Go Roger!
Just here to root today for this artist, his performances are pure wizardry!
shareI was rooting for Djokovic. Both GOATs though.
shareNope, not even close, 1 GOAT + 1 great player.
If you watched the final, you saw who was in control and who was pulling off the better tennis, no matter the age difference and the form. They both knew what was happening and who was going to deservedly win this match. But it was Roger in Santa Claus mode, like with Del Potro at the Us open, only at 38 this time. What a total waste!
He gave it to Nole I don't know how many times yesterday. Nole knew it himself that he was going to lose this one, he was nervous and could feel who was dictating the play, with Roger imparting many tennis lessons to him. But he found himself with a 2 set to 1 score without really deserving it, so he kept his spirit.
At that age, against a champion like Nole, you cannot let him linger around for 5 hours.
It's a match that should have lasted 3 sets, look at the stats. If you keep alive a danger like Djokovic for 5 sets, miss 2 match points, let him win 3 tie breaks out of 3, well, that's the final result!
There is 1 GOAT only, the one that at almost 38 rolled over Nishikori, Nadal and even Djokovic. Nole is a great player, I rank him one of the top 5 but after Nadal, Borg, and certainly after the real and only GOAT.
Lol at "not close". He´s 6 years younger and only 4 slams behind. He already has more year end No.1s. Only player to win all 9 masters 1000s. Only needs one more year to pass Federer´s weeks at number one. Winning record over Roger. You´re basing your opinion on the grand sample size of one match which FED STILL LOST! Federer racked up 12 slams before Novak one his first in the weak 03-07 era where his biggest rival was Hewitt, and clay-court Nadal while Novak has had to deal with Murray and Stan, both better than Hewitt aswell as all-court prime Nadal and Federer himself. Making Novak´s achievements much more impressive. Fed is great and his longevity is absurd, but Novak is going to surpass his slam haul and will be the definitive, unquestionable GOAT.
shareSo your only basis for determining who's a better player is the number of slams?
Which, btw, is still on Federer's side?
I doubt Djokovic will ever surpass Federer on that count. Or on any of the other records Roger still holds. But somebody sooner or later will.
These stats don't change the fact that the way Federer plays tennis is one notch above anybody else.
Djokovic is not even close because of the quality of his tennis, that's what I'm basing my opinion. His numbers are solid, but that's not all that matters.
I agree that Nole had to face better opponents than Hewitt and Roddick. He never faced Sampras or Agassi though. So, how do you compare the two? Also, what would be the score with Djokovic 38 years old and Federer 32? 6-0 6-0 6-0?
Nadal and certainly Borg had better quality tennis than Nole, just watch some games and compare what's happening and how they dominate the game. Nole is an amazing player, one of the greatest, but his very physical game is inferior to what Federer has been doing for the past 20 years.
No, I already gave a bunch of reasons why Novak is statistically better and is on track to pass every Federer record, I didnt just base my opinion on one match. Quality of tennis doesn´t matter. If you win "ugly" but you win regardless, you are the better player. Its fine if you prefer Federer´s style of play fine but in a GOAT debate, style of play has nothing to do with how good someone is. Tennis comes down to who wins the most important points. Pretty sure no-one even comes close to Novak in terms of clutchness, that´s why he is as great as he is against the very best players. 50% of his slam victories have come against either Fed or Nadal, while Fed has only something like 4 slam final wins against Nadal or Djokovic and three of them were before either of them had won a slam or a slam outside of clay.
"Novak had better opponents than Hewitt and Roddick but never face Sampras or Agassi." What difference does it make? Fed only played one match against Sampras which didn´t determine any major. And Agassi was about to retire and only had one slam final v Fed. Nadal, Djokovic and Fed are light years ahead of Agassi and Sampras and Djokovic pretty much had to beat at least one or both to win almost every one of his majors. So bringing up Agassi and Sampras is irrelevant, because Federer didn´t really face them either.
You are basing your argument on who looks better on the court. That´s not how you determine the greatness of an athlete. Usain Bolt has one of the ugliest techniques in track and no-one disputes he is the GOAT because of his numbers.
