Thanks for the laughs, Cheryl, as always.

I'm a Nadal fan, but i've nothing against TMF. I'm as shocked as anyone. Rog rested, he trained, he was looking forward to this tournament. Wha' hoppen? It wasn't like he started the match playing badly. I couldn't watch the match, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like Gulbis blew him away. Roger's forehand and then first serve just mysteriously went AWOL in the 2nd set? He suddenly realized he was playing on clay and panicked? Or saw Rafa watching him and licking his chops? Had a mental lapse and thought he was playing Rafa? I don't think so! It's a mystery to me. Looking forward to seeing what Roger has to say about it.

Ramara - Gulbis DID play well for a set and 3/4. Served great and kept his head. But the fact remains that if Roger's level hadn't bottomed out, he would have won. I watched the whole thing, and I still don't know what happened. One thing's for sure, though - Roger wouldn't have wanted to go out that way. It was really quite dismal.

Well said Cheryl. Nothing more to add to that eloquent posting.

Hey Cheryl, do you ever write an off quality blog? Haven't read one yet...

I have often wondered about Federer's off days on court. Related to his brilliance in some ways? Either most systems are aligned and you get blinding wonderment or else the best in him is out of his reach (and perhaps he gets frustrated as he watches his state). Perhaps Federer could answer how that works but if I were him I'd probably keep it to myself. Must be extremely frustrating. Looking forward to him getting back to his best game... soon enough I'm sure.

Wow...



"Looks like Federer is trying to loose this match

Sanela , 4/27/10 6:51 PM"


"Just a feeling I guess. Please people do not get on my back for this comment. I mean, I just read once in a Federer interview where Federer said that not playing Nadal before the French might be an advantage for him, because previously Nadal had beaten him in clay turnaments prior to RG. I mean Federer couldn't play crappier if he tried. I'm not seaching for an excuse, he lost, but this crap we saw him play today was just that - CRAP. And this is coming from a Federer fan.

Sanela , 4/27/10 7:04 PM"

Sanela, this blog was not a direct response to your post. In fact, I didn't even see yours until after I wrote my entry. Apparently your sentiment is shared on other message boards.

chlorostoma - thank you. :) And my guess is this. Federer's game relies so heavily on timing (perhaps more than any other player in the game right how) that if he's even a fraction of a second off, he shanks the ball like crazy. I really think it's the nature of his game to be either brilliant or terrible.

Last year it was Rafa, now its time for Roger! So pathetic!

you're welcome :-)

If it's timing,... and that would make so much sense (in my limited understanding)... then that's a tough or impossible thing to control completely.

It is probably something like playing piano at a world class level... (or other instruments)... in terms of conscious control you can take your technique up to a nice high level but not high enough for the world stage... after that it is under unconscious control and you imagine and feel what you want your fingers and arms to do or rather what the music should sound like in all subtlety but it is your unconscious that translates this into exquisite execution ... or not. I don't know exactly what piano masters do to play at that level at every performance but it's very difficult... and they don't always quite make it. And they are not competing with anyone else...

it did cross my mind that fed wouldn't wanna play rafa before the french. but then i thought "well, surely this year would be the year he would. if he beats rafa before the french when rafa isn't defending champion, it might plant a seed of doubt in rafa's mind". federer played rafa last year in madrid just before the french. if there was anytime federer would not have wanted to play him it would have been in madrid last year. rafa was 2 times defending champion at the french, was on something like a 20 match winning streak and playing at home. on clay. now, in the semis against delpo in madrid last year, that's when i would have expected federer to tank a match if he was ever going to. but he didn't. he then beat rafa in straight sets and won the french after. why would he bother tanking a match to avoid rafa this year? it makes no sense. at all

(but i do suspect he tanked that match against delpo at the o2. just slighly too convenient, for it to be the exact scoreline for him and delpo to go through at the expense of murray :P (i'm kidding. i really am))

cheryl
Count me as one Fed fan who does not think he's planning on launching a sneak attack on anybody. He's just playing poorly now and I doubt he would tank a match against anybody. Maybe he needs to do well in the doubles to get him out of this funk ala Beijing '08 gold metal before USO. He needs some court time even if it is doubles. Wish he had played with Stan rather than Allegro though.

** that should read 4 times defending champ at the french

cheryl,

I know exactly where I heard the comment about Fed tanking because he didn't want to play Rafa. It was on a pro-Fed forum, one that gets mentioned too often here of late. To say I was shocked to read something like that, is an understatement.

There is nothing worse that you can say about a player, than saying he tanked a match to avoid his biggest rival. That is the ultimate insult and the fact that it came at the hands of a so-called Fed fan, made it even more shocking. I don't know what gets into people's minds sometimes, but we are talking about a man who has won 16 grand slams, is currently tied with Rafa for total Masters titles and has set a record for consecutive semifinal appearances in grand slams that may well never be broken.

The words "tank" and Fed should never be used in the same sentence. As for how poorly he played, only Fed knows for sure what is going on. As far as I am concerned, I will chalk it up to another bad day in the early rounds of a tournament, something that has become an all too frequent occurrence. If the problem is timing, then Fed needs more match play to get that back. Getting bounced out in the early rounds of a tournament isn't going to do it.

Thanks for another insightful blog.

I agree with Cheryl,absolutely. I think,that when he (RF) see clay court,the only thing what's on his mind is :"Oh no,not again Rafa,I can't take it any more". So,I understand Roger perfectly,he doesn't won't another nervous breakdown and psychological trauma.Of course, young Gulbis played well,and I hope so that he won't be any more just another talent player. And for the end- VAMOS RAFA !!!

cheryl,
You capture the mood very well, the mood of Fedfans whose excuses just do not do Federer justice. I have never subscribed to the idea that Fed just doesn't care too much about tournaments other than GS, SKY asked him about this view generally held by his fans and he bluntly denied it. As you pointed out, if he wanted to avoid Rafa he would 'lose' respectably in the Qtrs., why would he do so in the first round he plays.

For someone who chases records, it is simply inconcievable that he would not try to win every match he plays. He is in fact right now trying to break Agassi's record of Masters titles won, and he ties with Rafa at 16 at the moment.

cheryl,

Could have fooled me :)

I completely, totally agree with Cheryl! Great blog indeed!

We happen to be divided in my family...we have one person as passionate Federer fan, the other cheering with all his heart for Nole and the two of us loving and supporting Rafa...today it was a sad day as nobody expected Fed would lose in this manner...he actually did not play his game, he was not present at the court, but that should not diminish the great performance of Gulbis in some parts of the match...but to say that Fed lost deliberately is so foolish and disrespectful of someone so extraordinary and one of the greatest tennis ever had...he did not tank and he would never do so! He did not want to avoid Rafa. Why should he? After all, he still plays Madrid...and is anyone suggesting that he would like to lose early again because he does not want to play Rafa? And think of the points he would be losing. That is all nonsense...It was a bad day for Fed (he is still rusty) while Gulbis had a very good day...it always takes two to win the match like this...

The suggestion that Federer tanked are given by those who are either trolliing at best or borderline insane at worst. No one tanks a match, least of all Federer. And Federer is not afraid to face Nadal (and vica versa). In fact he probably relishes the opportunity. Also did he not win the last encounter against the clay warrior?

I also wouldn't read too much into Federer's loss. In his position you can forgive him
for not being as motivated for ATP Tier2 events. Past history shows that Fed is a different player in slams. To put it simply, if this were a F.O 3rd/4th round match, Fed would NOT only have won it, he would have likely done so in straight sets. In slams he gets more time to find his game in the first few rounds and it's hard for the better player to loose in 5 sets.

Federer has ONLY won 4 of the last 28 MS events, but he's racked up slams like nobody's business. He has a history of loosing early in ATP Tier 2 events, since 2007. But it does not affect him in slams ONE BIT. He's still a favorite to defend his channel slam.

"I?m SURE he?d rather see the loss next to his name to the world?s best clay courter rather than Ernests Gulbis. " - Exactly.

I'm not a Federer fan, but I have a great amount of respect for him. One of the reasons? His total respect for the game. No one who loves tennis as much as he does would purposefully loose a match.

I've often seen some of the most insulting things said about players come from people who claim to be fans of said players. (Kelli touched on it in her "Naked ambition part 2: Nadal vs. Shakira" piece re Rafa fans.) It totally boggles my mind.

Great blog Cheryl, I completely agree!

As a Rafa fan, I have to admit I loved that match!

Haha, hopefully people won't assume all of us think that way. I use message boards containing comments like the ones you've mentioned, and to me it seems more strange when that sentiment is upheld by Federer haters, because it's a bizarre compliment in that it assumes he actually has that much power over a match, which he plainly doesn't - no player does. The idea of Fed losing matches consciously in this way I feel is greatly overexaggerated, lots of people say he doesn't try as hard in non-slam matches, but that's just a motivation issue and not something he consciously switches on and off. The most I could ever agree with something like this is in exo matches, such as the one at the start of the year when he was playing Soderling to face Rafa in the final, lost and beat Ferrer for 3rd. Exo matches don't count so who cares and his motivation there is even lower anyway.

I do, as a fan, get annoyed with him when he loses these kind of matches - back in the day he was the best front-runner in the business, nowadays he can pretty much always be counted upon to have some kind of 2nd set lapse except in slams. I mean there's this pretty sick statistic someone on MTF dug up - in the last 8 matches he's played that have gone to 5-5 in the third, he's lost the lot. Eurgh. Anyway looking forward to Estoril, a lot of quality mugs there so while the loss opportunities are more embarrassing they are hopefully less likely.

Anyway that is just a rambling train of thought that I haven't organised but I hope it still makes sense!

nadline - great post, only thing I disagree with is that he's chasing the Agassi record, got interviewed about that a while back IIRC and he said he's not interested because the Masters were only around from the 90s and it's not a fun record if his heros weren't the ones contributing to it. Cares a lot about the platform left behind by the legends, come to think of it.

I,m not a fed fan (most people here know that) but I agree with Cheryl. As much as I do not like him, I would never accuse him of purposely losing for whatever reason. He is a top sportsman and I truly don't think he has it in him to tank a match. And yes, I'm glad Cheryl noticed that it was the fed's own fans saying that and not the fans of others.

federer is avoiding nadal on clay. he doesnt want that h2h to get worse. nadal on clay is tough.
u could see federer getting angry everytime gulbis missed a match point.
and did u see federer clapping his racket just before he shook hands with gulbis?

and he made noises when he made errors to make it look like that its a legit error and not done on purpose.
almost to make it look like he wants to make the tank seem like its a legit loss and not a deliberate tank.

this federer is smart, he wants to avoid nadal on clay before the french.
it would be too obvious to lose to someone just before he has to face nadal in the semis. and he cant lose to some useless mug, he has to lose to some decent guy so it doesnt look deliberate.

federer is so good that he can even make his tanks look like normal losses.
truely a genius.

he can make it look like he is trying hard to win but in reality he is doing his best to make errors and lose to avoid nadal on clay.

federer dont care about masters anymore, he only plays tennis for the slams, which means he turns up only 8 weeks of the year for the 4 slams.

he will let nadal blow his knees and will still be number 1 ranked.

this roger is too good and too smart.
a 21st century genius.
einstein who?
we got federer!

the bottom line is that there is a difference between tanking and not having your interest piqued.

Federer saved six match points, four other than Gulbis double-faults, including one in which he had to toss in a second serve and one in which he had to make two amazing defensive plays. He also saved two huge break points (I forgot when) with awesome serve-forehand combinations.

Obviously he was trying to win the match, his game just isn't there at the moment.

And while the wild ending obviously overshadowed everything else, Gulbis actually played incredible tennis from 0-0 of the second set to 5-3*, 15*-40 Federer serving in the third.

The reasoning is, I think, that Federer is going to launch some sort of sneak attack on Nadal at the French Open.

cheryl murray

Cheryl I understand that by surfing you have seen this type of so called reasoning (?) LOL by none other than (claimed) FEDfans(?)!!! Your article points out well the absurdity of such statements or thinking. They must be people just joking around, I can't imagine anyone saying those things taking themselves seriously! For me nothing else makes sense from this sort of rhetoric. The FED had a horrible day! That's all. These things can happen. He is probably more prone to having a bad "crappy" performance now then when he was younger... Not having to do with a flaw in his yearning for the win on his part. The desire is intact, and we all know how much he prepares for these tournaments. Now he will have to spend more time with the kids. LOL That will teach him! :) Changing diapers will become his new specialty! LOL (although I'm sure with his money it would only be by choice) Anyway all kidding aside. Bad day for the FED. Good day for Gulbis.

I concur with Miri's comments. Roger is an ultimate professional. He is human, not a machine, and has good days and bad. Wonder about the lung infection, they can be troublesome in recovery; and he has a family now. Don't know how that impacts his training time. Watching the match, he looked flat today. These things happen. I expect him to regroup and perhaps playing next week in a smaller tournie will help him regroup and find his game. I am a Rafa fan but respect Roger immensely.

well a great blog by cheryl.. and nice to see that cheryl did praise gulbis in one of her comments..
as for those who say fed is no more interested in winning masters events and getting above agassi's record,i ask them- isn't it a great excuse?.. the man has his whole life chased records and when he sees he does not have enough in him to get to that and simultaneously maintain his winning record in slams.. he says he is not interested in it since the past greats did not compete in it?? what does he want? to be called greatest of all time by mere slam count?? well that's not going to happen.. slams may be the most important number in determining greatness but there are a lot of other numbers out there too..
as for roger tanking this match.. all i can say is pathetic excuses by roger fans(do you call such people fans??) . he played to win, he just did not win.. gulbis did not let him win.. accept the truth, get over it and pray for him in madrid..and estoril..

roger tanked the rome masters so he can better prepare and win the 5th slam.......estoril.

im wondering if rogieGOAT is playing the 6th slam umag.

morning cheryl. i'd like to say a few things if i may:

Firstly, I always see a lot of comments from a "few" rafa fans who say the following

"that Nadal fans are NOT the ones making the claim."(mentioned in your blog) - that federer is afraid of rafa and you only have to read them over the last 4 weeks to check them out. so i hope now you have written this and put it out there, that any fan will never, ever accuse roger of doing this, because it's just a ridiculous notion.

