played more times on clay than any other surface, which kind of skews their head-to-head record, what with clay unquestionably being Nadal's best surface, and that surface is not the most common at all among the venues the professionals compete on. Most tennis is played on hard courts, with some being played on clay and some on grass. Nadal is 13-2 vs. Federer on clay, and 1-2 on grass. A lot more matches played on clay. Otherwise they are very even.

Federer and Djokovic are very even in their matches -- no where near Djokovic "owning" him.

 

You don't think Federer is the best of all time, and I do. But, as we know, this cannot be proven one way or another.

[golfaddict1]

4 hours ago, maxchoboian said:

Most tennis is played on hard courts, with some being played on clay and some on grass. Nadal is 13-2 vs. Federer on clay, and 1-2 on grass. A lot more matches played on clay. Otherwise they are very even.

Federer and Djokovic are very even in their matches -- no where near Djokovic "owning" him.

You don't think Federer is the best of all time, and I do. But, as we know, this cannot be proven one way or another.

If we are discussing Open era candidates (Laver would likey be the lone guy in a GOAT in contention with a history with both eras but since he's not being discussed much with emphasis on the Borg/Connors on up periods... not worth getting into) Borg/Connors on up we have to recognize that the US Open was played on grass until the mid 70's and actually had a 3 year clay period until hard courts took over in late 70's.  Also the Aussie Open was contested on Grass until the late 1980's.   You won't see a French Open title for Connors, but Connors won the US Open on Clay and that's a clay major no matter the country. (Connors was also banned from the French Open for a period of time but that's going a bit too deep for a hs football forum lol).  Connors won the US Open on 3 surfaces which is pretty cool.   

Clay was essentially one slam throughout history plus a 3 year period at the US Open.   Grass was a major player in tennis having 2 slams into the late 80's and 3 slams into the 70's and basically the heyday of Laver's greatness.   Hard courts had 0 slams until the late 70's.   When discussing Fed vs Rafa, this entire post is is irrelevant though .     

For GOAT,  I suppose you have to win a slam on all 4 surfaces... bummer for Pistol Pete.  

As far as seeing sports live as a kid, seeing Vitas, Borg, McEnroe and Connors play at MSG was pretty darn cool.   My first and only wood racket was Jack Kramer.   My last racket was a hammer 6.2 (skunk) the original from the early 90's.  It's been awhile since I took tennis seriously or golf for that matter.  

 

[golfaddict1]

Slam record (winning pct)

Fed  323-34  (.905)  Djok  227-25  (.901)  Rafa   212-27  (.887)

Most weeks #1 all time

Fed  302 (1st)  Djok  223  (5th)  Rafa  160  (7th) and current #1 

Most consective weeks #1 all time 

Fed  237  (1st)  Djok  122  (4th)  Rafa  56  (11th)

Year end #1

Fed  5  Djok and Rafa 4  (I wonder if Fed will give Roland Garros a go... not only to attempt a #1 end of year boost, but also looking at the elites being injured of late that red clay might be whispering in his ear, "21, blackjack".    

 

 

 

[maxchoboian]

1 hour ago, golfaddict1 said:

When discussing Fed vs Rafa, this entire post is is irrelevant though .     

 

 

The court surfaces were just having to do with Federer and Nadal. Don't be so hard on yourself, your post wasn't entirely irrelevant!

 

1 hour ago, golfaddict1 said:

As far as seeing sports live...seeing Vitas, Borg, McEnroe and Connors play at MSG was pretty darn cool.  

 

I stood in line to get into Wimbledon (early rounds), stood in line once inside to get tickets to Centre Court (SRO, when they were still allowing SRO at Centre Court), then stood for 3 singles matches. Saw Navratilova, Evert, and Lendl. Was a great 18 hours on my feet. And even had time for a little strawberries and cream in there along the way.

 

1 hour ago, golfaddict1 said:

My first and only wood racket was Jack Kramer.   

 

My only wood racket also. It hit some good shots...and some bad ones too.

[golfaddict1]

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/federer-historic-return-to-number-one

Fed dusted Dimitrov 2 and 2 in the Rotterdam final this past weekend.  

 

[954gator]

25 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/federer-historic-return-to-number-one

Fed dusted Dimitrov 2 and 2 in the Rotterdam final this past weekend.  

It's just hard not to like Fed!

 

[ThunderRam]

**BUMP**

I know this thread is titled "Federer" but since the major topic of discussion has been about how the BIG three of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer compare to each other -- I thought I'd resuscitate this thread rather than start a new one. It's been over a year since this discussion took place and a lot has transpired.

Rafa just won his 18th GS and 12th French Open this past weekend. Novak Djokovic won the previous 3 GS tournaments.

So now the GS count is as follows:

Federer: 20, Rafa: 18, Djokovic: 15

As a guy that who championed Rafa Nadal and also claimed that fans and media are too quick to label a GOAT when the script is far from written, I'd like to call out some key points.