I agree that the points that count are what matters for who winning, but I'm not basing my argument just on how beautiful is one's game vs the other's.
The effectiveness of such beautiful game is obvious: just look at the stats and see the difference. Talking about clutch points, Federer has won I don't know how many finals in slams before losing for the first time. And he's certainly not who he is, and hasn't wont as much as he has, by choking. Djokovic, on the other hand, was called Chokovic in a number of matches because he couldn't deliver on many occasions (some of which, tbh, were quite unfair in terms of expectations on him, like winning a grand slam, but don't get me started on winning his first major).
My point about Sampras and Agassi, which were dominant top players of their ages, is as valid as comparing them to today's top players, even if those are Nadal and Federer. They faced a different opposition of players, so don't look just at the numbers (again), look at the game and how they played it. Sampras especially was as dominant as Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in his days, and Agassi was always dangerous.
Anyway, I'm sure we could argue back and forth for months here.
To me, you could just rewatch yesterday's game to see who's the best player, who (undeservedly) got the points that count, and draw your conclusions.
You aren´t even attempting to rebut my arguments, probably because you can´t. You tried to imply Sampras and Agassi made Federer´s era tougher, when he didn´t even face them as major rivals, which is why your point is irrelevant. As I said, in any case, the trio of Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are already better than Sampras and Agassi which by default makes the current era, tougher. I take my hat off to Roger for being able to compete in the current era at his age, but considering most of his slams were in the 03-07 era, his achievements really pale in comparison to what Novak has been able to do. I don´t like coming off like I am undermining Roger´s career, he is an all time great no doubt, but what Novak has done is more impressive and when people say Roger is GOAT and its not close, its downright laughable, when Novak is about a year away from breaking all his records.
shareIt seems to me that your arguments are based on numbers only, with the assumption that the one that wins the most sets is the best player.
No matter if the other's game is tennis perfection.
Well, since that's your case:
1- the numbers are ALL in favor of one man. He still holds I don't know how many records, that Nole doesn't and probably will not ever break (including number of slams).
2- if numbers are all you care about, then why the hell are you talking here? There's no discussion with numbers, 20 is higher than 16, 32 is lower than 38, etc. Also, 3 sets is more than 2, so Nole won yesterday, end of story. What's there to discuss, numbers say everything right?
After following tennis for many years, my humble opinion is that numbers tell only half the story, and they are not what finally matters, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
One glaring example of this is Laver's final official numbers: not that overly impressive, so he obviously was not that good. Neither are Borg's, if you look at the total. Even Lendl didn't win that much, even if he dominated the sport for years. But this is not track and field, where the only thing that matters is "who's fastest", no matter what.
A wall will return your ball 100% of the times. I don't consider a wall to play great tennis. Tennis is a GAME, so the way you play it is as important as the numbers. Nobody, certainly not Djokovic, ever played a better tennis than Federer. He IS tennis. That's why everybody loves to see him play and he ALWAY has the crowd on his side.
That's why he is (and will stay, no matter if his slam record is surpasses), the GOAT.
"1- the numbers are ALL in favor of one man. He still holds I don't know how many records, that Nole doesn't and probably will not ever break (including number of slams)."
Lol. Djokovic is on track to break them all, He won 3 of the last 4 slams. He only needs 4 more to tie Roger and is 6 years younger. Only a blind Federer fanboy would say this record probably wont be broken. Not to mention, weeks at number one, Novak only needs another year at no.1, hes already pretty much guaranteed to be number one for the next 3 months.
2. Im here because its laughable to say one is the GOAT(Roger) and the other is not close to being the GOAT, even though he is a hot favourite to surpass every record and has a winning record over Roger, despite how desperately you don´t want that to happen. Being 6 years younger and only 4 slams behind, he is close and more than likely will stand on his own with just about every record in the book.