Secondly, after being so, so subdued yesterday, (I mean really sad, heavy heart, sick), i read blogs from yourself, kelli, ricky, "All About Federer", and found one written by you that was titled "Tanks Federer", so you, yourself thought at one time that this is what he was doing (sorry cheryl, only pointing a few things out, as I needed to read everything as much as possible about federer, the "positive" ones out there), so again - so please, dont write something like this again ("Tanks federer", because it isnt nice") even rafa fans were thinking this, and the evidence is here. say no more.

I do appreciate what you have written above, but i just dont understand it. have woken up this morning feeling numb. i didnt watch the original match as i was too nervous, but felt happy because i watched his video about how he was "feeling". In my view, he was confident had said "he practised hard", was "excited" about the clay season, "was happy with his game" and his first set (watched on VCR), was brilliant, he was aggressive, his shots were powerful and he had "placement". Second set was unbelievable. I couldnt understand what had happened cheryl. A turnaround?A lapse?A no caring attitude?.

Final set, he played excellently in saving 6 match points - his nerve was incredible, calm incredible.


but he didnt care. i watched his body language (we do a lot of this at BSL), it was very poor for a champ. just heart not in it.

i'm still in shock and at the moment, i cant read anything, so will put myself on "pause" control before the weekend so that i can wonder at where his game went. It simply does not make sense.

Gulbis first set - rubbish.
Gulbis second set - fantastic
Gulbis third set - mixed, but held his nerve for the first time i have ever seen him. A passage of rites for him.

attacking, if you dont mind, can you explain your note above?It doesnt make sense to me? Thanks.

Clayking, i have never said that roger would tank a match, and i havent read all of them to see who has said these things, but any federer fan who said that he did doesnt deserve to support roger, they are a disgrace. Roger federer would NEVER do that. so ridiculous, preposterous comment. But clayking, really, have you ever said anything like this about roger?

"Last year it was Rafa, now its time for Roger! So pathetic!"

You said it, Max. And so did Roger.

Even I think there is more to it than meets the eye. Fed went out on the court won the first set and saw that all was working well. Then why toil all week long and maybe risk putting in jeopardy the edge that he has over Rafa by winning their most recent clay match?
Would be very surprised if he lost at Estoril.

I am feeling rather pleased with myself having pencilled in a win for Gulbis on my printout of the draw. It was just a hunch and sadly I hadn't put any money on it!

I wasn't able to watch until the 2nd set but after seeing the lst set scoreline I assumed Roger was on cruise control to a win until Gulbis broke serve for the 2nd time and RF began to visibly unravel in front of the world.

I am surprised nobody commented on his hissy during one of the 2nd set changeovers. He stopped short of breaking his racket but repeated his trick of flinging empty water bottles over his shoulder: a sure sign of his frustration and disgust at what was happening to his game.

This was a humiliating loss for him but nevertheless I rather liked the spin he put on it at his presser:

"It's easier to take because I'm used to so much winning," said Federer, adding that he was not worried about his French Open title defence. If he's not, he should be after what happened yesterday.

"He stopped short of breaking his racket but repeated his trick of flinging empty water bottles over his shoulder"

I saw that, ed. It happened so fast I thought I was seeing things, or it was a trick of the light, or they'd flashed back to Miami 09, or something.

It reminds me of when Rafa was hitting his knees and swearing in his Miami semi against A-Rod. It hurts me to see my favorites when they're frustrated with how they're playing.

maxi..
what do you mean to ask by "have you ever said anything like this about roger"??
also you should read what some people have said in the thread "fed kicks off 2010 clay campaign".. you will realize that how some people have said things about fed that he lost intentionally and all..
3rd, well maxi if you are a tennis fan get over your fed hangover.. it has been a day since he lost.. you can support him in estoril now... obviously you feel bad he lost.. but move on.. there is still wonderful tennis going on.. i'm happy gulbis won, but also sad fed lost.. we missed a mega semi final.. but now its over.. so no use lamenting..

@mara and ed
there was another sign that his concentration was lacking..
at 2-4 15-0 in 3rd set, fed was bouncing the ball before his usual service game..
and the ball slipped out of his hand..
that was absolutely uncharacteristic of fed..
simply his mind was not there..

i agree with what Tim is saying. Fed doesnt "feel" his game as often anymore. BUT, i believe that hes trying to make sure that he "feels" it at the important moments of the year. (aka the majors) Fed won 2 masters series events last year. I think its not a coincidence that both masters series events he won were just before the upcoming majors. imo, federer is developing a samprasonian quality to lift his game at the right moments of the year. Like sampras did when he was older, Federer is not going to get fussed if he loses early at a masters series event. Federers new aim is to peak at the majors. Also, he doesnt want to have a mental burnout, like the article says.

I don't know what was going on with Fed's game in the second and third sets, but to say he tanked the match is absurd. It makes it even worse that it was Fed fans who were saying it. Cheryl, great blog! You said it all.

Fed just didn't seem to have his game against Gulbis. His concentration wasn't good at all, and his shots were all over the place. I hope he does better in Estoril, and recovers his form.

The fact is, Gulbis is a good player. He has stretched Rafa in the two matches they've played but Rafa has won both, and he's got a 1:2 h2h against Djokovic, so in my humble opinion, he is good enough to beat the top players if he puts his mind to it.

No one will ever convince me that a player trains, travels to a tournament and then not care whether he wins a match or not - mandatory or not. It's foolish to think that.

It hurts me everytime people mention Rafa-Soderling-RG, how much more would it hurt the player when Roger hears 'Federer was beaten in the 2nd round by No 40 in the world', and this will be mentioned everytime he steps on a claycourt, or has Gulbis in his draw.

i agree with what Tim is saying. Fed doesnt "feel" his game as often anymore. BUT, i believe that hes trying to make sure that he "feels" it at the important moments of the year. (aka the majors)

tj600 , 4/28/10 10:15 AM


Here we go again - Federer decides when he wants to feel or not feel his game!!!!

@nadline
read the article. it says that feds style is now riskier. Thats why hes not as consistent as he once was. BUT, he does want to try to be at his best at the majors.

To say that his style is riskier is not the same as saying that he can decide when to feel or not feel his game.

NICE article Cheryl!
Gulbis sensed it already in the second set that Federer was having a bad day!..... ONE game against a #40 player doesn't sound REAL when we're talking about the GOAT! ......... the 3rd set break was the light at the end of the tunnel for him! .......... from then on everything was about Fed seeing a mirage....CONFUSING GULBIS FOR RAFA!

tj600 , 4/28/10 10:07 AM

tj600 Thank you! :) I really enjoyed the article. Good analysis man! Explosive understanding of tennis, and Roger Federer. Made a hell of a lot of sense to me, the way this writer TIM RUFFIN perceived and explained both the external and internal ramification of Federer's play and intent. Good read for sure. No matter what anybody says it always comes back to the slams (in my opinion). When the FED starts losing in the slams like he has been in the Masters, then we can all say his time has come, until then all is good albeit as TIM RUFFIN put it "Roger Federer's trademark of probing and dissecting players gradually gave way to the new "shock and awe" brand of tennis. Indeed this is EXACTLY what many of us felt yesterday a combination of "SHOCK and AWE"! Mostly SHOCK, a little AWE. :) It's a fact of life, time changes people...

@sky
exactly. with fed, its going to be "Shock and awe" from now on. Either in a good or bad way. Lets just hope its good at the French :)

tj600

:) yeah the French... Our first next Slam!!! Make it good FED! :) I'm a BELIEVER tj! LOL :) C'MON!

We'll SEE !!!

I got only one wish and that is a healthy Rafa at RG.

We'll SEE !!!

I got only one wish and that is a healthy Rafa at RG.

Raindrops , 4/28/10 2:11 PM


Me too, Raindrops.

Ditto to nadline and Raindrops!!!

the problem is with so many anti-fed morons masquerading as fed fans ... fed is playing the crappiest he can play, but thats OK, better lose now and get some momentum before RG ..

justtennis - I got the impression that the people saying it really WERE Federer fans...but maybe I was mistaken.

Regardless, what some others have said is right. Start worrying when Roger loses like this at a slam. Until then, I think we have to assume that it's business as usual.

@nadline,rain & f4t,
that is no. 2 on my wishlist for french open.. :D

well about tim ruffin..
i would suggest nadline and raindrops to follow tim.. because he has one thing in common with you..
he is a HUGE rafan!!
he has some wonderful articles that will inspire hope in all of us rafans..
i'll try to post the link..

@ cheryl ... it is always worrying .. the traits of a champion never diminish .. the problem is that it seems that 3 setters does not give Fedex the edge to fight back ... the happy part is that he does not lose easily, the losses have all been close 3 setters .. in fact he lost the last two having match points on his serve ....
Go fedex go .. get some momentum .. do well now on and please defeat anyone in the way :D

thanks clayking...it's really a nice read and I laugh at this:

-------> "the chickens are about to come home to roost"

Hey Clayking, thanks for the articles. Hope the no 1 prophecy comes true. Even if it doesnt, at least the slam total inches up

hey clayking thanks for the links. thoroughly enjoyed reading them.

rain: i like that bit too.

@raindrops..
thanks for reading that..
i guess you liked it..
tim does write wonderful articles..
since one of his articles was mentioned thought about letting my fellow rafans know..

@homs & vmk..
glad you both liked it..
the article for no.1 is actually my favourirte article of all he has written..
alongwith another one that compares laver and fed..

I think Cheryl is right. If fed is still playing like he has in the last 3 tourneys when he reaches the FO, then his fans have something to worry about.

I just wish that Roger and Rafa could be in the same place at the same time like they used to be. It's really a shame that they can't both be playing great at one tournament.

Then again Amor, looking at it from another view, the same 2 people in every final does get boring after awhile, especially for those of fans not named Rafa or Roger. What has made tennis more exciting lately is that the unexpected is expected.

As a Federer fan i always admired how he took things seriously treat the tournment with respect but through the match with Gublis the feeling has changed.
after the "silly" break back at 5-5 he played even more redicoulous tennis, so un interested so non caring i dont think it is Nadal either it is somethimg else i dont understand what the hell was that about if you are not ready to fight to play to compete simply dont play, no QF in three tournments on a row 2 with match points and the last one the oponents almost froze at the end?what the hell was that about?
that was silly unprofessional and insulting to the sport and to the fans.

Forget the fingernails, by the end of 3rd set no toenail was spared! O'brother, I believe I witnessed bradykinesia, rigidity and all other signs of striatonigral degeneration developing all during one set!!! Ahhhh ... never mind!!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: (I was just going to paste the previous post, but it seems to have gone missing)

I don't care what anyone else says, there's nothing wrong with Federer's game that being at Roland Garros in late May won't cure.

Until proven wrong, I stand by that statement.

I don't think that it is The Fed who doesn't want to play Rafa. Tell me one player who sees Rafa across the court on dirt and is so excited for the challenge be it second round or final day.....duh.

Fed's lost a few, cut him a break. He's achieved everything, happy in his home life, loves playing tennis and still goes out there everyday and trys to win. You win some, you lose and it's how you handle it and come back that's important.

Remember 2008 he had mono, Ancic still isn't back and got sick before Fed. 2009 Rafa was injured, he didn't play but we see him today, jumping all around. Don't count The Fed out too soon, even though he is Rafa's senior by 5 years.

The point is I don't think they have had the opportunity to challenge each other recently but let us not give up on one more showdown of our 2 great players in this era. It will happen. As a Fed fan I didn't know that so many fans had turned on him, looking on his web site registered fans have gone up.

Change the title of this article........ SODERLING & FEDERER JUST DON'T WANT TO PLAY RAFA!.............. POOR Wawrinka, he doesn't have that much of a choice!

McQ, sorry?

McQ.....lol!!!

You guys stop jinxing Rafa!!! In this tourney, there have been quite a few 'upsets'......one match at a time for Rafa!!!!....please?

wow maxi!!
nice to see you here!!
i thought you won't be here till estoril begins..
@mcq
isn't soderling the sensible guy??

hahahaha McQ...YOU ROCK !!!

The players have a new motto now (just in Rome...for now)........ BETTER to suffer an UPSET than be crushed and humiliated by the KING on center court!!!....

Rafa has been making a mockery of his opponent's suppose to be WiNNER shots!....... he's in a real scary form!!!

VAMOS RAFA!.... It's not the SWISS that we're anticipating,,, but a PROXY will do!.... GOOD LUCK to STAN! ....... a little prayer will not hurt!

So, what does all this, the rancid forehands and the fairly low-key post-match assessment, tell us about Federer now and in immediate future? I'd venture to say that he's in an odd psychological position when he's not playing a major, not playing for history. On the surface of his brain, he wants to win and hates to lose as much as ever. But motivation and will and desire are only semi-conscious attributes?you can't fool your own mind into wanting something more than it really does. What was disturbing in the second set was how quickly Federer faded away after Gulbis asserted himself early. What was disturbing in the third was how he didn't capitalize on his extra chance at 5-5, seemingly because at some level he didn't think it was his day to win. That's where the extra, unconscious motivation may have been missing and wold have been there at a slam: Federer couldn't manufacture a win purely out of his will and his experience. I'm sure, at that point, that even Gulbis believed that Federer would make him pay for his double faults and choked forehands. Maybe, after the losses in Indian Wells and Key Biscayne, Federer has become fatalistic about the Masters, maybe he's starting to assume he won't find his best game. Afterward, he even uttered a word that has never been associated with him: "I may have to get through some ugly matches." Hopefully he'll take that prediction to heart, but it can't be a pleasant thought for the man who has always been aware of, and proud of, his "beautiful technique."

tj - that's actually an EXCELLENT point. Getting through ugly matches is a far cry from "I just want to play beautiful tennis".

Excellent read once again Ms. Murray. (Have you ever written an article that wasn't completely awesome)? I agree with you that it's insulting to suggest that Federer would tank a match. Full credit to Ernests as he seems to finally have some control of his amazing talent.
I would however subscribe to the article's headline if you replace Federer's name with Soderling. Rafa's in amazing form right now, and seeing Soderling's total lack of effort today in the Wawrinka blowout suggests that his pride won't let the world see him potentially get crushed against the man he happened to topple at last year's FO. I would believe in a second he would tank a match.

Right now it seems none of the top 10 players want to play Rafa. Hope Nole at least faces Rafa. Else another tournament won without beating a top 10 player

Well, Nole just lost but Rafa may once again meet Nando!!!

