Help

loading...

Article

  • Sampras says Federer needs to get on top of Nadal

    7/15/09 1:35 PM | Johan Lindahl
    Sampras says Federer needs to get on top of Nadal Pete Sampras says that Roger Federer must ultimately earn a winning career record against rival Rafael Nadal to be considered the greatest player of all time.

    "Roger's career isn't done yet," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion who watched from the Royal Box as Federer defeated Andy Roddick ten days ago at the All-England Club to to win a record 15th Grand Slam singles crown.

    "He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."

    LA-based Sampras will play Marat Safin next month at the Los Angeles ATP event in an exhibition which recalls the 2000 US Open final, when the young Russian thrashed the reigning king of the courts.

    "You have to be the man of your generation and Roger has come up short against Nadal," the American said of Federer's 7-13 mark against the Spaniard, with Nadal winning six of their last seven through to a May final loss in Madrid.

    "He has to figure this kid out, he has to beat him," Sampras said of the 27-year-old Federer, French Open and Wimbledon champion this season.

    "He's lost to him a number of times, he just has to figure out Nadal."



Tell a friend »

Comments

hey johan....what a play on words in your article buddy...but i like it because it is going to promote a helluva lot of discussion...i have the interview in front of me (watched at end of wimby match...and this is NOT what sampras said).....but the rafa fans will love it......

why a lot of people think that rafa has a god given right to reach any grand slam final is ridiculous.....firstly...remember rafa has GOT TO GET TO A FINAL first.....so how can it be fair...if for example, he is knocked out in the first/second/third/fourth round of a tourny...and federer does get through....how can it be said that federer cannot be considered better during that tourny if HE (fed) makes the final...and rafa doesn't...it's ridiculous.

federer 5:4 on grass and hard courts OVER rafa.....but am gonna be really interested what the rafa fans come on here and say......i'm all ears....

sampras VERY CLEARLY said in the interview at the end of match that he considered Federer the GREATEST....his own words....as i sit here now...watching it again...coming out of his mouth...johan...you are being very naughty indeed my friend!

malteser1 , 7/15/09 2:12 PM


he also 'figured' nadal out in madrid......but if we talk about GS well.....if rafa gets knocked out in the fourth round and fed goes on to reach the final...then what?....raf has to earn his place too......

malteser1 , 7/15/09 2:33 PM


Sampy boy feeling insecure .......... wt a joke...... the man can not stick to his own opinion..... he on TV ..... in front of millions of ppl ..said ....... if u ask me ..i will give it to him........ n now.........

wt a joke !!!!! urrrggggggggggh..... i hate change of opinion so early !!!!

Malt i agree........ this post will lead to a lot of convo-cum-fight !!!! lol

I hope his words r not modified !!!! n e wayzzz..... I like him (Samp)!!!!!

hE iS bAcKy hOmE ....... wOrLd nO.1 ......... ( m lovin it ).......

Go Roger Go........

tomnjerry2 , 7/15/09 2:43 PM


Obviously, Samprass has revised his opinion, because other tennis commentators also believe that Federer cannot be considered even the best in his era, let alone the greatest of all time when he has such a bad loosing record against one of his peers.

If you don't believe he has changed his mind, go to tennisweek.com and see it in black and white, or write to Samprass, and ask him to explain himself why he has finally seen sence.

carrie , 7/15/09 2:54 PM


THIS IS THE REAL OPINION from pete!! occasions often overwhelm u completely ...this happned at wimb!! now he has re-considered everythng and believes BEST ever is sumthng realllly contradictory!! thumbs up...i never beleive in this BEST EVER thing

vamosrafa , 7/15/09 2:56 PM


Sorry, sense.........typo!

carrie , 7/15/09 3:01 PM


Fedfans, this is from another article on the same website, final para:

............It?s a quirk of tennis history that the record for majors among the men isn?t in the twenties or even the thirties. Right now I will write that Federer may possibly be the GOAT in the future but nothing indicates in his career statistics that he is definitively the GOAT now. It is very debatable whether he is even the greatest of the Open Era.