Lol at Laver´s numbers not being that good. His numbers are good and the only reason they are not on the big 3 level is because he turned professional and missed 20 grand slams because the rules didnt allow professionals to play majors, and yet still managed to win the calendar year grand slam twice. As for Borg, he retired at 25, his numbers would be insane if he played on till 38, thats why they are still highly respected amongst people that actually know tennis...
Hey man, just relax! The one who's here desperatedly doing anything, is you.
I think I explained you clearly enough why Federer is the Goat, but you keep coming back with more "numbers". (Which are just in your head btw, you're so SURE that Nole WILL EVENTUALLY get these other 5 slams, cuz that's just so easy you know...) On this matter, I couldn't care less if Federer has more or less slams than Djokovic. Sampras had more than Borg, yet I never considered the former the better player.
If Djokovic breaks the record of slams, he still won't be the Goat.
Not because his number won't be amazing, but because he simply is not the greatest player of all time. LOOK AT HOW HE PLAYS. He's a great player.
But there have been better players than him. You could have seen one just two days ago against him.
I cannot understand how can you enjoy tennis with this attitude, just check the score at the end. You don't care for the game, it's just the stats that speak to you. That's your choice, whatever makes you happy. I bet that for you Schumacher is the greates F1 pilot ever, followed by Hamilton...With your logic Robert Horry is better than Michael Jordan...well, why not?
I think if you just can't get what I mean, that's too bad for you.
He won´t be the GOAT in your eyes only, to everyone else he will be. The only "better" players than him are from different generations, that you can´t really compare because he has never played them. He has dominated the two other greatest players of his generation, Federer and Nadal in most of the big matches, that speaks volumes to where he stands. One of them, you claim is the untouchable GOAT even though Novak has proven himself superior statistically in every category, except for passing your "eye test".
The fact, you won´t even consider Novak the GOAT if he passes Rogers slam record, just shows what a biased little fan boy you are. You know someone has a poor argument when they fall back on the "because I like the way he plays" logic. lol
I'm not saying that I just like the way Roger plays.
I'm saying that he is a much better tennis player than Djokovic because of his results, obtained playing a magnificent tennis.
Compare the various years, record, trophies; you'll see what Roger had to do, with his awesome game, and what he has achieved.
Than compare it with Nole the king of Australia....(do I need to comment it?), or whomever else: they are all behind him. Including Rafa, with his 12 slams out of 18 from clay.
Including the last wimbledon final: Nole got the trophy. I'm sure that's great for him. Roger WON the game on every other count. Do you think that counts for nothing because it's only the numbers that matter? Do you think that only the winner matters and the way he won is of no importance?
Then I guess your pick is Nole for GOAT, or whomever has the most titles. Even if, let's say this, the big 3 disappear from the circuit (sooner or later that will happen) and Zverev puts away 25 slams in 10 years because there's nobody else around.
Playing a tennis that is obviously inferior to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
He would be your new GOAT, won't he?
This is what you don't get.
There's no fanboyism from me, I'm just stating the obvious about who's the best player because of what he has shown on the court. What he has brought to this sport in terms of game, in every sense, is more than anybody else (beauty, results, innovations, records, sportsmanship...).
PS: what I wrote about Schumacher, Robert Horry etc still stands for you: your only meter of measure is numbers. Tennis, fortunately, is not math.
But if you think that's all that matters, well that's your opinion, you can believe what you want, fortunately you are vastly in the minority.
Sportsmanship. Now that is interesting. Out of the big three, Roger at least in his earlier days when he began losing to the other two had the worst attitude out of the three.
Not really sure why you keep bringing up Schumacher. I actually don´t think hes the GOAT of F1, but in any case, its a bad analogy because unlike tennis there are more external factors involved in motor racing, like how good a driver´s car is, politics of teams and drivers etc.
I already gave reasons why I don´t think Federer is the definitive GOAT, namely because of the weak 03-07 era. Why would I give Zverev a pass if he won 25 slams in 10 years against no competition? Djokovic didnt win 16 slams in a weak era, so why are you even bringing up this bad Zverev hypothetical?
Djokovic didn't? Really???
He's way younger than his real opposition. Everybody his age or less is a joke now that Murray is gone.