Look, what is this with 'top ten' player nonsense?!!!!! The top ten players are playing CRAP!!! They are being beaten by less than top ten players.......so what is the point of Rafa facing them when it would clearly be incredibly embarrassing for them!!! Do you think in Federer's form that he would ever in his dreams beat such an in form Rafa?!!!!! Me thinks Fed did himself a GREAT favour by losing to Gulbis, and even more so, now he has just lost his doubles matchh to Isner/Query!!!!

So give this 'top ten' crap a rest!!!......Rafa will soon topple Agassi's ATP record and people are just jealous bcos they expected Federer to do so first!!!

Rafa can't help it if none of the other top ten players get far enough in tournaments to play him! This old chestnut is well passed it's sell by date.

Monalysa,

Thanks for saying what needs to be said! I keep reading on tennis forums that Rafa hasn't beaten a top ten player! Well, it's not his fault! Look at how Sod played in his match with Wawrinka? Did that look like a guy who was hungry to meet Rafa again? I think not! If nobody wants to play Rafa, then too bad on them.

Right now there is this strange void at the top of men's tennis. No one is playing well except Rafa. Djoko can't seem to get through to even the semis of any tournaments these days. Murray is losing in the first or second match. Fed has crashed out early in all his recent matches. Delpo is still out with a wrist injury. So out of the top five players, Rafa is the only one who is in great form. It's a bit ironic, considering how he struggled for so long.

I keep saying a win is a win is a win. The record books don't put an asterisk beside your name and say that you didn't beat the top players. I heard this nonsense when Rafa ended his title drought at MC. According to a few Fed fans, if he had been there then Rafa wouldn't have won. It's this absurd should have, could have, would have and what if's that drive me absolutely crazy! As Rafa has said himself, it's what actually happens on the court that counts! What counts is that Rafa is beating whoever meets him in the quarters or semis or finals. He doesn't get to go choose his opponent. It's up to the others to step up their game and get deep enough into a tournament. If it's the lesser ranked players who are getting it done, in the absence of the higher ranked players, then more power to them.

tj and Cheryl:
you're touching on one of the most interesting aspects of tennis... the deeper aspects of the mental game.

Cheryl, you've mentioned before that when Roger's timing is off his game tends to suffer a lot. But do you believe that his timing is off in particular when his 'deeper' motivation - as tj explains very well - is not quite there?

actually rafa has played a top ten player and beaten him this year....nando was world no 9 when he was at the finals of monte carlo.....its just that the rankings arent updated b4 a major tournament finishes......so he was still read as world no 11...but in reality he had gained more points than worldno 10 b4 the finals!!

Chlorostoma - that might be true, but what I think is maybe MORE true is that in a best of 5 set match, Roger has time to sort timing issues out. The tournament is longer, the first opponents are not as difficult, so flubbing up timing against...say.....Ryan Sweeting at Wimbledon is going to look a lot different than against Gulbis in Rome.

My short answer is that I think he HAS timing problems at Slams - it's just that his early round opponents can't take advantage...and by the time he plays somebody who COULD take advantage, he's worked it out.

if you are speaking of this year..
then u can include tsonga too..
if only its clay season, well rafa has defeated 2 clay court match leaders..
and of course nando too..

Rafa will soon topple Agassi's ATP record and people are just jealous bcos they expected Federer to do so first!!!
Monalysa , 4/30/10 4:52 PM

Mon,
i find what you say above very bizarre (sorry to say). Being a massive fed fan :), i for one, have no problemo at all whether rafa gets to 17 masters and equals agassi's record, nor whether it is fed. if rafa gets equal with agassi, then he damn well deserves it. good luck to him.

secondly, there has been so many discussions, all over tennis forums about federer's demise for, about 2 years now. it is to be expected. it doesnt bother me so much now. it bothers me some, but not as much as it used to bother me. and i can honestly say to you, that if rafa at some time in the future, regain the no.1 again, i could not think of a more worthy champion than rafa. i dont know why some rafa fans think that fed fans hate rafa. i dont hate him, never have, it is just federer that i admire and respect in terms of his game and always will. whether he is no.1, no.2 or no. 8? i dont really care. I love to watch him play and i want him to continue playing for as long as the earth revolves.

so good luck to rafa in this tournament. i think he has to defend this title so as not to drop any points, and i am sure he will. i can tell you, jealousy does not come into it, why should it? federer has 16 slams, if he never one another slam again, i am just thankful that he is still playing and out of all of the players, has been the most consistent in slams, as rafa has been in masters.

Rafa can't help it if none of the other top ten players get far enough in tournaments to play him! This old chestnut is well passed it's sell by date.

deuce , 4/30/10 8:24 PM

I couldn't agree more, deuce. You play the opponents you do, period, and if you win, you deserved to win, period.

All I wanted to add here is that if a certain tennis player whose last name starts with an F and ends in ederer were inserted in the same sentence in place of Rafa, a few Nadalites would be all over themselves slanging the "excuses" of Fed fans.

Cheryl,
very interesting answer! It's true that I can't recall a single slam where Federer played really badly for an entire match... only maybe for a part of a match. And your answer is at the level that is visible to us. The underlying psychology ... that I find fascinating... is less visible and more prone to our interpretation and projection. It is one of the areas where Roger and Rafa do not resemble each other that much.

@ Maxi,

I dont mean to offend any of the Fed fans here....thats the honest truth.....but it really irritates me when Rafa is not given his due after ALL what he has done for the game!!

We ALL cannot like Rafa, and we ALL cannot like Roger, and thank God for that bcos what a boring world it would be!! But give the players thier worthy credit! Its the same when others say that the reason why Fed won so many GS is bcos there was no one to rival him (except the odd Safin/Nalby), and we all know that this is not quite fair!!!!....and Fed fans absolutely HATE that argument!!!....so its the same way we feel when people make that rubbish comment about 'top ten' players when it comes to Rafa!!

These guys work hard day in day out.....its not easy....and when they have a bad day at the office we are so hard on them!!......like now in the case of Fed.......leave the poor guy alone!!!!!........and Rafa too!!

mona,
i agree with you.
i see many discussions about roger losing early in tournaments now and it doesnt sit easy with me. but what can be done? (having conversation with ollyk bout this in the past), what can you do? nothing. only he knows what he is doing. i just look forward to better/best days for him. rafa has returned, and for that, i am pleased.he is great for tennis, and may be, just may be, roger and rafa will play each other once more, which is always a pleasure.

SP,

Well, I won't be one of those certain Rafa fans who will somehow degrade Fed's wins. Must we go there again? I think the reasonable fans of ALL players know that if you win it doesn't matter if you beat the best player the third best, the fifth best, etc. It's winning that counts. If the top players cannot get through, then too bad for them.

Now hopefully we can put this to rest.

@cherylmurray , 4/30/10 8:56 PM


Cheryl, I am so pleased you made this point, when I said this some weeks ago, I was attacked by all Fedfans and no one agreed with me. Some people said that it was the most ridiculous thing they'd ever heard.

It is evident, that slams for the top players is not as pressurised as Masters, for the same reason you give above, that's why Federer is more successful in slams than in Masters, and the whole ranking thing feeds off itself, because the points for slams are so much more than for other tournaments, Federer has been able to maintain his No1 ranking, even though he performs so badly in the other tournaments. For this reason, it is evident that a player cannot be called the GOAT simply because they are the most successful in slams. If you look at Roger's Rankings History the bulk of his points are earned in slams, and that doesn't represent the broad spectrum of tennis.

I think that Masters deserve far more points than they are awarded.

"It is evident, that slams for the top players is not as pressurised as Masters, for the same reason you give above, that's why Federer is more successful in slams than in Masters, and the whole ranking thing feeds off itself, because the points for slams are so much more than for other tournaments, Federer has been able to maintain his No1 ranking, even though he performs so badly in the other tournaments".

Unbelievable comment.not really interested whether you said it, cheryl said it, anyone said it, but to say it is totally unbalanced and coloured.


"not as pressurised"? you kill me, laughing.

Oh my bad. i have woken up this morning to this ridiculous comment. i cant even comment because - mona, you see?

Federer is the GOAT. i dont know why you bring this up carrie. enjoy the tennis from rafa at the moment, in rome. this should keep you smiling instead of having a go at our beloved roger. you are silly sometimes. you weren't attacked by all fedfans, so please stop generalising and stereotyping all of us.

Federer is more successful at slams because he is THE most consistent and THE best when it comes to playing in them. why do you have to start this off again?

Federer hasnt gone out in an early round of a masters since well, 2000, that's 10 years at the top. and i am not going to comment on his figures in slams here, because he consistently brings the ridiculous to slams because no one out there (not even rafa) in terms of consistency has been able to beat him. yes carrie, come on and quote your ever boring h2h. i'm waiting. i'd love to see this here. *yawn*. great to have discussion with you but do you have to be so repetitive?

5 sets? in a slam, more points because it is harder to stay out there for 4-5 hours, to consistently maintain that focus on court.one lapse of focus and you can easily lose.This is roger's focus, it doesnt please me that he doesnt take masters so seriously (my belief), may be he does, but just doesnt have that edge in them anymore, so many different reasons for that. he really doesnt bring his best, but at least (if that can be said), he has had 3 setters, and some have gone to tie breaks and some he has had match point, so (though I am not happy at all with this), it isnt as if he isnt trying, else why not go out in straight sets? but as Ollyk says, what can you do?

"If you look at Roger's Rankings History the bulk of his points are earned in slams, and that doesn't represent the broad spectrum of tennis."

Wow, so a guy whose won 16 masters series events(2nd on the all time list) , made it to 25 masters series finals(more than anyone else) 4 TMC/WTFs, and won 62 titles(including his 16 slams) doesnt represent the broad spectrum of tennis?

@maxi
i completely agree with you. Slams ARE harder to win than masters series events. In masters, there isnt the same media pressure there is at the slams.(just ask Andy Murray how its like to play under that pressure) Furthermore, you need to be physically and mentally tougher to win a slam. Its why guys like Monfils, Berdych, Tsonga,Gasquet etc have never won a slam despite their incredible talent. Thats the point, you can win a masters shield if you suddenly get hot, but thats not necessarily the case for a slam.

ok..
to the fed fans here..
u say fed is GOAT..
well let us put aside all the pros and cons associated with a title like GOAT..
when you say GOAT, do you mean..
a) the greatest SINGLES player of all time
b) the greatest TENNIS player of all time
c) the greatest SINGLES player in open era
d) the greatest TENNIS player of open era

i highlight this because you see tennis is not just about singles.. normally, when we say GOAT we do mean singles even though we do not specify it .. but some fed fans actually say he is the greatest player ever in tennis.. my dear fed fans on tt, first choose the criteria by which you call fed GOAT.. i will present my arguments accordingly..

as for masters slams debate..
i will say winning slams is tougher..
because you have to be consistent over 2 weeks and over 7 matches.. you may say the better players face weaker opposition early on, that is right.. but that cannot be helped.. it is like choosing the best out of a field of 100+ players.. so the current method has to be done..
however winning masters is no cakewalk.. actually people tend to believe you don't even need half the effort of winning a gs to win a masters.. that is WRONG.. you need to put atleast 80% of the efforts of winning a grandslam into winning a masters.. one reason is because in masters from day one, you have to be on your toes.. you may need just 7 days of tennis to win masters, but you require higher concentration levels to win, because you have LESSER chances to recover from mistakes.. so anyone who undermines masters is actually not a tennislover (pun unintended)..

the reason lesser ranked players win a masters is because the higher ranked players make mistakes early on and get eliminated(that will count as mistake of higher ranked players).. it leaves the draw open for lesser ranked players.. the higher ranked players simply do not go into top gear from day 1 and because of that they lose.. allowing the next level of players to win..so winning a masters is no easy thing..

I still maintain that even though slams are played over 5 sets, top players just waltz thro' the early easy rounds because the opposition are players they would beat in their sleep, unless on the odd occasion they come across a particularly talented newcomer. Slams are spread over two weeks, and players have a day's rest in between matches, whilst in Masters the top players play daily, no matter how arduous their match was the day before.

clayking, I don't agree that lesser ranked players win Masters on a regular basis, most Masters are won by someone in the top 10, but I think they are harder to win because the competition is full on from day one, and that is why they sometimes lose in early rounds.

For the amount of effort needed to win a Masters, I think they are worth more than half the points of slams. To just live on winning slams is not the full picture to enable anyone to be the GOAT.

Good Morning Clayking, tj and nadline, now i know this is just ONE debate and i know that we all have our own opinions (god bless the lord for that one!), and as nadline brought this up, this is the only reason why I am bringing this info into the fighting ring, federer has done more than enough (as a die.hard fan) for me, I can watch his matches anytime i like, he is there in front me, bringing the tennis ball alive. i hope that he continues to enthrall me with his game. one day this will stop, natural cycle of things, but he is still here and still at the top of the game - and for so long - that is what is sensational to me.

"For the amount of effort needed to win a Masters, I think they are worth more than half the points of slams. To just live on winning slams is not the full picture to enable anyone to be the GOAT".

nadline , 5/1/10 10:17 AM

i think that's rubbish nadline. slams are what define a champion, what experts say all the time.



Who's the GOAT? 1-Federer v 12-Laver
Fri Apr 30 12:18PM - Simon Reed


In the first of our Greatest Of All Time semi-finals the two men with arguably the strongest claim to the title go head-to-head.

Top seed Roger Federer takes on Australian legend Rod Laver for a place in the title match.

Roger Federer

Nationality: Swiss

Seeded: 1

Grand Slam titles: 16

Australian Open winner (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)

French Open winner (2009)

Wimbledon winner (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)

US Open winner (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

Rod Laver

Nationality: Australian

Seeded: 12

Grand Slam titles: 11

Australian Open winner (1960, 1962, 1969)

French Open winner (1962, 1969)

Wimbledon winner (1961, 1962, 1968, 1969)

US Open winner (1962, 1969)

Simon Reed's verdict

When Laver did his first Grand Slam most of the other big names had turned pro so he was comfortably the best player left around. You can never say a Grand Slam isn't impressive but it meant less than the second one.

Although by the time the second one came around, most of these guys had got older and were beginning to retire. So in many ways that gap worked for him either side.

But he was a heck of a player and a delight to watch. It was great watching him play, he did elevate men's tennis to a new level. But Federer has done that also.

If you imagine Laver playing Federer, Federer wins every time, that's the problem with this one; you can't get that out of your head.