Federer is about to turn 28 and he has plenty of time to add to his remarkable resume of accomplishments. Laver for example at 28 would in the future win a pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam.

We have to wait and see how Federer?s career continues in the future. Right now I would venture to say that we have two potential future GOAT candidates, Federer and Nadal, because of Nadal?s youth and established record. Their rivalry, along with Murray, Djokovic and the resurgent Roddick should be something to treasure in the future.

carrie , 7/15/09 3:06 PM


My hero has been Pete even when he retired I still admire and replay the tapes, I miss him a lot. Agree Fed has to pin-down Nadal to claim title otherwise I agree with the above comment by Pete. It would have been befitting if Fed met Nadal in W/final to claim his 15thGS. I believe Nadal will rule the men's tennis b-coz of his power... Go go go Nadal!!!

xlsampnad , 7/15/09 3:11 PM


The title of this thread should have been:

SAMPRASS WIPES THE SMILE OF THE FACES OF SMUG FEDFANS.

carrie , 7/15/09 3:15 PM


I wish there was an editing facility on here. Sorry, another typo, I'll try again:

The title of this thread should have been:

SAMPRASS WIPES THE SMILE OFF THE FACES OF SMUG FEDFANS.

carrie , 7/15/09 3:23 PM


Nadal has a huge edge over Federer, that's true. But there's something that needs to be cleared:

Before 2008, Nadal was up to Roger 8-6, with the majority of the games played on clay. Since then Roger started with the mono thing and consequently his game and confidence declined all long that year and half of this one...
contrary, Nadal reached the TOP of his level during ALL that time.

THAT lapse was exactly the moment that Rafa took that big edge over him, crashing him in Paris, dethroned him at Wimbledon and then getting the AUS.

So, in a way... yes, we can say Roger is Nadal's baby... but in in the other hand we can say that Nadal needed to be at the TOP of his game and took advantage of a weak Roger.

Don't forget that when Roger was at his top, Nadal never gave him the oportunity to meet in the finals of hard courts events (except Wimby 2006/2007, which he LOST). While Roger, playing with low confidence and all, always managed to get to those finals... giving Nadal the chance to do what he did.

Let's see what happens now that Roger took some pressure off of his shoulders and Nadal might return to the circuirt with some low confidence.

Will Rafa manage to get to those finals without playing his best tennis ? Will Roger beat Nadal in another GS final with both being at his top ?

Nobody knows.

Emiliano55 , 7/15/09 4:14 PM


If Fed makes finals and Nadal makes them as well, then Sampras' view may be satisfied. However, if they don't, what happens then?

MarcJordan , 7/15/09 4:25 PM


Federer's overall record is out of the world. (And that of a few others too.)

Reading all sorts of tennis articles and blogs over the last few years yields two conclusions:

1. Federer is very clearly among the all time greats.

2. There is absolutely NO CONCENSUS among the many very well informed commentators, former tennis professionals and others worth reading and listening to, as to:
a) whether the GOAT discussion has much true merit,
b) whether the number of Slams is a surefire way to measure it,
c) whether it is at all possible to pick a GOAT by comparing between generations,
d) whether Federer's competition was comparable to that experienced by previous tennis legends ... prior to Nadal reaching his 18th or 19th Birthday. And even after, as few others made it consistently far into tournaments, even when they did not get eliminated by either Roger or Rafa.

So there is some merit in what Sampras says here.

A tennis player's prime years, physical fitness wise and having enough high level experience, something like ages 22 - 26 occured for Federer EXACTLY during those years when he was being beaten often, sometimes even on hardcourt, by Nadal BEFORE Nadal reached the ages of 21 and 22, let alone 23 (a few weeks ago) so well before his own prime years.

I absolutely do not mean to be controversial here. I just really believe that the GOAT discussion has found NO concensus among the wider world of people with very solidly informed opinions, despite a few articles in the heat of the moment.