He has racked up a bunch of titles with Federer and Nadal injured or not at their best.
On the other hand, when he was not at his best, he was out completely of the game (which is one of the main factors why his score is so good looking in direct matches).
I agree that Roger had some years of easier competition, but playing against Rafa and later on Nole had only improved his game. So, if anything, Djokovic benefited from playing against the GOAT and the second GOAT.
And about sportmanship, what the hell are you talking about? Roger has been the greatest sportsman, recognized by everybody in the sports world, for I don't know how many times. How about Nole?
Roger cried about losing to Nadal because of his emotions, not because he complained about the results. He ALWAYS accepted the verdict of the court, and ALWAYS praised his opponents, winning or losing.
Nole has been bitching about physical problems for years when losing. And he cryed for even longer about getting rolled in the slams, till his first win. Not to mention what happens in every match (starting with the 10 minutes he takes on every service....what a sportsman!)
Look, I respect Nole's athleticism, I respect his power, I respect his precision and his mental strategy. He has a great game, he is an amazing tennis player and he is a nice and funny person. But don't call him a great sportsman because he ain't, he's just allright in that department. And he's certainly NOT EVEN CLOSE to Roger.
Djokovic has 15 out of 16 slams where he had to beat one of the big 4 on the way to the title. Federer has 9/20. Djokovic has 50% of his slam final wins v Fed or Nadal, Federer has 20%. Really you´re going to argue that Djokovic had a weak era? lmao. You say he racked up slams while Rafa was injured what about 2017 when both Fed and Rafa won slams while he was injured or coming back from injury? No complaints there from the fed fanboy...
As for sportstmanship, not just crying v Nadal. The fact, he will ignore his fans when he loses, only signs autographs when he wins. Both Rafa and Novak sign autographs when they lose. In addition, after losing the 2010 USO semi final to Novak, (Novak saved match points), Roger criticized Novak for going for broke on the first return, comparing it to a child going for a wild shot, when he should have played it safe and tried to keep the ball in, rather than go for a winner. Does that sound like good sportsmanship to you? lol
Where exactly did I argued that Djokovic had a weak "era"? You big tennis expert should understand that even the GOAT can have a period of down time, and even a lesser player like Muster is unstoppable in the right moment and tournament. "era" doesn't mean much. Like I said (but you only pick my words here and there, like the numbers in Roger and Nole carreer) if anything Nole BENEFITTED from facing better players than him.
In 2017 it's unfortunate that Nole didn't play, he would have collected a nice round of defeats like Rafa and Roger did when they were not 100%. Like I wrote you earlier, but it seems to me you understand black when it's white.
Like when you said that Roger ignores his fans when he loses...wtf are you even talking about?
That comment against Nole in 2010 doesn't say anything about his sportsmanship, again seeing black for white. EVERYTHING ROGER HAS DONE FOR TENNIS speaks eloquently, which is to Djokovic's legacy like comparing Bill Gates to the inventor of minesweeper.
Your analogies are so bad they arent even worth replying to. Novak could surpass Roger in slams and you still wouldn´t admit he is on Roger´s level, says alot about you and your obvious fanboyism.
shareYaaawnn... nothing more boring than your retorts: the pot calling the kettle black.
You don't get the meaning of GOAT. For you it's not the greatest player of all time. For you it's the one with the highest score, no matter how he obtained that score. GOOD FOR YOU.
I'm not the one trying to convince you of the opposite, it's your belief, be happy with your poorly formed opinion and leave me with my very strange and unique one which I formed just 'cause, that Roger Federer is the GOAT.
"For you it's the one with the highest score, no matter how he obtained that score. "
If this quote above were true, Federer would be my greatest until he is overtaken in slams but I´ve already conceded that what Djokovic has done is already more impressive while still being behind on total slam count. Also,
Previous post: Djokovic has 15 out of 16 slams where he had to beat one of the big 4 on the way to the title. Federer has 9/20. Djokovic has 50% of his slam final wins v Fed or Nadal, Federer has 20%
Do you just avoid reading what I already posted or you don´t understand English very well?