On grass Federer would have been too good. I would see him winning that with at least one break of serve and possibly two, definitely comfortably.

The other two surfaces would be tougher. I think we underestimate Federer on clay because of Rafael Nadal. I think Nadal has been the best ever clay court player and if it hadn't been for Rafa I'm convinced Federer would have won three of four French Opens.

I think he's a very good clay court player and I have Federer winning on all three surfaces.

You have to imagine how Laver would play and there's no doubt he would be very difficult to knock over. He would be even fitter, even stronger and all the court craft he had, the wonderful game and fantastic backhand he had, he wouldn't have been easy.

But Federer's record is better than Laver's; he has won more Slams and he has elevated men's tennis in the way that Laver did. He is the better all round player.

Final verdict

Federer wins: 6-3 (grass) 7-5 (clay) 6-3 (hard)

@nadline..
1st of all i did not mention lesser ranked players win it regularly..
2nd by lesser ranked players i meant players from 5-20..
sorry if i did not make myself clear..
well nadline, your point is valid, but maintaining your focus over 2 weeks is tougher you know..
and slams always have that added pressure to it..
with slams there are so many psychological factors associated that winning a slam becomes tougher..
winning a masters is not as tough as slams.. the problem here is people think it is too easy and they undermine it, does not give it the credit it deserves.. that is wrong..

maxi,
its good afternoon here..
but good morning to you..
by the way i would rather prefer if you answer the question i asked.

"when you say GOAT, do you mean..
a) the greatest SINGLES player of all time
b) the greatest TENNIS player of all time
c) the greatest SINGLES player in open era
d) the greatest TENNIS player of open era"

choose an option.. i'll reply later on..
as for the article you gave, i admire your effort..
however i can see this guy simon reed does not know his maths..
laver has 19 majors..
i will give you more math but first please answer the question..
actually i can give u 4 arguments,
but depending on your answer i will choose which one to present here.. :P

It appeared that the lady can't find a nerve to select so, I'll do it for the fedfans ... LETTER B. Obviously that's what they want ... I BET.

whys eveyone talkin about the goat issue? Im not sure if theres even a GOAT. But even if there is, you cant say fed is the GOAT till hes finished his career.

@clayking
yes, laver did win 19. but i believe with some of the slams he won, the draw consisted of only eight players?(top 8) That doesnt make me think hes the GOAT or w/e you guys r on about.

tj, the reason the GOAT argument has come up is because nadline has brought it up. that is why.

Clayking, good evening (sorry!), i didnt know your above post was addressed to me, so am happy to respond. I would like to say the following:

a), check.
b), check.
c), check.
d), check.

all of them.

secondly,

Laver won 11 majors. I know you mention "19", but if you read most of the arguments (I cant say "all" because I havent read them all clayking), what tj says is right. Whenever you read about the majors, laver is always listed as having won 11 and not 19.

Morning raindrops,

are you in a bad tempered mood this morning?

"It appeared that the lady can't find a nerve to select so, I'll do it for the fedfans ... LETTER B. Obviously that's what they want ... I BET.
Raindrops , 5/1/10 11:02 AM "

when i posted, i didnt see clayking's request to me, so i suppose i need to ask you a question? why are you so bothered about me responding? are you my personal bodyguard? really, i dont need one. but thanks for responding as me above. no harm done. :)

maxi,
sorry to say but you are little bit lacking in the history department..
laver has 19, 11 grand slams and 8 pro championships..
pro championships were equivalent of grand slams for professionals..
there were 3 pro championships every year..

tj, that solves my problem..
the only reason i said anything was because maxi said fed is the GOAT..
and you know i disagrree to the very usage of the term..
i have nothing to say since u say there is no GOAT, but i will continue with my argument, since maxi has chosen all the options up there..

as for laver, yup, 6 or 7 of them were so.. but just to tell you they were the best 8..
but back then the system was too different..
there were a lot more h2h meetings than anything..
and anyway still '69 slams had 128 players..
and the GOAT argument i am continuing ahead is addressed for maxi..
i hope you won't jump in and say fed is GOAT..

since you are a fed fan, i would like your opinion on the article maxi put up.. not to argue anything... just wat you think??

maxi,
you say fed is greatest tennis player of all time.. do you realise that tennis just does not mean singles but also doubles.. i don't remeber fed having done anything of note in doubles except a gold in olympics.. so i don't even think you can say fed is greatest ever in tennis..mcenroe won 17 grand slams in tennis.. and still jmac is no. 10 on the list of highest gs winners.. so that answers your options b &d.. greatest in tennis.. you gotta be kidding me.. just goes on to show how you people disregard doubles tennis..

now we come to the more sensible argument..
singles players..
option a says greatest of all time..
sorry but that has to be laver..
that guy has 198 singles titles compared to fed's 62..
(i'll make 62 70.. xpecting him to win some more before he hangs up his boots)
no problems of lack of motvation.. no problems in winning tournaments.. no excuse like below slam level.. if he plays something, he plays to win..
and don't think of putting fed at no. 2 position by the weight of 16 slams..
has fed dominated top of tennis rankings for 8 years??.
no it has been 5 years(04-07, 09).. and this year will be last surely..
gonzales was no.1 for 8 years..
i can bring more names(like rosewall 23 majors etc.) but i think this is sufficient to prove your option a wrong

option d..
i will give you that..
only borg is his equal and i am not going to say ifs and buts..
even then, there are so many problems.. i mean technology, sports gear all were so different..
you do not know how borg would have done with today's gear or how fed would have done back then..
but still i am accepting for now fed is a strong candidate for open era greatest..

The Greatest Of All Time is not a man but a LADY...her name is Martina Navratilova.

rain..
that is a whole other dimension..
and a hugely controversial one..
let us not touch that...

p.s. by the way it is margaret court :P

hi clayking, thanks for your helpful information above.

part of me said all a) to d), because I wanted to hear "all" of your arguments, clayking and I too, have already posted some info above from simon reed fed v laver and i have to tell you that i agree with simon reed. I know you have mentioned about the 19 slams of laver, so why is it then, that these are "not" counted in any of the experts analysis clayking? doubles are not included in singles and vice versa, else they would be, right?

Laver, grand slam titles: 11

Grand Slam titles: 11

Australian Open winner (1960, 1962, 1969)

French Open winner (1962, 1969)

Wimbledon winner (1961, 1962, 1968, 1969)

US Open winner (1962, 1969)
You cant bring doubles into this argument (respectfully), i'll tell you why, because this is NOT the questions that you have asked: this is what you said clayking:

"when you say GOAT, do you mean..
a) the greatest SINGLES player of all time
b) the greatest TENNIS player of all time
c) the greatest SINGLES player in open era
d) the greatest TENNIS player of open era"

where is doubles in this?

My history of the game may very well not be as good as yours clayking, you dont have to "give" me anything. this will always be a conversation which will run with no final solution for some, but it is an easy one for me. (happy to say).

Not only this, federer winning 5 USO's to laver's 2 USO's.
Federer's 6 wimbys to Laver's 4 wimbys
Laver's 2 FO's to Fed's 1 FO, so yes, technically Laver was better than Fed on clay, but this is the only major that he was better than him (in terms of results).

It is ironic that Laver thinks that Fed is the best and Fed thinks that Laver it is the best! I have links somewhere clayking where each have said this, and later I will post that link to you (later today).

but i will go on to say that I think the men's depth in tennis is much stronger now than it has ever been, which is why roger's ability to stay at the top for so long is why he is the best. whether you believe that roger is a "strong candidate" for the best open era greatest", makes no difference to me.

He.Is.THE.only.candidate.

billie jean king called steffi graf the greatest female player of all time about 10 years ago. she won calender year golden slam, all 4 slams at least 4 times each, etc.

then...you could argue...if seles wasn't stabbed.....etc..

then...you could also argue court won 2 more slams than steffi...etc.. :)

maxi,
since you are saying "he is the greatest to me", i believe it is your personal opinion..
now by personal opinion, i will say gonzales is GOAT, if there can be a GOAT..
but you see personal opinions differ..
as for GOAT, i believe there can be no GOAT, because all time is such a vast time..
you cannot compare tennis across the eras..
there were so many differences in gear, technology and all..

anyway if you have the patience, do read this..
it is an article about this issue..
it was written last year after fed won 15 slams..

Greatest Tennis Players of all time "GOATs"

Click for Greatest Tennis Players of all time "GOATs"
Click for Criteria determining "GOATs"
Click for Greatest Tennis Players of each decade
Click for 3 Greatest Tennis Players of each decade
Click for Male Tennis Number 1's since 1913

Greatest Tennis Players of all time GOAT:
NOTE1: This is really the greatest tennis players of all time, the top guys on the list are contenders for GOAT IMO.
NOTE2: This is just my ranking based on research and comments from many other knowledgeable tennis historians. Will consider and appreciate any comments for changes or additions to these evolving lists.

? Laver - Only player to win 2 grand slams with 180+ overall titles.
1st 1962 Grand Slam in a depleted amateur field, 2nd in 1969 in a field packed with great players, the only 'true' Grand Slam in history.
Rod Laver actually has the equivalent of 3 grand slams since he won every significat pro event in 1967. If it had been an open tennis year, I feel that Laver would have won the Grand Slam plus all the major titles outside of the Grand Slam as well. (Equivalent to today to winning the Grand Slam and all of the Super 9 events).
He turned pro in 1963. Was Number#1 from 1964 to 1969, 5 straight years. He never played well at a Slam anymore after 1969, but was arguably still the best player around in 1970-1971, as he won plenty of big tournaments, was the prize money leader by far, and regularly trounced the slam winners, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe, in other tournaments.
Was at his best on grass and indoor, but showed he could be an all-court player by winning the French Pro agains Newcombe in 1968, RG against Rosewall in 1969, and Rome in 1971 against Kodes (who would win RG later). Won around 20 'True Grand Slam', around 40 big 'Super 9-like' tournaments (by my count), and at least 180 events over all !!!!
? Tilden - Longevity and titles make Bill a strong GOAT choice, top player dominated for 6 years almost without losing. Bill dominated the 1920's and was still a factor till almost 1940.
Bills amazing 10 amateur Slams with 6 Davis Cup: 1920-1925 winning streak was finally broke in 1926 losing a match.
? Gonzales - Longevity and titles make Pancho a strong GOAT choice. Eight straight years as world pro champ.
Great amateur years in '48-'49, wining back-to-back Forest Hills, plus many big tournaments (PSW Los Angeles, US Indoors, Newport,...). One of the main pros right from his debut year in 1950, winning Wembley and and the US Pro indoors. Arguably the Number#1 in 1952 when Kramer semi-retired (though Sedgman came up very strong too). Maybe the best again in 1953, but we'll never know since Kramer didn't allow him to compete in his tour. A clear Number#1 from 1954 to 1959, six straight years. He retired several times in the 60s, but incredibly had each time amazing come-backs, winning the US Pro Indoors in 1964 over Laver, the BBC2 Wembley event over Rosewall and Laver in 1966, the Las Vegas Open in 1969, and the PSW Los Angeles in 1969 and 1971!!! In terms of will-power, probably the greatest ever. Only drawback: his main achievements were on very fast surfaces, and he never did as well outside of the US than inside.
? Budge - Only other player to win the grand slam. Don maybe the GOAT if you consider he was the only player to achieved the incredible feat of winning the Wimbledon triple (singles, doubles, mixed) in back-to-back years.
Don had major bad luck (bad injuries, and WW2). First Grand Slammer, but in quite a depleted field for this time (he would never have won the French, on his weakest surface, had former champs Perry and Von Cramm been around). Totally dominated the pros in 1939 and 1940. Was injured in '41, went on to dominate again in '42 but in a very small pro tour because of the war. Probably the best player in the world in 1937-1940 and 1942, and could have been the best ever if he hadn't had his best years during WW2.
? Vines - Did not win a slam like Budge but pretty dominate over the same era and even Budge himself considered Vines the true champion of the 1930s decade
? Kramer - Number one and dominated for half a decade against some of the best pre-open players ever
? Federer - Dominated 2000's very much like Sampras in the 1990s, and unlike Sampras won the French in 2009 and then Wimbledon 2009* to break open tennis slam championship record. (*Nadal could not defend sring of 2 championships). Without Rafael Nadal at his current years level of health, Roger was able to win a career slam in 2009.
? Sampras - Failure to win the French Open limit Pete's GOAT considerations. Pete's outstanding record at Wimbledon is tops against all GOAT contenders and is only equaled by Lawn Tennis Great Willie Renshaw's who won under the Challenge Round era. Both Tilden and Gonzales were ranked No. 1 longer than Pete and Kramer was number 1 approx. the same duration.
14 Grand Slam titles, 5 Masters. A Renshaw-tying 7 Wimbledon. 6 straight years as N°1.
? Perry - One of only 4 players to win all 4 slam finals and also won double titles for each slam. Fred won eight slam singles titles and was also a table tennis and golf champion.
? Rosewall - Played and won past 40 years of age wiht approx. 23 major titles (amateur and pro) 4 Slams
Youngest ever to win the Australian or French Prevented a Grand Slam by Trabert in 1955 and stopped Hoad?s in 1956 Did not win Wimbledon (but made two finals there in the 1950s) 6 doubles titles in Slams Helped Australia win 3 Davis Cups
Won the Davis Cup, the Australian and Roland Garros when he was 19! He turned pro in 1957 and quickly showed he was second only to Gonzales. In 1960, with Pancho semi-retired, he became the Number#1. 1962 and 1963 were extremely dominant, "Grand Slam-like" years. Became n°2 to Laver from 1964 on. Had a great come-back during Open tennis, beating Laver in RG 1968, winning the US in 1970 and 2 more Australian Open. Reached Wimbledon and Forest Hills finals in 1974, aged 40! Probably won around 120 tournaments. Will be forever the best player never to have won Wimbledon. He's the best all-court player of all-time, being able to beat all-time greats such as Hoad or Laver on wood or grass, and being the clear-cut Number#1 on clay throughout the 60s.
? McEnroe - Dominated 1980..1985 in both singles and doubles and Davis Cup which is rare for open players
? Borg - Short career and failures at the US Open drop Bjorn considerations even though his slam accomplishments and winning percentage over 82% were probably tops for years played
The best clay-courter ever (maybe tied with Rosewall). Won 6 RG, losing to only 1 player in all his career. After passing in 1977, came back in 1978, and destroyed the whole field, losing only 32 games and 0 sets, embarassing defending champ Vilas in the final. He was able to adapt his game to grass, and won 5 straight Wimbledon, including 3 RG-Wim doubles. Lost 4 US finals. Was N°1 for 3 or 4 years. He retired at 26. Some more years on the tour and a US victory, and he could be THE G.o.a.t..
? Hoad - Short career and consistency failures dropped Lew but was almost the 3rd grand slam winner if not for Rosewalls comeback win in the US Open final 4 Slams Won 3 Slams in one year Never won the U.S. 6 doubles titles in Slams Helped Australia win 3 Davis Cups Defeated Trabert in a classic Cup match in 1953 Often tipped as the best ever on his best day
? Cochet - Lacoste and Cochet were Tilden's toughest rivals, and they would be more-or-less tied at No. 2 for the 1920s.
? Lacoste - See Cochet above.
? Connors - Number one and only player to win US Open on grass, clay and hard courts. Longevity and titles get Jimmy added to this list.
? Agassi - Career slam and number one ranking in the open era get Andre added to the list
? Lendl - Number one and dominated 1985..1990 against some of the best open players ever