Same thing needs to be said about all the hype about Nadal possibly to become the GOAT. That's even more rubbish. Nadal's record is fantastic too, but at the moment it is far from anywhere near an end-of-career record that places you among the, say, 5 best male tennis players of all time.

This does not in any way take away from Federer other-wordly greatness. To repeat:

1. Federer is very clearly among the all time greats.

chlorostoma , 7/15/09 4:28 PM


89% of fans - despite this article - believe that Roger is the Greatest. First Sampras was envious of Roger's accomplishments and said that the competition was weak. Then he seemed to have come to his senses and said that Roger was the Greatest even before he won RG. Now after two more slams, completing the career slam, and beating the 14 slam record, Sampras reverses himself? And that too with one H2H record? With that kind of foolish comments - pandering to a small segment of bitter people - he is sure to become irrelevant soon. Or he is trying to make a new name for himself by being ridiculous (like Bud Collins).

So what happens if Roger improves his record over Nadal (it will have to be on clay as there is no assurance Rafa will consistently make it to other slam finals), but ends up with a losing record over Murray? Or some other youngster who surely is around the corner?

You are going to pick one H2H record (everyone has some and Sampras had many) to argue against Roger's greatness?

tennismasta , 7/15/09 4:32 PM


It's amazing that Roger is allowed to use his mono as an excuse, but Rafa is not allowed to use his knee injury. Rafa beat Roger when he was 19 years of age, when Roger was 24. Also at 23 nobody mentioned Roger in the same sentence as the greats of the game, and Rafa is. Also, how many GS did Roger have at 23.........Rafa has 6.

When Roger was at his top (as Emiliano put it) Rafa was a teenager! You are forgetting that there is a 5 year age gap.

carrie , 7/15/09 4:34 PM


Sampras is losing a little credibility in my book. And I am saying that even though he was one of my favorite players during the 1990's up to his retirement. In past interviews, he has said that Fed is the greatest of all time, now he is saying he isn't unless he has a winning record against Nadal. Sampras's comment doesn't make that much sense to me at the present time. I still don't buy into the argument that Fed can't be considered the greatest of all time because he does not presently have a winning record against Nadal. What if Nadal does not reach another final or ever plays Fed again or does not recover completely from his present knee injuries and never gets past a 4th round or quarterfinal, and in the meantime, Fed continues to dominate and win another 4 to 5 slams. Even though they would both retire then with Nadal having a winning record against Fed, would people still say that Fed cannot be considered the greatest of all time simply because he did not have a winning record against Nadal. Under that logic if he played a player once that he lost to and never played again, then Fed could not be considered the greatest because he did not have a winning record against all players. I think, based on Fed's complete game, both in shot-making ability and ability to play well on all surfaces, he is the greatest of all time. He is the most complete player I have ever seen. And numerous tennis historians have said the same. And he now has the numbers to justify that he is the greatest. But, as Fed himself says, I think we must wait until the end of his and Nadals' careers to see what happens and see how they both do (both in their overall individual records and head-to-head). Maybe if at that time they had a rivalry like Navratilova/Evert, Mcenroe/Borg, or Sampras/Agassi, and Federer still does not have a winning record against Nadal, there might be some legitimacy to Sampras's position, but for now I don't think it holds much water.

doulers , 7/15/09 4:41 PM


Yes, Federer must master Nadal, but if Nadal misses his opportunity to meet Fed e.g. if Nadal is knocked out before getting to the finals, then he is not worth mastering! Nadal had knee problems...Fed had mononucleosis, back problems, etc....Nadal won the Wimbledon final... in the dark...the match should have been continued on the next day e.g. Becker vs. Edberg several years ago. Also, the Australian Open win proved as much as Fed's recent win over A-Rod...luck played a major role in the victory. Nadal is better on clay, but on other courts Fed and Nadal are pretty even, given the foregoing Wimbledon explanation and the Australian Open explanation. Also, Nadal is nowhere as consistent as Fed and, given his recurring knee problems, will have a short tennis life unless he and his trainers, advisers and related parties get their act together. Both are gentlemen and true sportsmen and i wish them well.

crespin79 , 7/15/09 4:49 PM


Carrie,
Every player has his top at different times. Nadal got his top at 21/23. Roger got it at 24/26. So ? Is that any kind of proof that Nadal is better than Roger is ?