• Rafa won his 18th slam at 33 years 6 days; Federer won his 18th at 35 years 5 months 21 days; Nadal is 2 1/2 years ahead of Roger's pace.
• Rafa won his 15th slam at 31 years 8 days; Djokovic won his 15th at 31 years 8 months 5 days; Nadal was nearly 8 months ahead of Novak's pace, but the Joker is closing fast due to his recent win streak.
• While 12 of Rafa's 18 Slams occurred on one surface (clay), consider that 10 of Djokovic's 15 Slams and 11 of Fed's 20 Slams have also occurred on one surface (hard court).
• Rafa has 6 GS titles on his 'weaker' surfaces; conversely Djokovic, Federer and even Pete Sampras all have combined for only 2 on their weaker surface (clay).
• Rafa has gone through Fed and Djokovic 4x time to win 6 of his non-clay GS titles. Only Djokovic has gone though Rafa to win a French Open.
• For a player many diminish as 'clay court only', Nadal has managed to win 3 US Open's on hard court. Keep in mind the most wins (Open era) by any one player at that tournament is 5 (Connors, Sampras, Federer).

Then there's this:

• The combined all-time head-to-head records among the 3 are as follows:
  Nadal is 50-43 (.537) against Federer and Djokovic
  Djokovic is 53-48 (.525) against Nadal and Federer
  Federer is 37-49 (.430) against Nadal and Djokovic
• The combined all-time head-to-head records in GS tournaments among the 3 are as follows:
  Nadal is 19-9 (.679) against Federer and Djokovic
  Djokovic is 15-15 (.500) against Nadal and Federer
  Federer is 9-19 (.321) against Nadal and Djokovic

 

As you can see above, despite leading in GS titles to date (which isn't surprising since he had a big head start due to age), Roger Federer has a far inferior record against his rivals. He has a losing record against both. Only Novak Djokovic has a winning record against both, but Nadal has a slightly better win %.

I've brought up the point many times that Federer won many of his slams during a window of time when Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi's were well past their prime and prior to Nadal and Djokovic's rise to prominence. He simply had little competition for several years.

Conversely Nadal and Djokovic have had to deal with each other and Federer, as well as other GS winners such as Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka and Juan Martin Del Potro, during their entire careers. They never benefited from a lull in competition or the lack of a true rival. Not yet anyway.

For example, Federer won 4 GS titles before Rafa ever won his 1st French Open title at age 18 in 2005.

By the time both Nadal and Djokovic both began hitting their stride in 2010 (Rafa) and 2011 (Novak), Roger had already accumulated 15 slams. After his 2010 Aussie Open win, he's only won 4 slams since. He's simply found it difficult to beat Rafa and Novak.

As history stands now, both Nadal and Djokovic are ahead of the GS pace set by Roger. And they've done so in a much deeper era and while largely in the primes of the BIG 3.

Think of how many slams Rafa or Novak might have if they had the benefit of a 5 year window with only 1 of their eventual rivals in the infancy of their career?

Anyway, this script is far from written but I was thinking about it over the weekend and thought I'd provide an update as I see it.

[maxchoboian]

1 hour ago, ThunderRam said:

**BUMP**

I know this thread is titled "Federer" but since the major topic of discussion has been about how the BIG three of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer compare to each other -- I thought I'd resuscitate this thread rather than start a new one. It's been over a year since this discussion took place and a lot has transpired.

Rafa just won his 18th GS and 12th French Open this past weekend. Novak Djokovic won the previous 3 GS tournaments.

So now the GS count is as follows:

Federer: 20, Rafa: 18, Djokovic: 15

As a guy that who championed Rafa Nadal and also claimed that fans and media are too quick to label a GOAT when the script is far from written, I'd like to call out some key points.

• Rafa won his 18th slam at 33 years 6 days; Federer won his 18th at 35 years 5 months 21 days; Nadal is 2 1/2 years ahead of Roger's pace.
• Rafa won his 15th slam at 31 years 8 days; Djokovic won his 15th at 31 years 8 months 5 days; Nadal was nearly 8 months ahead of Novak's pace, but the Joker is closing fast due to his recent win streak.
• While 12 of Rafa's 18 Slams occurred on one surface (clay), consider that 10 of Djokovic's 15 Slams and 11 of Fed's 20 Slams have also occurred on one surface (hard court).
• Rafa has 6 GS titles on his 'weaker' surfaces; conversely Djokovic, Federer and even Pete Sampras all have combined for only 2 on their weaker surface (clay).
• Rafa has gone through Fed and Djokovic 4x time to win 6 of his non-clay GS titles. Only Djokovic has gone though Rafa to win a French Open.
• For a player many diminish as 'clay court only', Nadal has managed to win 3 US Open's on hard court. Keep in mind the most wins (Open era) by any one player at that tournament is 5 (Connors, Sampras, Federer).