Criteria for Greatest Tennis Players of all time GOAT:

? List considers world champions and championships rather than just open slam titles
? Players who have no weaknesses are favored thus greatly helps to have championships on all surfaces or major tournaments where top players played
? The competition; number of mutiple number #1 and championship players that the player faced in career
? Greater longevity and durations of dominance is favored over shorter careers and shorter periods of dominance
? Consider dominance over several years with adjustments for quality of opposition and tournament. (More DOT than ELO Ratings).
?
? Below are GOAT the considerations stated by "SgtJohn" from the TW boards. I feel these are excellent issues to be considered.
? criteria for a statistical analysis MUST be fair for all players through the history of modern tennis: 1877-2009.
? the direct consequence of above is that only 2 factors can be taken into account: Majors won, and Year-End rankings.
? - Dominance during peak years (this needs to refined further)
? - H2H record against contemporaries. We don't have complete draws and match records for the amateurs before the early 70s, so that's impossible to take into account, unfortunately.
? - number of tournaments won (including pro match series) This is unfair to pre WW2 players on the one hand (travel made it difficult to play a complete season in Europe the US and elsewhere), and to pro players on the other hand (between 1947 and 1960 there were really few tournaments, the nadir took place in 1954-1956, so Gonzales for one is really hurt by this particular figure)
? - number of matches won/lost in a career. Even for guys like Lendl or Connors we don't know this number very accurately, so it's reliable only for post-1990 tennis history.
? - percentages of match play career and best year. Same issue as above.
? - number of Masters, Super Nine events and their equivalents (say 9-10 most important events pro year). I worked hard on this for a while but finally think it's unfair and favoured a fractional majors system
? - some extra points for different surfaces, especially grass and clay (for versatility). This hurts the players who lived in an era when there was almost no diversity (late 60s pros). Plus it seems like a recent concept, I feel that winning on different surfaces has been considered a great feat only for 20 years or so...
? 2 Basic Criteria that needs to be considered
? 1 - Majors tally. I have my own list and methodology that has been discussed at length here, but it's not the be-all end-all and everyone can have a go.
? 2 - Rankings. There are some really hard to rank years, but it still seems possible to write a top 10 for every year with the available information.
? NOTE: figures about longevity or best 5-years period can of course be deduced from the 2 basic ones listed above.
?

Greatest Tennis Players by Decade:

? 1870's
John Hartley, 1879
? 1880's
1880s W. Renshaw / Sears___ Bingley Hillyard
? 1890's
1890s R. Doherty (really NO dominant player) / Josha Pim / Wrenn Dod / Atkinson
? 1900's
1900s H.L. "Laurie" Doherty / Larned___ Douglass Chambers
? 1910's
1910s Brookes / Wilding (tie) ___ Douglass Chambers / Mallory
? 1920's
Bill Tilden - 7 US and 3 Wimbledon titles
? 1930's
Don Budge - 1938 Grand Slam and winner of record 6 consecutive GS's
Note that Budge himself considered Vines the true champion of this decade.
Ellsworth Vines, 1932, 1935, 1936, 1937 & Fred Perry, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937
? 1940's
Jack Kramer - The best professional for most of the decade. Riggs was a tough 2nd and if not for the war, Budge probably would have dominated as even stated by Jack Kramer
Bobby Riggs, 1941, 1943-1945, 1946, 1947
? 1950's
Pancho Gonzales - 7 or 8 years as World No.1 (7 straight US Pro & 4 Wembly Pro)
Competed against many alltime greats including Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Laver, Rosewall, and Hoad.
Best amateur of the 50s is debatable between Sedgman, Trabert and Hoad. Sedge had great Davis Cup (DC) victories against the US teams, won two clear Forest Hills titles 51/52, the last without losing a set i think. In 52 he won DC, Wim and US, in Wim all 3 titles (singles, doubles, mixed).
Trabert was great at French (RG) and US, won RG 54/55, the last American before Chang. After his loss to Rosewall in sf Australia, he won the last 3 of the Grand Slam. Then he turned pro, losing a bitter hth series clearly to Gonzales, however on indoor wood and carpet, not on hard and clay, where he had grown up. Had to deal with Hoad and Rosewall.Won DC 54 in Sydney among the biggest crowds ever.
Hoad wasn't that successful until 56, had his best matches at DC, at the majors, he lost some tight and some clear big matches to Patty and Drobny. Had his best year in 56, winning big in all surfaces. Did the Paris-Rome-Hamburg clay triple, which was emulated only by Laver. Dominated Rosewall, but lost the very last match of the Grand Slam, under heavy wind at Forest Hills to Rosewall in four sets. In 57 he played inconsistenly, but had his best performace in his demolition of Cooper at Wimbledon.
Pancho Gonzales, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959
? 1960's
Rod Laver - World No.1 1964-70. Double Grand Slam 1962(am) & 1969(open era), and Pro Grand Slam in 1967 (US Pro, French Pro, Wimbledon Pro, Wembly Pro) Rosewall a formidable No. 2 for this decade
? 1970's
Jimmy Connors & Bjorn Borg (tie) (Connors: 5 straight years as YE No.1 and consecutive weeks as No.1 record holder) (Borg: 5 straight Wimbledon's and 6 French Open's. 1978-80 French/Wimbledon double) The 1970s go to Borg over Connors based on Bjorns winning percentage and greater number of slams
? 1980's
John McEnroe & Ivan Lendl (tie) (McEnroe: World No.1 1980-84) (Lendl: World No.1 1985-88 & 8 straight US open finals) I prefer Mac based on his allcourt play and dominance in doubles
? 1990's
Pete Sampras - 6 straight years as YE World No.1 & Grand Slam record holder in singles. Record 7 Wimbledon's
? 2000's
Roger Federer - 15 Slams Championships. 5 straight Wimbledon's. World No.1 for record 173 straight weeks.
Roger has the 2000s already locked up but the king of clay is Rafael Nadal and Rafa and the best player from 2008 on is Nadal. Many had already starting claiming Federer as the new GOAT but 2008 started putting an end to talk as Federer has a losing record against Nadal, his main rival during his career. As of 3/20/2009 with Nadal injured an unable to defend Wimbledon title and play at full strenght at the French, Federer was able to surpass the Sampras 13 slam championship record .
?

Three (3) Greatest Tennis Players by Decade:

Note: This is preliminary list compiled by Carlo Giovanni Colussi as posted on the TW boards 4/2009 and Carlo stated that "my list could change a little in future years when I will have collected more results and have made numerous new analysis. Sorry for not listing women but I'm not competent at all"
? 1876-1879
1. Hartley, 2. James Dwight, 3. Hadow
? 1880's men
1. W.C. Renshaw 2. J.E. Renshaw 3. Lawford
? 1890's men
1. Joshua Pim, 2. R.F. Doherty, 3. Wilfred Baddeley (4. M.D. Whitman)
? 1900s men
1. H.L. Doherty, 2. W.A. Larned, 3. R.F. Doherty (4. Brookes who had a top career which started in the mid-1900's and ended in the mid-1910s)
? 1910s men
1. Wilding, 2. Johnston, 3. R.N. Williams (?)
? 1920s men
1. Tilden, 2. Cochet or Lacoste (4. Johnston)
? 1930s men
1. Vines, 2. Perry, 3. Budge or Nusslein (5. possibly Tilden) (Budge was the greatest of the three if we judge their entire careers but in the 30's Budge was "absent" until 1934 included)
? 1940s men
1. Riggs, 2. Budge or Kramer (there is no doubt that Budge and Kramer were better than Riggs but if we select only the years from 1940 to 1949, Riggs was the best in particular because Budge injured in 1943 and Kramer was not a very great in the first half of the 40's)
? 1950s men
1. Gonzales, 2. Segura, 3.Kramer
? 1960s men
1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, ... 3. Gonzales (4. Gimeno)
? 1970s men
1. Borg, 2. Connors, ... 3. Nastase
? 1980s men
1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander
? 1990s men
1. Sampras, 2. Courier or Agassi
? 2000s men
1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt
60's : Gonzales was possibly the best in 1960, was #2 in 1961 at 90% (or #1 at 10%), #3 in 1964 (and could have finished at #1 or 2 had he played the South African pro tour) and from 1965 to 1967 in the pro ranks didn't play much and in particular didn't enter most of the majors but on one tournament could beat everyone and if we compare him with the best amateurs in 1967 he beat Stolle something like 5-2 in direct meetings, Stolle being close to the amateur #1 spot in 1966 (Emerson, Roche, Stolle and Santana were all very close that year) with his wins in the Davis Cup, the US amateur and the German amateur. In 1968 or 1969 he was still able to win events equivalent to the Super 9 or Masters 1000 (Pacific Southwest and Howard Hugues Open in 69). Gonzales was better than Gimeno in 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969 (Gimeno was better in 1962-1963 because Gonzales only played 1 match in 2 years and was better than Pancho in 1966-1967 only because he played throughout those years while Gonzales only played half of the time but in direct meetings Gorgo continued to dominate Andres).
When Gimeno played the same circuit than Emerson, Gimeno was slightly better than the Aussie, be it in 1960 (until July) or in 1968 and 1969 so we can guess (but I recognize it isn't a proof at all) the Spaniard was better than Emmo between late 1960 to 1967. We can also guess that in 1966-1967 Emerson and Stolle were close. In 1967 Gimeno had always better results in the pro ranks than Stolle (except in the South African tour in September) and in direct meetings Gimeno beat Stolle that year 8 matches won to 2. In fact in 1967 Gimeno was very close to Rosewall and Stolle was less good than Laver-Rosewall-Gimeno and even Ralston in the pro ranks. So it is very likely that in 1967 Gimeno was superior to Emerson assuming that Stolle and Emerson were close that year (I recognize a great hypothesis). Gimeno was never the #1 in any given year in the 60's but he greatly rivalled the best pros (for instance in 5 years (1963-1967) Gimeno won 22 tournaments where he beat either Laver or Rosewall and in particular 7 tournaments where he beat both giants. I don't think Emmo would have been able to do that). When Gimeno and Emerson played again the same circuit in 1968 both had equivalent results but Gimeno led 6-2 in head-to-head that year. In conclusion I don't even see at all Emerson in the Top4 of the sixties. I think that in his very best years Emerson was at best the #4 in the world. Emerson certainly not : in his best years he was never in the Top3.
Last remark about the 60's : From 1960 (French Pro) to 1971 (Australian Open) among the 31 majors (here I take into account the 3 Pro Slam tournaments, Wembley-French Pro-US Pro, from 1960 to 1967 and the true Slam events from 1968 to 1971 (I slightly get beyond the pure 60's) where either Rosewall or Laver entered (so it includes majors where both players entered) 29 of them were won by those 2 giants of the game. Astonishing: Rosewall won 16 such majors in that period and Laver won "only" 13... Only Ashe (US Open 1968 ) and Newcombe (Wimbledon 1970) could break that gigantic series!
The advantage of this list is that we have always the same events (at least from 1960 to 1967) but sometimes one of these events hadn't always very strong fields.
If I pick up in my own list (which is of course subjective and therefore debatable) of the 4 greatest events of each year of the 60s (see other relataed posts on TW board) :
Rosewall won 17 or 18 of them, Laver 17, Gonzales 4, Ashe 1 and Hoad 0 or 1. It is probable that I underrate a little bit the amateur players's feats but I don't think too much.
Of course we can't judge players only on their results in majors because many other criteria (proposed by members of that forum such as urban, jeffrey, and others) shall be used (number of years No. 1 (but some years the #1 is unclear), dominance during peak years, head-to-head records against contemporaries, number of tournaments won (including pro match series), number (and percentage) of matches won/lost (consistency), number of Masters, Super Nine events and their equivalents, consistencsome extra points for different surfaces, especially grass and clay (for versatility), quality of opposition (the most difficult criterion to rate), etc...).
In the 70's there is no doubt about Borg the best and Connors his second. The 3rd place is very debatable.
Newcombe would be an obvious choice had he been consistent but if you clearly see his record there are huge "gaps".
In 70, 71 and 73 he won each year the greatest event by far of those years (Wimby 70, 71 and Forest 73) but in each of these years his record outside those events was weak and in my mind he was never the #1 of any of these calendar years. In 1971 he could have been the best but he failed miserably in the US Open (he lost to Kodes who himself in his turn lost to Smith) and because he injured in the doubles of that event he missed nearly all the end of the season. I think that in 70 and 71 Laver was probably the best and in 73 Nastase was without any doubt the best. Let's continue with Newk : in 74 he was perhaps the #2 (very good WCT record), in 1972 he was possibly #6 and in 1975 he was close to the Top10 (except his win from Connors in the Australian he almost did nothing because of injury and mental burnout). So if we consider the entire decade Newk was far from being a top player all along (he was almost absent in the second half of that decade).
I think that Nastase as #3 in the 70's is not a bad choice though Nastase had no consistency at all but however I think he was better than Newcombe. Nastase won 4 or 5 majors (that is equivalent of the modern Slam tourneys) if I consider my own subjective list (US Open 72, Garros 73, Masters 73 and Masters 75 (I don't know if the Italian 73 was one of the majors). It is comparable to Newk's stats (Wimby 70, Wimby 71, US Open 73, WCT 74).
Nastase was globally better ranked than Newk in the whole decade. Nastase was in the Top10, 7 years in a row : from 1970 to 1976. In 1977 he was close to the Top10 (and #9 at the ATP ranking) and in 1978 in the Top20 so Nasty had better years than Newk in the 70's.
For instance in 1973 Nastase lost as many matches as Newcombe (around 16 matches each) but won twice as many matches as Newk (around 114 for Nasty while Newk only won about 57 matches), that year Nastase won 17 tournaments while Newk only won 4 (or 5 or 6 I don't remember).
In 1972 Nastase was #2 but had many successes, 12 tournaments wins including the US Open (the greatest event of the year), the Masters where he beat at last his nemesis of the year (Smith). Newk had never such "full" years. Newk's best year in terms of consistency was 1974 when he won 10 tournaments and was perhaps the #2 behind Jimbo.
In the 70's only, Nastase won 75 tournaments (including 56 "ATP statistics" tournaments) whereas Newk won "only" 32 tournaments (in their whole career Nastase won 87 tourneys and Newcombe 70).
In terms of versatility Nastase won majors on every surface (US Open on grass, French on clay, Masters on indoor court, and also on outdoor hard court (though they weren't majors until Flushing in 78 )) while Newk never won a major on clay (his best win on that surface was the Italian in ... 1969 so outside the 70's).
In head-to-head meetings Nastase led Newcombe something like 5-0 in the 70's (Newcombe's only win from Nasty was in October 1969 at Las Vegas in the 1st round so once again out of the 70's).
In terms of potential on grass, the very best Newk was clearly superior to the best Nasty : Newk was the best grasscourter of the first half of the 70's whereas Nasty was a bit lucky to win Forest Hills because he didn't meet either Smith (beaten by Ashe), Newcombe (defeated by Stolle), Laver (injured), Rosewall (then Nastase's true nemesis) and he sort of distracted Ashe in the 4th set in the final. But on slow surfaces Nastase was clearly better than Newk because Nastase had a very better all-around game than Newk.
I forget other criterias but in my mind there is no doubt that if we consider only the 70's Nastase was ahead of Newcombe (and Smith who was as Newk pretty absent from 1975 to 1979). But there is no doubt that in the 60's Newk was clearly better than Nasty.
In the 80s Wilander was clearly the #3. Many think that Becker or Edberg should deserve that place but they just forget that around half of Becker's and Edberg's feats were realized in the 90's. If we just consider the 80's Wilander was superior to Boom-Boom and Stefan : in particular Wilander had a great record before 1985 while Becker's and Edberg's was virtually nil in the first half of the 80's.
About the 90's I can't really decide between Courier and Agassi. Both had many downs. Agassi wasn't good at all in 1993, 1997 and Courier in the late 90's. Agassi won on every surface (Courier failed at Wimby in 1993) but Agassi was never a #1 except in 1999 and even in that year it was by default because had Sampras not injured at Indianapolis, Pete would have probably won the US Open and therefore would have been once again #1.
Courier, he, was clearly #1 in 1992 and not by default at all and in 1991 he was perhaps the #1 (for the moment in my opinion Edberg was the best in 91 but I wouldn't swear) and in head-to-head, Courier led Agassi 6-3 in ATP events of the 90's (1-2 in the 80's). So I'm not sure that Agassi was ahead Courier in the only 90's (but in the 2000's Agassi's record is not far from his 90's record while Courier's 2000's record is virtually nil).
In the 2000's apparently almost everyone seems to think that the Federer-Nadal-Hewitt is the winning trio in that order.