Nadal needed to DEVASTATE his knees to reach this level of play. Do you really think Rafa career will long as much as Roger's ?? Do you really think that just becouse he already has 6 GS, he will keep winning this amount of titles until 27/28 ?

Doctors are already saying that Rafa playing at this level will last 1 or 2 more years before his knees will start to limit his game. And we all know that when Rafa can't run enough, he can't get far in any tournament.

So, to me, saying that Nadal is better (or will be better) than Roger just becouse he got 6 GS at this young age is just a poor excuse of a blind fan.

Emiliano55 , 7/15/09 4:52 PM


Pete seems to be backpeddling a little here. First Roger is, then he isn't the GOAT. Anyway, this whole thing is ridiculous. Before Roger, people seemed to think either Laver or Sampras was the GOAT. Who did they play? What was their record against these players? Who got their goat (pardon the pun) more than anyone else? Who knows? Who cares? We look at the number of tournaments they played, the number they won, the number of slams they won, the time they spent at #1, the surfaces they have excelled on, etc. To say that a player's greatness has to be defined by a particular rival is senseless. Right now, Roger has the numbers. He is undoubtedly the greatest all-surface player of all time. Rafa doesn't even come close here. Maybe some day he will. If he has a golden slam like Roger, has won as many slams, has held the #1 position for close to 4 years and has a string of records and achievements like Roger's across all surfaces, he will be a contender. Until then, he isn't even close. There are too many factors that go into particular matches to use them to judge -- too many "what ifs?" It's not about the player's rivals, it's about the player's achievements. It sounds as if this article was taken out of context and wasn't exactly what Pete said. But whether it was or not, he should know better. Is he feeling a bit of sour grapes?

LynneDanley , 7/15/09 5:33 PM


Emi, I am astonished at the way Fedfans wish Rafa harm. You all hope that his career will be short so that Federer can become the GOAT, whatever that means.

carrie , 7/15/09 5:33 PM


Carrie, Im not a Fed-fan. I like Roger more than Nadal, yes, but I love the sport in general, not just one player.

Carrie,
I don't wish Nadal harm or anything, Im just saying that Nadal reached his top of his game by devastating his knees. And that's not something Im saying, is something doctors are saying. He has the knees of someone who is like 6 years older than him.

I hope he can keep playing A LOT of more years, and i hope he can fight Roger A LOT of more times. But i really doubt he can keep this consistency if we consider this issue.

Just becouse he already won 6 GS doesn't mean anything. Lleyton and Marat got his prime at 20/21... a couple of years later I didn't see them often at the final stages of the big events. You understand what I mean ?

Im REALLY far from being a Rafa-hater, but I do understand that Rafa needs to change his game style (which i really doubt it) in order to keep this high level for a long period.

Cheers.

Emiliano55 , 7/15/09 5:59 PM


I didn't read anything to indicate Roger's fans WANT Rafa to have bad knees and a short career. Quite to the contrary. His rivalry with Roger is great for tennis and great for them as players. Trying to catch up to Roger is a lot of what made rafa great. Ask Uncle Toni -- he was out there devising specific strategies for Rafa to use to beat Roger. Then Roger had to pick up his game and add some new twists to beat Nadal. He did that the last time they played. Can he continue to do that? Will Rafa need to respond to the new challenge? Stay tuned! Yes, both of them have had health issues that worked to the advantage of the other at one time or another. Welcome to sports! We need both of them in tennis, whatever their H2H record turns out to be. It's actually rather irrelevant. They're the best players in the game and everyone else is now trying to catch them -- BOTH of them. Maybe someone will, maybe not. Isn't this fun? We don't need either animosity or people qualifying and minimizing the achievements of either of them. They stand on their own merit. Precisely because Rafa is so much younger, he has some time to catch up. But because he made his move earlier has nothing to do with what Fed has achieved. We all progress at different times in life and what age we are when we start doesn't matter. It's what we've accomplished when we've finished that does. Both of these players will have an exalted place in tennis history. Enjoy!!!