Do you think I don't KNOW the stats so you are gently pointing them out repeteadly? Or do you understand that those stats mean little, like I've been trying to explain to you for the past 3 days?
That's all that matters to you, the fact that Djokovic holds a positive record with Roger and Rafa. By that logic, for you Roger is an inferior player to Nadal too.
Is that a comment that, in your opinion, after what I've been writing you so far, really deserves a reply from me?
I agree somebody here doesn't understand english very well, guess who?
Its okay bro, its already obvious English isn´t your first language.
shareYes, and that's a problem because....?
I think it's good enough to discuss tennis with you, bro.
Because you are criticizing my English when you aren´t even a native speaker.
shareImagine that! A non native english speaker stating that, oh the irony! Man, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your english. If this is all we have to debate here, I'm done with the discussion.
I see that you are as relentless with your BS as Djokovic is with his returns, but enough is enough!
I think we should just agree that I'm absolutely right on every front and that Roger is the GOAT, and that if Nole ever manages any of the marvellous achievement you are so sure of, you have every right to come back here and write your new arguments.
Maybe it'll make more sense then.
Till then, try to enjoy tennis as a game, not just for the stats, and certainly enjoy watching The GOAT, Rafa and Nole playing at the same time, because that's what matters!
And once they go it'll be for the worse.
Adios amigo!
Hey, I was just answering your question honestly. I guess the truth hurts, I will sincerely miss your bad analogies and poor rebuttals in a sad attempt at English though.
shareI guess you figured it's goodbye since Nole will never do what you consider a piece of cake. Well, goodbye my friend, I won't miss your lack of math intelligence, unmatched obtuseness and myopia to evident goatness.
But still, notwithstanding your limits, enjoy the good tennis that's around us!
We won't know who is the better between the trio until the all retire. Nadal's record against Fed is so lopsided because of all the times they have played on clay, Fed wins about 60% of their matchups on grass or hardcourt. Nadal has won 2/3 of his majors on clay, Fed and Novak have a much better split.
Roger handled Novak in his prime, but since Roger has gotten older Novak has had the big edge. I'd take prime Federer of him and Nadal on a neutral surface (hard court). Novak is 3-0 vs. Fed at Wimbledon which looks bad on Fed, but that ties into the age thing as Fed was 33/34 and 37 in those matches.
Federer is the best offensive player in the history of tennis. His serves, volleys, grounds strokes, and general attack style is impressive. Nadal plays great defense, hence the clay court dominance. Novak might be the most rounded of the of the trio. Good serve, good groundstrokes, all time great returner.
Lets just be happy we get to watch these greats all at the same time. This trio + Rod Laver are the best to ever play. IMO I think all 3 end with 20 Grand Slams
Novak went 4-0 v Roger in 2011, Roger was still 29-30 years old, I don´t think Roger was out of his prime at that point, only made to look worse by Novak. Indeed Federer only lost to Novak at USO after Novak managed to save match points. Novak also beat Roger in his prime at AO 2008 in straight sets.
I agree, Im happy to watch them all play at the same time, it has been a gift watching the last 10 years of slams, Djokovic isn´t even my favourite player but I do think its ridiculous when people say hes not on Rafa or Roger´s level.
He has 3 grand slams more than Roger now. Still think he's not close to the GOAT?
shareYep, quite positive.
The ONLY feat that Novax could do to be considered as the GOAT is a grand slam.
Which he will never achieve.
Someone is a hater.
shareOf what?
I am not a fan of Nole, I used to like him, but in the past three years he has disappointed on most levels.
I certainly do not hate him, if anything I sympathize with him for all the shit he gets. He is a good guy, but often finds himself in the role of the villain.
You hate him if by calling him silly names like "Novax" and thinking the leader in career slams is "not close" to being the GOAT.
shareSo a fanboy like you decides what I feel about Djocovid?
Fuck you. That is how I feel about you.
And calling him silly names for not getting vaccinated against a disease no one even cares about anymore is beyond retarded but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
share