Male tennis players No. 1 since 1913 (See notes below list)

? 8 years Pancho Gonzales, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
? 7 years Bill Tilden, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931
? 7 years Rod Laver, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970
? 6 years Jack Kramer, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953
? 6 years Ken Rosewall, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1970
? 6 years Pete Sampras, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
? 5 years Fred Perry, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1941
? 5 years Don Budge, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942
? 5 years Roger Federer 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
? 4 years Bjorn Borg, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980
? 4 years Ellsworth Vines 1932, 1935, 1936, 1937
? 3 years Henri Cochet, 1928, 1929, 1930
? 3 years Bobby Riggs, 1941, 1946, 1947
? 3 years Jimmy Connors, 1974, 1976, 1982
? 3 years John McEnroe, 1981, 1983, 1984
? 3 years Ivan Lendl, 1985, 1986, 1987

Excellent stats, my eyes get hurt just reading those astounding feats and accomplishments of greats of the past generations.

? Tilden - Longevity and titles make Bill a strong GOAT choice, top player dominated for 6 years almost without losing. Bill dominated the 1920's and was still a factor till almost 1940.
Bills amazing 10 amateur Slams with 6 Davis Cup: 1920-1925 winning streak was finally broke in 1926 losing a match.


clayking , 5/1/10 3:00 PM



In the days of Tilden, the champion used to just play in the finals to defend his title, so that hardly compares to what happens now. Things have changed dramatically over the years, the racquet head one of the most significant changes.

well rain,
this is as unbiased a list one can compile over this issue..
i have read several lists, but i never came across one as complete as this..
of course, i can foresee many arguing this is not a proper list and all...
and few won't bother to read it..
and you say your eyes hurt reading these..
some out here would not have heard some of the names..
to them it is all about roger..
and by this list, roger is not even top 3..

nadline..
what you say applies to grand slams..
not pro tours..
and do you know why the grand slam system was so??
one reason..
that time air travel was limited and unreliable..
tilden used to travel by ship to reach european countries to play tours and slams..
you realize it..
ships..
takes days to reach there..
and then to play and win..
nadline, life back then was hard..
the world was suffering consequences of wwI
and this man single handedly brought tennis back to world map..
his greatness does not end there..
but that's a different story..
so before saying he played 1 match , 2 match to win slams, try to understand why so..
and anyway in pro tours he played a lot more than 1 match..

I have a few things to add.

First, Bill Tilden is tennis' dirty little secret (though it's not much of a secret). He'll NEVER be in the talk of GOAT, because the ATP doesn't want to acknowledge that a dirty pedophile lurks in their history.

Carrie, I don't disagree with what you said about Masters. In some ways I DO think they're harder for the top players to win, but I do disagree with the sentiment. Every one of the top 4 has the same opportunities at majors as Federer. The fact that he takes advantage better than they is surely to his credit and not some failing of the ranking system.

Also, the GOAT rhetoric is just that. I'm not sure it does any good to designate titles like "Greatest of All Time". How do we measure whether Federer is actually a better player than Rod Laver? Different era, different technology, different competition. And when all is said and done, the point is moot, because you can't argue against 16 Slam titles.

@cheryl..
so we have some expert comment on this issue.. :)
well cheryl, atp acknowldges it or not, he single handedly put tennis on world map..
before him tennis was considered as a feminine sport..
he changed the perception and made it a sport played by powerful men too..
and you may know the guy had the tip of his middle finger amputated..
and whole his tennis career, he had chronic knee problem..
does chronic knee problem ring some bell?
someone in this modern era has same problem..
but he did not let it hinder him and for 20 years more played with it..
and he helped u.s won davis cup seven times..
and back then davis cup was the biggest sporting event.. (there was no football world cup and babe ruth had not yet woven his magic on u.s. minds)..
as for competition, he had the four muskeeters, three out of whom were singles players..

as for your statement that one cannot argue against 16 slams, i cannot understand how 23 majors of rosewall and 19 majors of laver cannot be argued against 16 slams.... agree with you on different era and technology.. that is why i believe you cannot have a GOAT..

VAMOS RAFA!!!

sorry, I realized that I was in the wrong thread .... lolz.

clayking -

All of that may be true about Tilden - in fact I feel like his skill has long been under-rated. But the fact is that he was a criminal in the worst sense of the word and when push comes to shove, men's tennis would MUCH rather ignore his considerable accomplishments on court so they don't have to talk about the what he was OFF the court. We both know that's true.

There is never going to be any satisfactory answer to the laver/rosewall/tilden/federer GOAT issue, nor should there be. The sport has changed so much that what Federer does on court bears almost no resemblance to what Tilden did. The best we're ever going to get was "best of his generation". Keep in mind that Sampras' slam total was "never going to be passed". we see how long that lasted.

@cheryl..
toally agreeing with the 2nd paragraph.. and there is no doubt fed is the best of this generation, or maybe past 20 years..
well it is sad that people forget his achievements because of what he was off the court..
but those were normal people..
as tennis fans, we should acknowledge him and give him credit for what he has done for this game..
if he was not there, this wonderful game would have remained in obscurity or would have remained in france forever (like bull fighting remains in spain)

Clayking - I've always been conflicted when it comes to Tilden. I've visited the Tennis Hall of Fame - Tilden's space there is really much smaller than it should be. I know he was talented and that he made tennis famous.

On the other hand, he also repulses me on my most elemental level, and if somebody made me choose between having him make the sport popular and protecting the children he abused...well, it's a no-brainer.

cheryl,
actually there have been a lot of cases where sportsperson have committed such atrocious deed..
but problem with tilden was that he was a national hero..
and such a deed by one of their national heroes was not accepted by the americans..
and his attitude and arrogance did not help him either..
well he was characterwise bad, but nevertheless a legend of tennis...
i personally believe that tennis hall of fame should actually see his influence on the game and not his personal life..
opinions differ..

clayking, I was just giving you the facts to go with your statistics.

nadline,
i appreciate your concern for the facts..
but those facts, when you put it simply demeans his achievement and does not reveal the whole story..
so i said what i said to show that tilden was not someone who was served the titles in his platter....
he had to work hard for it, in a different way of course..

clayking,

The problem with Tilden is two-fold; the first is what you pointed out. Tilden was famous and he was friends with famous people. It meant that when he was caught, there was a larger audience to point fingers at him.

The second is that his crime was of a particularly heinous nature and people - back then AND today - cannot forgive it.

It hits on the ethical debate of how much we allow an athlete's personal life color his or her legacy. Tennis historians give Tilden his well-earned nod as the grandfather of the modern game...but in so doing, the ignore the elephant in the room.

i didnt think Tilden was a paedophile, i only read he was a homosexual in the 1920's. was he ever convicted cheryl or was this rumour only?

This is what I found:

"Some say, that Tilden's case was the reason, that many in the US thought of tennis as a 'sissy sport'. On the other side he was not forgotten, experts in 1950 called him the greatest player of the first half century, with a wider margin than Babe Ruth. Still in the 70s old experts like Danzig or Hopman called him the greatest. Was influential in straigthening out the strokes; before Tilden, who cultivated the eastern grip, people played with different grip and stroke mechanics. Tilden worked himself into a champion, was not the natural talent of say Cochet or Vines, reached the top only with 27, but had then nevertheless a very long career. Played literally until he died. Was a kind of Oscar Wilde or Dorian Grey on and off the court, wrote plays and novels and tried the stage on Broadway, but all that not too well und successfully. His problems with his homosexuality were sharpened by the social context of his upper-class upbringing. There is a great book by Frank Deford on his life.

you'll know more about this than me. sounds as if he led a very sad life.

clayking, thanks for all the information you posted earlier. am too tired at this moment to reply in full, but wanted to say congratulations on rafa's win especially to you and to vamosrafa, though i dont know where he is right now. enjoy your celebrations.

Maxi - he was indeed homosexual, which surely made life difficult for him. he was also, unfortunately, brought up on charges on at least 2 occasions and arrested for molesting teen boys. He spent some time in jail on both counts. The second time he was caught, he was quite literally caught with his pants down. He'd picked up a hitchhiker (14 year old boy) and the police pulled him over for erratic driving. What they found was a partially undressed Tilden and the boy. He was arrested and served another year in jail.

He was friends with some VERY high-profile celebrities at the time and thought that his connections would keep him out of trouble. They clearly did not.

@maxi , i am here and very nice to see your 'congratulations' :D thank you. hopefully your roger will bulldoz his way to another title at estoril :)

maxi, you are welcome..
and you don't need to reply anything..
it was not any argument..
they were some facts to let you know that the past greats were by no means inferior to roger..
roger is the best of this generation, there is no changing that..
we simply cannot say more than that..
its not possible to say across that..
as cheryl said,
"There is never going to be any satisfactory answer to the laver/rosewall/tilden/federer GOAT issue, nor should there be. The sport has changed so much that what Federer does on court bears almost no resemblance to what Tilden did. The best we're ever going to get was "best of his generation"."

p.s. i wish roger plays well and does well in estoril..

morning clayking! still celebrating?!

vamosrafa! there you are! where have you been?!

Clayking, i did read the above long post from you more carefully this a.m. - thank you again - honestly? I hadnt heard of many of the players, way before my time and i have learnt so much from you just by reading this - thank you - . I would like to say one thing to you though, and as vamosrafa is the most objective rafa fan here, some input from him would always be respected by me. It's this bit:

"As of 3/20/2009 with Nadal injured an unable to defend Wimbledon title and play at full strenght at the French, Federer was able to surpass the Sampras 13 slam championship record".

Firstly, you cannot say that rafa was injured. he didnt say that he was in any presser, and i think you take away the monumental effort of soderling in knocking him out in the fourth round. it is just unfair to keep using this as an excuse. if rafa was injured he would not have played. he has made this clear many times, yet for some reason, some people cling onto this reason as being the reason he lost. soderling played much better than rafa during that day, reason being he won.

secondly, rafa withdrew from wimbledon and EVERYONE benefitted from this, you could use that argument for any time any player withdraws from a tournament (especially roger and rafa), murray (I think went to no.2 (not necessarily directly because of this, but the knock on effect of it), as did novak and i think davy moved up a place (correct me if i am wrong).

whatever happens in tennis,(like this),(all of the top 5 will benefit in some way). so it is then up to the particular player to use that opportunity/chance to their benefit. Let's say that when rafa withdrew from wimby, roger DIDNT take any of the opps available to him? he would still have had to play well at the tournament to progress. 7 matches to play, roger always digs deep in these situations., so credit also has to be given for the way he takes those opportunities, same as rafa.
?