LynneDanley , 7/15/09 6:05 PM


Nadal doesn't even won all the 4 Grand Slams as of now, and he is much much less Grand Slam winner than Fed. Not only that, there are plenty of players who have won more Slams than Nadal. So,if Fed is to be considered the greatest of all time, why he has to defeat that Nadal leaving everyone else ? Isn't that pure absurdity to think that someone like Sampras who had never won a French Open, and was not good at clay could consider a pure clay court player to be defeated on clay by Fed to be considered the greatest ever ? This clearly tell the truth that Samprass's words were tampered and used to put in a way by some blokes who think they can hold back the world from recognising the greatness of the greatest man on earth ever to play the game of Tennis, who is ruling the Tennis world by every means since so long.
I feel so pity for those Nadal fans, who forgets the fact that Nadal has to prove himself first before being considered a great in his generation, then only can he be thought of getting compared to the all times great, which Fed has alredy done convincingly. Why Samprass can be considered so great when he has never won a French Open, yet Fed couldn't be considered the same even he has achieved more than Samprass on almost all surfaces ?

solitudine , 7/15/09 6:06 PM


SPOT ON... Not to mention in Agassi-Sampras rivalry, they played 34 matches, only 5 on clay... LOL... And Agassi leads 3-2 on that surface... Imagine if Sampras meets Nadal 11 times on clay, do you guys seriously think he can beat Nadal even once when his best showing in FO is the semis? LOL...

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!

torres9 , 7/15/09 6:57 PM


Isn't it funny though, that the head to head with Nadal supposedly "questions" Roger's status as the GREATEST, when the reasons for that head to head are exactly why I think Roger is so GREAT.

Namely:

1.) REPEATEDLY making finals on his least favourite surface (clay) to face a man on his most favoured surface (Nadal).

2.) Making finals of slams when he is not at 100%

Now if he had done what Nadal has done (and I'm not knocking Rafael, just trying to make a point) which is NOT make four consecutive Grand Slam finals on his least favoured surface (at the US Open) and NOT make Grand Slam finals when he is not able to perform at 100% (like Roland Garros and Wimbledon), then the head to head might be different.

But Roger making sooooo many finals and Grand Slam finals on his least favourite surface is amazing to me.
And Roger fighting to the death in slam finals like the French 08, Wimbledon 08, & Australian Open 09 when he was not 100% is amazing to me.

If he had have bombed out in a semi or two at the French, and half the clay tournaments over the past years... If he had have pulled out of some slams or bombed out early when he was struggling with his health, fitness, and game, the head to head with Nadal might look a lot different.

In other words if Roger had not have been persistent and brave and unafraid of failure, then this head to head asterix wouldn't exist? He would be the Greatest without question? But these things to me MAKE him so GREAT.

Alternatively if Nadal had have made four consecutive US Open finals and faced a man whose game was better suited to that surface in Roger each time.... If Nadal had have made finals when he wasn't at his best.... If Nadal had have battled past Soderling.... If Nadal had have attempted Wimbledon and made it to the finals, the head to head might look different.