Then there's this:

• The combined all-time head-to-head records among the 3 are as follows:
  Nadal is 50-43 (.537) against Federer and Djokovic
  Djokovic is 53-48 (.525) against Nadal and Federer
  Federer is 37-49 (.430) against Nadal and Djokovic
• The combined all-time head-to-head records in GS tournaments among the 3 are as follows:
  Nadal is 19-9 (.679) against Federer and Djokovic
  Djokovic is 15-15 (.500) against Nadal and Federer
  Federer is 9-19 (.321) against Nadal and Djokovic

 

As you can see above, despite leading in GS titles to date (which isn't surprising since he had a big head start due to age), Roger Federer has a far inferior record against his rivals. He has a losing record against both. Only Novak Djokovic has a winning record against both, but Nadal has a slightly better win %.

I've brought up the point many times that Federer won many of his slams during a window of time when Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi's were well past their prime and prior to Nadal and Djokovic's rise to prominence. He simply had little competition for several years.

Conversely Nadal and Djokovic have had to deal with each other and Federer, as well as other GS winners such as Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka and Juan Martin Del Potro, during their entire careers. They never benefited from a lull in competition or the lack of a true rival. Not yet anyway.

For example, Federer won 4 GS titles before Rafa ever won his 1st French Open title at age 18 in 2005.

By the time both Nadal and Djokovic both began hitting their stride in 2010 (Rafa) and 2011 (Novak), Roger had already accumulated 15 slams. After his 2010 Aussie Open win, he's only won 4 slams since. He's simply found it difficult to beat Rafa and Novak.

As history stands now, both Nadal and Djokovic are ahead of the GS pace set by Roger. And they've done so in a much deeper era and while largely in the primes of the BIG 3.

Think of how many slams Rafa or Novak might have if they had the benefit of a 5 year window with only 1 of their eventual rivals in the infancy of their career?

Anyway, this script is far from written but I was thinking about it over the weekend and thought I'd provide an update as I see it.

Good points, again. Well thought out.

Proving who is GOAT (no matter the sport) has proven to be nearly impossible, though.

I have been nursing an extremely painful case of tennis elbow for the last couple months and it hurts me to even read about tennis.

[The Guru]

1 hour ago, ThunderRam said:

By the time both Nadal and Djokovic both began hitting their stride in 2010 (Rafa) and 2011 (Novak), Roger had already accumulated 15 slams. After his 2010 Aussie Open win, he's only won 4 slams since. He's simply found it difficult to beat Rafa and Novak.

But by this standard, you're not being fair if you use head-to-head results given that Federer is significantly older than both of them.

The fact Federer is 37 years old and still getting to Grand Slam Semifinals and Finals is incredible. Lets see if either Nadal or Djokovic are doing the same when they're 37.

[ThunderRam]

1 hour ago, The Guru said:

But by this standard, you're not being fair if you use head-to-head results given that Federer is significantly older than both of them.

Not true. Most of the matchups w/ Nadal were pre-2013. Even even pre-2010. Many of the matchups w/ Djokovic came well beyond the past few years too. Besides, those things tend to even out. Roger was beating those guys their first few years when they weren't experienced or fully developed as players. So if those count, then the ones at the end of the career count equally as much.

 

1 hour ago, The Guru said:

The fact Federer is 37 years old and still getting to Grand Slam Semifinals and Finals is incredible. Lets see if either Nadal or Djokovic are doing the same when they're 37.

 

It is incredible. Except that he didn't win between ages 31 and 35 though. But Rafa and Djokovic are. They are ahead of Fed in that regard. If they're winning at 32 and 33 now, there's no reason to believe they can't for the foreseeable future. Both have proven to be every bit as athletic and fit as Federer -- I think even more so -- so if he can do it, so can they.

 

 

 

[954gator]

On 1/30/2018 at 7:18 AM, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Yeah because sitting in a 4000 pound car going 200 mph with 36 other drivers without getting killed for 4 hours is easy. I mean no different than rush hour, right?

Damn those cars weight 4000lbs?  Jesus man.  I guess they don’t wanna take off.   Still that’s a lot for a race car.  I guess downforce hurts more since they don’t really rely on acceleration as much.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

3 minutes ago, 954gator said:

Damn those cars weight 4000lbs?  Jesus man.  I guess they don’t wanna take off.   Still that’s a lot for a race car.  I guess downforce hurts more since they don’t really rely on acceleration as much.

Actually 3400 pounds, those cars accelerate pretty good... @HawgGoneIt would have the speed numbers, I don't.

BGW

[954gator]

11 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Actually 3400 pounds, those cars accelerate pretty good... @HawgGoneIt would have the speed numbers, I don't.

BGW

Oh thats a big difference.   Still a lot more than most racecars, but like I said they din’t have to start and stop constantly.

[The Guru]

1 hour ago, ThunderRam said:

Not true. Most of the matchups w/ Nadal were pre-2013. Even even pre-2010. Many of the matchups w/ Djokovic came well beyond the past few years too. Besides, those things tend to even out. Roger was beating those guys their first few years when they weren't experienced or fully developed as players. So if those count, then the ones at the end of the career count equally as much.

Federer is 4 years older than Nadal and 5 years older than Djokovic.

So, yes, true.