*(i meant play at full strength at the french)* - remember you could have used that argument when rafa was playing verdy at AO 09, over 5 hours and then went on to win the final against roger. - everyone benefitted from the withdrawal at wimby.

i think it is the fact that you say "federer was able to play at full strength", no credit given for the way roger plays, when he digs very deep, his mental capacity, shot making, roger exists as his own person, irrespective of whether rafa is there or not. I should have said all of this in the one post, (still early for me!).

maxi,
to be honest i felt that this guy was a lil bit anti-fed..
but still his statistics are crystal clear and he has not written anything statistically wrong about fed here..
and anyway we all know about fed and his greatness..
he is the greatest of this generation, nadal or no nadal..
what i wanted to show here was that there were others who were as good as fed during their time..
and i have never undermined fed..
it was unlucky rafa was not there, but fed won, didn't he..
so that is the main thing..
your arguments are valid here..
i just wanted to let you fed fans read this article so you may know the past greats were not inferior to the present greats..

clayking, yes of course. i didnt realise that ALL of the post you posted, wasnt partly yours - but yes, i am glad you said that your impression was that he was a bit anti-fed, i "felt" that too. instinct more than anything. and i am appreciative of you letting me know about past greats. :)

then again, statistically correct, BUT the "implication" in the fact that "rafa was not at full strength", hence it is for this reason, and this reason only that fed won the FO. just simply not true. you could equally argue that it was a sweeter victory for fed as he knocked out the killer of rafa in the tournament, soderling. it is just the way that this has been written in parts in the article. you are entitled to your opinion at any time, i find the information you write both informative and balanced. thanks.

can't believe i forgot to say this in my original comment, but fantastic blog as always cheryl. possibly one of your best yet :D

maxi wrote: "Firstly, you cannot say that rafa was injured. he didnt say that he was in any presser, and i think you take away the monumental effort of soderling in knocking him out in the fourth round. it is just unfair to keep using this as an excuse. if rafa was injured he would not have played. he has made this clear many times, yet for some reason, some people cling onto this reason as being the reason he lost. soderling played much better than rafa during that day, reason being he won."

I have written about this in the past (which she obviously forgot or refused to acknowledge the facts), but Roger NEVER claimed any injury or illness BEFORE his loss at the AO 2008. After his loss, he then started saying "maybe it was the virus" (much like after one of his losses recently he said "maybe it was the lung infection"). The point is, before you call Rafa out for supposedly lying about an injury, take a hard look at Roger doing the same thing. If Roger was that sick, he should not have played and since it was used as excuse for every loss he had that year, then maybe he should have taken the year off. (The other side of you saying that Rafa shouldn't have played if he was hurt). We shouldn't take away from the "monumental effort" of who beat fed since fed didn't announce it to the world ahead of time.

BTW, chr18 even agreed at one point recently that no athlete is going to announce his weaknesses (i.e. injuries) to the world and other players before they play them.

It is funny that only certain fedfans seem to be the ones constantly claiming that Rafa was not hurt, but almost every article talks about how hampered Rafa was and how long his knees had been bothering him.

sib - thank you very much.

f4t - I'm forced to agree with you. When stand-up guys like Rafa and Roger say "hey, I was sick" or "Hey, my knees hurt so badly I couldn't bend them" I believe it.

There were plenty of Nadal fans who said Roger wasn't sick, just like there are plenty of Federer fans who claim that the knee issues were fabricated. Basically the fan rivalry makes people talk nonsense.

Roger got sickness in 2008. Afterwards. became in a slump. The age also

got sick also this year. like mono...I worry. Love Roger.

fed WAS SICK...that surely affected him in melbourne, dubai indian wells and miami,MC may be....after that he was fit to play ....he also said after indian wells that mono is beyond him now.... plus, u will not find a SINGLE article on net that talked abt roger's illness after the RG or the wimb final so the illness had gone away by the time those events came ....

Thankyou Cheryl. I normally have been ignoring comments from ones who claim Rafa was not hurt (so obviously he was lying about injury), but maxi always claims she never says anything bad about Rafa. Everyone knows of Roger's mono as well as the issue with Rafa's knees. It's the nonsense you speak of when you know Rafa withdrew from Wimby. I mean, come on, does anyone seriously believe he would lie about an injury and withdraw from Wimby, where he was defending champ, all because he lost to Sod? That's giving Sod too much credit in my opinion. Yes, he beat Rafa, but Rafa's knees were a problem before the FO.

fan4, shut up will you, and get your facts right before you start becoming irate over ridiculous assumptions. obviously in your excitement, you have forgotten how to read. PLUS, my conversation was with clayking and everything was sweet. so i shall correct you. but only for now. because you are boring me again after such a lovely day. nothing to do with roger, it was about the article which clayking had posted from another source, so it is yourself introducing roger. how kind of you :), but this is rafa's day.
I DIDNT call rafa out for lying - please do read carefully. so why are you igniting flames unnecessarily, silly milly.

READ.WHAT.I.POSTED.*(i meant play at full strength at the french)* - remember you could have used that argument when rafa was playing verdy at AO 09, over 5 hours and then went on to win the final against roger. - everyone benefitted from the withdrawal at wimby.
maxi , 5/2/10 8:41 AM
if you have a comment to make, make it with the author of the article -

clayking, could you quote the author please? fan4 seems to be getting all mixed up.

thanks clayking.

i didnt claim anything of the sort.

*boring fan4, getting bored with you.
*yawning, yawning,yawning*.

I always love you. Roger. classic greatest. love Rog

maxi, first off, YOU claimed Rafa was not injured because he didn't say so in his presser. He did say it in pressers after he had tests done to determine the extent of the damage (approx one week after his loss). I don't dispute fed had mono, but I suggested you look at your "rafa wasn't injured" argument and substitute fed's name (and 'mono' for injury). Fed or Rafa do not have to announce to you what their problems are. It is common sense not to show your weaknesses and injuries to an opponent before you face them. It is afterward that you hear of them. I agree with vamosrafa that fed's mono affected him for PART of the year but not the full year (which would include Wimby) which fans like you like to say.

maxi, are you honestly claiming that these words are not yours, but rather from an article clayking posted??

You posted a tidbit from an article in quotes, then put your words in. Is easy to see.

"As of 3/20/2009 with Nadal injured an unable to defend Wimbledon title and play at full strenght at the French, Federer was able to surpass the Sampras 13 slam championship record". (This was the quote you got from an article)

This was your response in your own words:
Firstly, you cannot say that rafa was injured. he didnt say that he was in any presser, and i think you take away the monumental effort of soderling in knocking him out in the fourth round. it is just unfair to keep using this as an excuse. if rafa was injured he would not have played. he has made this clear many times, yet for some reason, some people cling onto this reason as being the reason he lost. soderling played much better than rafa during that day, reason being he won.
maxi , 5/2/10 8:35 AM

fan4tennis,

go back to your baking. it's what you do best.

fan4tennis,

my discussion, which had no edge, no malice, no anything was with clayking. he posted an original infotext from i dont know who. i read it. i commented on it. clayking thought (like me) that it was anti-fed. go read. i didnt think much credit had been given to soderling, and nothing advantageous about how fed had played at FO. that was all.

enjoy your cookies.

@maxi &f4t..
not that i have any interest in interrupting your argument..
but can i know what is the point of this (may i add silly) argument??
what do you want to prove??

clayking I am not having an argument at all!
I was wondering the same thing, since fan4tennis seems to have picked up on a comment by me and misinterpreted (as she seems to be a little confused right now).

clayking, it is just that maxi constantly passes herself off as "never says anything bad about Rafa", yet I take her comment of Rafa was not injured because he didn't automatically announce it in his presser as saying Rafa was lying, which is bad. I am not confused at all. I know a quote from an article versus people's own words. You have not been here that long but I still remember maxi claiming Rafa was lying about injury, that he was too embarrassed to play Wimby and get slaughtered by fed back last year after the FO. I don't forget. There are only less than a handful of people that I know are still on here that said those things and maxi is one of them. When she doesn't like what is written, the "shut up", go away and "she's confused" comments just roll off her tongue.

fan4tennis, try as you might to discredit any comment i say about rafa, there are some fed fans here (including myself), who dont have to sink to the level of you, to enjoy a game of tennis. it takes a lot for me to say "shut up", because words like this (contrary to your misinformation), dont come easy. we have an election here in the UK right at the moment, and one of the politicians called her opponent (constituent opponent), a name - it wasnt nice, but it shut her up for a while.

your not a nice person for some reason. i hope you get better soon.

i should have given your very unedifying post above a little more consideration, i've never "slaughtered" rafa. i really dont know what you are talking about. what i do remember in the 7 months or so i have been here, is some sillymilly discussion you had before you left here where you were less than edifying with comments towards rafa fans, perhaps you want to narrow your post to that and are getting more confused because you talk about yourself, i dont know. anyway, you bore me "again". so try to be mature(if you can).

Clayking, as do the personal attacks she makes on people (I'm confused, and not a nice person, shut up, go away, and one of my past faves "go back into your little hole..you're no better than a troll.")

maxi, I am quite aware there are quite a few great and fair and decent fedfans on here that do not sink to the level you do in defending fed.

"go back into your little hole..you're no better than a troll.")
fan4tennis , 5/2/10 10:26 PM

i really dont know what you are talking about.i really dont.are you having too many celebrations (alcohol) with your food right now?
are you okay fan4tennis?

I rest my case...lol

fan4tennis.

there is a drink in the UK called cointreau (do you have that where you are?). very occasionally, (rarely, really), i have a very short shot of it before i sleep. it helps me to relax and to rest, it tastes of oranges. (try some). i think you will feel less confused and more happy in the morning. i hope so. (lol too!).

clayking,

Normally, I try to stay out of arguments that flare up, if at all possible. But I must support fan4tennis in her reply to you @5/2/10 10:17 pm. Everything she said regarding this Fed fan's comments about Rafa in the past, is completely correct. You have not been here that long and aren't aware of all that has transpired. Those of us who have been here a while are all too aware of the unfortunate, petty and inappropriate attacks that this person unleashes when she is cornered. First comes the instigation, then when caught, come the truly ugly personal attacks on someone else's character. This is a familiar pattern. What this person tries to do is to pretend to be nice to Rafa fans, trying to fool them into thinking that she is really a fair, unbiased, reasonable Fed fan who wants only to have a respectful discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are free to come to your own conclusions, but everything that fan4tennis has told you is 100% accurate.

nny & f4t,
yes it is true i have not been here long and therefore do not know how the above said fed fan is.. but if you say she is of some particular nature i will believe so.. however can't it be that whatever you are saying was true in the past and now she is no more like as you guys have said..maybe she has changed.. i do not know anything, but this may be a possible case scenario..

p.s. is it just me or is it really deviating from tennis??

clayking,

Yes, it is really deviating from our enjoyable tennis discussions, which is why I try to stay out of it. However, I can't let fan4tennis be attacked in that manner when I know that she is speaking the truth. You seem like a reasonable and generous person, also a great addition to this forum with your knowledge of tennis. I would love to believe that a person can change and be different, but I have no reason to believe that this is the case. Some people crave attention on forums and will do anything to get it. They will manipulate, cajole and flat out lie. I have been at the receiving end of it far too often. That's how I learned my lesson - the hard way.

I am not telling you what to think or how to feel. I can only substantiate the things that fan4tennis stated in her earlier posts. We all try to ignore these people as much as possible, but it's hard when you get called out and attacked, even though you haven't said one thing to this person. This all must seem childish to you. Yes, it is and a terrible waste of time and energy that could be better spent on lively, interesting discussions about tennis.

We have a lot to look forward to, now that Rafa has won two titles in a row. I am wondering if he will actually play at Madrid. It sounds as though he wants to do it. I just hope his doctor and team do what is best for his precious knees. As a devoted Rafa fan, I want him healthy and in peak form for RG!

native, please dont talk about me behind my back. this is so unfair.

clayking. there is no truth in what either of these posters say. i dont know who you are clayking, i dont attack posters. native and fan4tennis cannot believe that there are good, fedfans who wish rafa fans well. i have always been like this, and because i am like this, i get turned on for no good reason. you make your own judgments on this but i am not here to be picked on. there are few federer fans on this forum at the moment (for obvious reasons), and if i choose to post and enjoy conversations with you (clayking) and vamos, then I do it because i enjoy my conversations with you. and clayking, if you remember, go back a few posts, when it was YOU who said "what a silly argument". who was it started by? fan4tennis. because she enjoys doing this.

native, i read what you wrote about ben pronin on tennis.x. saying in a very inflamatory way, "who do you think you are, God or something?", you can be so aggressive, so dictatorial, so dreadfully awful and that is to Ben Pronin who is a fantastic man, so please. stop spreading your lies because you cant deal with the truth.
clayking i am not going to take part in this conversation anymore. i havent "changed". I am maxi here and madmax on tennis.x i dont lie because i dont have to. posters know i am deaf here (my mistake), and they choose to use that as a tool to weaken the less able. it's that simple. dont worry, you'll get a hoard of others soon to join the messed up.
so if you dont want a conversation with me, that's fine. i'll live.

one more thing. native, to me, you are aggressive, unwelcoming, unfriendly, prejudiced, bigotted person who makes no room in forums for differing of opinions,you shroud yourself in non-sensical speak, you attack others who disagree with you, when i was told you were "really" were on TX, it didnt surprise me at all.your posts are not honourable but peppered with lies and attacks.you forge friendships with people who support you, your praise of roger in any form is disbelieved. fan4tennis, perhaps you want to discuss your terrible posts with nadline not too far back, things were pretty bad then, werent they? is that why you left? i read them and felt sorry for you. i see your still in a tizzmizz about it all.glad nadline forgave you.

oops!!
this is getting personal..
its looking more like facebook..
why cannot tennis be restricted to tennis??
look, i enjoy myself on tt...
i pray you guys do the same..
believe me,, when a third person reads this, it shows you people in a bad light..
i hope you understand that i am not blaming you..

whatever clayking.

i dont want to converse with you if you are that easily swayed. i didnt start this in any shape. you choose what you want. it means nothing.

cheryl: don't think i added my compliments to you for yet another wonderful blog. i meant to do it earlier but got sidetracked by rafa's matches!! :) i'm sure you understand. i trust there's more where this came from.

one thing i really must express is my astonishment that it's fed fans who say fed doesn't want to play rafa. i've not been on other forums lately so was not aware of it. it's the kind of thing you'd expect the other legion of fans to say i guess... nevertheless it makes for very interesting discussion.

i didn't watch his match with gulbis. i expect that if it was a slam, gulbis would not have won. fed has shown too much consistency in the slams.

maxi,

You said in one of your many personal attacks on me that I should get off my soap box. Well, just for you I am going to get down off my soapbox now and get down and dirty like you.