So one guy gets booted earlier and more often or doesn't give the tournament a go.... the other guy upholds his "finals appointment" no matter what the surface and no matter what state he is in....

and yet which guy gets the grief?

scorpiongirl , 7/15/09 7:33 PM


For starters, I don't recall one Rafa fan saying Rafa should be up for the GOAT at this stage in his career. It's only the fedfans putting words in our mouths. The fedfans talk about you can't go by "IF'S" but that's all you bring up when Rafa fans or Sampras bring up their H2H.... 'if they had played on HC, IF they had played on grass, IF Rafa had reached the final'. Fedfans totally gloss over the FACT THAT WHEN ROGER HAD TO FACE RAFA IN A GS FINAL, HE LOST SIX OUT OF 8 TIMES!!!!!! And no Emil, all 6 of those weren't during fed's "mono" spell! Carrie has already posted the entire article that this came from. Maybe she should do it again!

It's also funny that the same ones who claim 'all the greats say it', have already attacked Borg for initially touting Murray for Wimby, calling him "loopy" and two-faced. Now they are doing the same with Sampras.

fan4tennis , 7/15/09 7:35 PM


torres..as always....LOVE your posts....

Lynnedanley and solitudine...loved your really objective...fair words on both players...really cool...really chill.....

Just to discuss the points system guys at the moment??Nadal loses 800 pts from Olympics. Federer- 200. Nadal effectively defends more pts than Federer throughout the hc season, even though Federer has to defend the USO.

wow! what a year fed is having.......I believe fed is up for the challenge..he has nothing to lose?everything to gain?.he is entering a ?free zone? in terms of mental aptitude?smaller media pressure (though it?s still there)?it?s certainly not there in the way it was last year when the media wrote fed off and crucified him shortly after?

My understanding is that fed may go into montreal or may not?.if he does?it will be for practice?..in readiness for the USO?by the time he reaches the USO date?baby and Mirka will be in tow?.(from what he has said in one of his recent interviews about them travelling all at the same time)?..i think he will get some practice in before the USO...he said he was taking 5 or 6 weeks off..(I think 5)...that takes us up to cinny?


In terms of if fed does not play montreal?then he defends next to nothing in terms of points......in both monty and cinny?..(so again?less pressure).

Basel should not be a problem so should be able to secure 500 points there.... Then fed has lots to gain in the Tour Finals at O2 . I remember that federer said he was more concerned about putting his energies into the slams rather than being no.1 but I guess if you win the slams then the rankings take care of themselves?

So the race is close but should Roger defend his US Slam, I think he will manage to end the year as Number 1 and if not?he?s still the best in my eyes?.

(without my rose tinted glasses!)?.despite sampras's words...i have read 4 interviews from sampras...applauding roger..saying he is the GOAT 'in his book'..so i think that johan has written an article with a play on words (specially the bits in brackets).........whilst talking about how you go about measuring greatness....

Apart from the previous debate about nadal?s and fed?s head to head?. Nadal has a losing h2h record against James Blake....(torres...i think you mentioned that a few posts ago on another thread?).... Does that mean that James Blake is a better player than rafa?rafa fans?

Nadal has beaten Federer but more recently it's been the other way around...with a lot more players also beating rafa...he has burned himself out....so he is playing flat out to beat roger....what does that say about roger?

Whilst rafa is a great champion and is fantastic for tennis?..imo he has yet to prove that he is better than Federer over a CONSISTENT period of time.

We are talking consistency here?.rafa has NOT been as consistent as federer?fact. Part of the GREATNESS of federer is the fact that he competes more than regularly at the finals of slams....hell....look at the stats!.....If you don't compete, you can't attain greatness. If you don't stay healthy, you can't compete in tourney after tourney. Federer picks and chooses his tournaments..he is wiser with his schedule?.don?t you think? Tennis is a profession and if any competitor is not up to the stress and strain of competition?.for whatever reason, he cannot be classed as the best player in the world. This should take zilch away from fed who can keep playing at the highest level and has regularly proved that with his results....furthermore...if rafa is gonna continue with his fantastic game in tennis tourneys...then he is going to either have to cut back on the tourneys he plays...or change his game....