First, you are the most unethical, dishonest person who has ever cluttered up this site with hysteria-laced posts that boggle the mind. When you stoop so low as to take something that you think I posted on tennis-x and then quote it here, taking it out of context and distorting it completely, it shows how innately dishonest you really are. Unfortunately, you keep showing everyone just how vile a presence you are any time you post your incoherent, disconnected ramblings. What I may or may not have said about Ben Pronin has precisely nothing to do with what is going on here. But since you have no scruples and come from the gutter when you post, then I have no choice but to finally, once and for all, put in your place for good.

You have one intention here and that is to spread lies, misrepresentations, baseless and vile accusations and incite, instigate and inflame. Reading your incessant ravings, one never knows which personality will show up on any given day. When you get called out for your manipulation and crude personal attacks, then you start to cry and whine and pretend it's not so.

Just to make it clear - this is NOT tennis-x. This site is moderated and troublemakers like yourself will not be tolerated. We know who and what you are. Nothing you say has any merit or truth. You have made the most bizarre personal attacks on people's habits, family, characteristics, etc. None of it is true. It is just the product of a twisted mind. You don't know how to fight fair, you are as phony as a three dollar bill and I am not about to let you get away with calliing be bigoted or prejudiced. You have no basis for these vile and despicable personal attacks, but that will not stop you. Never think you know anything about me. You are practically illiterate when you post. You have no conception of how to treat people will respect and decency.

I know who told you who I was on tennis-x. They are too cowardly to do their own dirty work, so they send you out to do the job. You are just foolish enough to do it, too. People like you will never be accepted here, because you are fundamentally dishonest to the bone. You can't fight fair, so you stoop low and throw cheap shots at anyone who dares to stand up to you.

You are guility of transmogrification. Please figure out who you are and stop morphing into different personalities. You are disrupting this site and interfering with what is normally an enjoyable discussion about tennis. Maybe this is what passes for conversation on an unmoderated site like tennis-x, but it won't work here. You cannot take away who I am. People here know me and what I say and how I post. You have no respect for your fellow human beings.

Please stop using this forum to spread your toxic poison. I am not interested in your tirades, your increasingly shrill attacks and your unconscionable attempt to embarrass, humiliate and demean people by bringing up what screen names they use on other forums, what they say or do not say, or just using your imagination to make things up about people out of thin air.

Get some professional help! Stop inflicting your personal mental issues on the rest of us. There are more appropriate ways to deal with your problems. Stop character assassinating me and others, just because we have the courage to stand up to you and call you out for your misdeeds.

your funny native.very bizarre person.when you are ready to have intelligent, grown up conversation with me, then i look forward to it(of course you will have to change your attitude-= your a very pompous person). Please grow up native.(a serious request).

"You have one intention here and that is to spread lies, misrepresentations, baseless and vile accusations and incite, instigate and inflame".
Nativenewyorker , 5/4/10 4:47 AM

what? (you seem very uncalm to me).

i think you will be sleeping now native (what is needed), yet i am really interested in your post. you use words about me that i dont recognise about myself. it was this one that i refer.

"A tantrum"

really? (had to find out the meaning) "it is an emotional outburst of ill humor or a fit of bad temper wherein the 'higher' cognitive functions are unable to stop the emotional". I look at mine and then yours and feel you mixed us up! sillymilly.

*Coughs uncomfortably*

Homos - I agree with you. Cheryl did write an excellent blog, and some Fed fans are peculiar to say the least. Gulbis played well to win that match, and saying that Roger lost purposely is insulting to both players.

Clayking - thanks for all the information you posted. Although I knew much of it, I did learn quite a bit nonetheless.

I don't believe there is, or ever can be, a GOAT. There are to many differences between eras to proclaim anybody the GOAT. I mean, take Federer and Laver: if you were to compare tennis in Laver's time and tennis now, they can barely be seen as the same sport. Court surfaces, raquets, media exposure, players, style of play - all of these are totally different now to how it was then. It is impossible to say who would win if it was Federer vs Laver at their respective best. And the same holds true throughout history. There are too many differences between eras and players. We can say that Sampras would have beaten Federer on grass for this reason or that reason, but is impossible to prove. Sampras, Federer, Laver, Borg - all are greats, but I don't believe any of them to be the greatest of all time.

About the respective cases of Fed's mono and Rafa's knees. Yes, I believe Federer did have mono and Rafa did have knee problems, but these problems did not last for the duration of their respective slumps. The mono/knee issues brought with them lack of confidence and form, triggering the slumps. I don't believe Federer lost the French 2008 final so badly to Rafa because of mono, but because of what the mono triggered. I think Rafa would still have won, but perhaps without the bagel.

@champion7..
agreeing with you wholeheartedly.. there can never be a GOAT.. the gear and surfaces were so different that you cannot say how they would have done in this present era.. it may be possible that someone like laver, who was not physically imposing, may not have been successful in this era.. or someone like gonzales would have taken everyone to cleaners with modern equipments.. so you just dont know these things.. the ifs and buts are too many.. it is as cheryl said.. the highest compliment one can give to a tennis player is the greatest of the generation.. across that nothing is possible..

maxi,

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Please clean up your grammar! It's supposed to be "you are", not "your"! Also, there is no such word as "uncolm".

If you are going to quote what I say on another forum and accuse me of attacking someone, please get that person right! My comment that you quoted out of context was directed to Sean Randall, NOT Ben Pronin! Really, you do need to do a better job of relaying these quotes from one forum to another. At least try to achieve a semblance of accuracy.

I see that you are determined to continue this argument and have not had enough. Therefore, I will return the favor and kindly quote some of the things you have said on this other tennis forum, so that you will know exactly how we feel when you do it to us.

"madmax says:

ahhhh contador, tt never been my home - always tennis.x, this is full of fabulous posters (and good to see you post here more often too), there is a sense of intelligence on this site, more than tt (with the constant squabbling from a certain few - boring). But so many fabulous posters with years of tennis experience and tennis insight. I learn so much more here.
when you say I remain, I dont really. I drop in every now and again, and dont really converse with many over there, more here. "

February 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm

"Kimo,
stay away from nadline. She degrades Roger Federer every moment she can on tennistalk. This nice attitude is rare and she was just saying what polo was saying, so they were not her words originally.
nadline/chloe/carrie, IF you have changed your attitude when you come over to tennis.x and are more objective, then brilliant. you dont do this on tennistalk, so i do NOT trust you in the slightest."

April 22nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Now you will know how nadline, fan4tennis and I feel when you copy our words from another site and post them here. How do you like when the tables are turned? Do you feel as uncomfortable and upset as we do?

Now everyone will see with your own words what a total and complete two-faced hypocrite you truly are. You trash this site on tennis-x, then you come over here and post things that you think people here are posting on tennis-x. You trashed nadline on tennis-x, and then came back here and denied it. No wonder she has repeatedly requested that you leave her alone. We all want you to leave us alone! But you don't get the message, do you?

You are angry that Rafa is winning again. It's jealousy at its very worst. You can't stand it, so you come here to try and make us mad. You don't want us to be happy and you certainly don't want us to be talking about tennis!

I think you are the last person who should be lecturing anyone on growing up. Your behavior shows you to have the maturity of a 10 year old. Why don't you stop telling tales and quoting things back and forth on tennis talk and tennis-x? Why don't you stop calling people out for supposedly using other screen names on forums, as though you were the internet police.

If you still do not get the message, then I will be happy to post more of your unseemly remarks from tennis-x. That way you will be condemned by your own words.

maxi,

One more thought. When you accuse someone of being a "bigot" or "prejudiced", that is not something that should be used lightly or without serious consideration. It is defamation of character at its worst. Anyone who would use those words towards someone they do not even know, should be prepared to back them up with substance.

Here are the various definitions of the word "prejudiced". I will save you the trouble of going to the dictionary and looking it up.

- an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason
- any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable
- unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group

NNY, f4t,
Stop reading posts that annoy you, that's what I do and it works. It saves endless arguments and name calling and character assasination by people who don't know each other, and no one ever wins.

Just stick to tennis, the rest of it is fluff. If you select the posters that you want to engage with, it will make your time on TT so much more enjoyable. Most of us don't come here to have a fight, we disagree passionately about other people's views on tennis or our favourite players, and will defend them to the end, but when it comes to insults, I'm afraid, I'm out of there.

Of course the banter between fans of different players is what the forum is all about, but you don't have to engage with everyone.

VAMOS!

nadline,

I have been trying to do precisely what you suggested. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. I have sat back and let all of the personal, nasty attacks go unchallenged for some time now. You have responded quite vigorously in the past, so please allow me to have my say. I have been quiet and patient for a long time, but there is time when one has to speak up.

There is no reason to call someone a bigot or prejudiced. That is crossing the line. I understand that this is part of the m.o. of this person. However, this time I felt a strong response was needed.

Sometimes it's necessary to confront the haters. You have done so on numerous occasions. I have remained silent. This was my time to finally clear the air and have my say. Now I feel ready to move on.

Thanks for your sentiments and advice.

nny, now that you've got things off your chest, it's the time to let go.

Of all the arguments that rage on the tennis sites the Who is the Greatest? brings out the worst in diehard fans and furthermore strikes me as the most futile waste of time.

Of all the arguments that rage on the tennis sites the Who is the Greatest? brings out the worst in diehard fans and furthermore strikes me as the most futile waste of time.

Cheryl is right to state it is preposterous to imply Federer would deliberately throw a match. The difference between him and Rafa is the former is motivated by the desire to win and hates it if he loses: the latter has a horror of losing and is thrilled by a win. I guess the answer lies in how Roger approaches any tournament that is not a Slam.

A contributor on Bleacher Report makes the following observation:

'An often heard argument is that Federer simply doesn't care about the Masters Series, and a look at his record the last three years would appear to prove just that.
He wins more than half of the Grand Slams he enters, while he only wins one in every seven of the Masters he enters. He might care, yet subconsciously care just a little less. Which can be all it takes to lose a close match instead of winning it.'

@ed
thats precisely what i think. read my 4/30/10 2:21 AM post

ed, what is the difference between 'hates to lose' and 'horror of losing', and between 'desire to win' and 'thrilled by a win'? Are you implying that Federer is motivated more by winning and Nadal by a fear of losing?

In my view Nadal is overwhelmingly motivated to win: it is the only interpretation that seems to fit his consistent approach to matches and training and his words since I started following him 5 years ago. Even when behind on the scoreline he does not give up and fights and does what he can to win, which often he does.

Federer, it seems to me, sometimes expects he ought to win every one of those Masters Series matches. Can I more blunt? That the world of tennis owes him those wins, even on days where his deeper motivation is not quite there. There is always a self-centered reason when he does not win, either in his exact words or in the sub-text.

Let's face it, Roger does not want to lose to anyone, and I mean anyone, whether in exhibitions, 250s Masters or Majors. He thinks it is beneath his dignity for anyone to beat him and you can see the embarrassment on his face, when he goes to the net to shake hands. Federer loses in Master more often because he doesn't get any freebies in the early rounds, he is found out before he gets his act together.

Perhaps we'll never know the real reason Roger's career has come to this - one thing I know is that there is never going to be a "federer tells all" book a la Andre Agassi, so at this point we're speculating.

I'm inclined to think that the results are some combination of what Carrie suggested and what Ed said. Mostly, I think the format of Masters events means that Federer meets some darn good players early enough not to find his footing and that best of 3 doesn't give Federer as much time to impose his game.

He perhaps subconsciously isn't as concerned about Masters as his about Slams, but to suggest that he wants to lose? No, I'm sorry. Not buying it.

chlorostoma, 5/4/10 4:54 PM:

'Are you implying that Federer is motivated more by winning and Nadal by a fear of losing?' In short, yes that was what I was trying to say. I was remembering a quote by Nadal which I paraphased badly but have since traced. His exact words were 'Losing is not my enemy..fear of losing is my enemy.' It is when this fear gets the upper hand (which has happened a few times) he is most at risk of losing.

Roger, as you say, expects to win and is affronted if he doesn't. I referred on another thread (the longest running one!) to that air of entitlement he exudes. What we have seen a few times in the past 2-3 years is what happens when he
senses a match which he believed he was winning begins to slip from his grasp.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs here. Both men are fearsomely competitive and motivated to win but with a different emphasis and different ways of handling the wins and losses.

ed,
I think you are splitting hairs :-). Perhaps reading a little too much in that quote of Nadal's, as what matters is whether it is often that a particular player gets in the grip of that fear.

thanks for that native. i wont post any of yours under mindy, there are plenty there which people can read if they want, desperately cutting other posters to bits. enough said. "uncolm" - (your words?), what does that mean? try to get the spelling right next time - touche.
Best of Luck to Roger Federer for the rest of the season, your fans support you and wish you well.

not good news for delpo, get better soon and hope for a return to tennis when you are fully recovered.

so maxi, will you be claiming once again that you didn't know the fans don't want you to use their names from other forums? despite the some elaborate discussions about it? it's very obvious you are using whatever weapons you can against those who refuse to back down from you. very nasty, maxi, to do it yet again deliberately. it really confirms what people have been saying about you and i was thinking lately that perhaps you're not QUITE what they say you are and they were being a bit hard. how wrong i was!

native, it's time you took nadline's advice to stay from this person! just skip their posts at the sight of their username. you have both made your points to death and nothing good is coming out of it.

Roger is the great man. Roger is the classic greatest. Love Roger


Rog love

Is rogerlove the new GM? Somebody predicted her coming back in different avatrs with simplistic names like adjenole etc right? Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any nadal bashing, just over-board "classic greatest" stuff, so maybe I am just being too harsh on a your adoring fan...

Thank you NNY for feeling the need to defend me against her. Tho nadline and homos has the right idea in ignoring her. She thrives on attention. She is a bully who talks out of both sides of her mouth and she got caught. She isn'tworth the time or the effort. She is useless.

Roger was SICKNESS.Roger was sickness in 2008 and 2009 (mono). And, in 2010. Now again. love Rog

ohh Poor Rogerlove, tsk tsk tsk...get yourself busy doing more productive instead of lamenting over your decaying love for Roger.

Sickness in your face !
Mono in your face !
ohh wait...yeah mono as in mono-age nyeahaha.