heard about 30 mins ago that freddie flintoff (those of you into your cricket)...is 'retiring' at the age of 26 due to damaged knees...he is gutted....he has had two operations....intense therapy and rehab....he is gutted...but said that he won't be able to compete at the highest level any more because of this.....i absolutely want rafa to continue playing at the highest level....because the rafa/roger rivalry is legendary.......is this really gonna be on the cards if he doesn't listen to the signs? his advisers? cut back on his schedule....he gotta be a lot more careful.....at 23 he has accomplished so much...but he could end up like freddie if he isn't careful.....


malteser1 , 7/15/09 7:36 PM


guys apologies for question marks/apostrophes....these are my comments....been working on them at lunchtime today on laptop at work.....have just posted it...dont know why its done this...i think it still makes sense though.

malteser1 , 7/15/09 7:46 PM


well, if any of you don't like the "IF" secenario, then look at the stats strightforward, Nadal did NOT make many of the finals that Roger's made, because he's NOT as consistent as Roger. When he's NOT in the finals to face Roger, he's NOT in the competition, hence, no where for Roger to improve their head-to-head because ROger's facing someone named other than Nadal in those finals. That's plain and simple.

scorpiongirl , 7/15/09 7:48 PM


Pete Sampras calls Roger Federer ?greatest ever?
By HOWARD FENDRICH, AP Tennis Writer
Jun 7, 1:55 pm EDT

Pete Sampras already figured Roger Federer would go down as the greatest tennis player in history.

That Federer tied Sampras? record of 14 Grand Slam titles by winning the French Open on Sunday only reinforced that opinion.

?What he?s done over the past five years has never, ever been done?and probably will never, ever happen again,? Sampras said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ?Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it.?

Federer added his first French Open championship to five titles at Wimbledon, five at the U.S. Open and three at the Australian Open. He?s the sixth man with a career Grand Slam; Sampras won three of the majors but not the French Open.

Sampras was home in Los Angeles on Sunday and watched on TV during part of Federer?s 6-1, 7-6 (1), 6-4 victory over Robin Soderling in the final at Roland Garros. Federer lost three previous three French Open finals to Rafael Nadal.

?I?m obviously happy for Roger,? Sampras said. ?If there?s anyone that deserves it, it?s Roger. He?s come so close.?

In what turned out to be Sampras? last match, he beat Andre Agassi in the 2002 U.S. Open final at age 31 in his 52nd career Grand Slam tournament. Federer is 27 and has collected his 14 major championships in 40 Grand Slam tournaments.

?He just is a great, great player that is a credit to the sport and is a positive influence for young kids and just tennis in general,? Sampras said. ?It looks pretty tough to beat now with 14 majors, and I?m sure he?s going to go on and win a lot more.?

Federer will get his first chance to break Sampras? mark at Wimbledon, which starts June 22. Sampras isn?t sure whether he?ll go to the All England Club.

?We?ll sort of see what happens,? Sampras said.

Agassi completed his career Grand Slam at the French Open in 1999, and he was on hand a decade later to present Federer with the champion?s trophy Sunday.

?How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It?s pretty incredible,? Agassi said. ?A lot of people say it?s better to be lucky than good. I?d rather be Roger than lucky.?

As for the debate about tennis? greatest player, Sampras long has pointed to Rod Laver as his idol.

Laver won a true Grand Slam?all four major titles in one season?in both 1962 and 1969, the last man to do it. Laver finished with 11 Grand Slam titles, although he was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned pro in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Sampras? choice at this point is Federer.

?Now that he?s won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion,? Sampras said. ?I?m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn?t have an opportunity to win majors. But you can?t compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod?s.?

Brraaaappp!

malteser1 , 7/15/09 8:05 PM


Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim By Raymond Lee
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
click to preview
Sampras: Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass.

From his prominent perch in the Royal Box behind a pair of stylish shades, Pete Sampras joined Hall of Famers Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Manolo Santana in watching Roger Federer break the Grand Slam record they shared.

The second-seeded Federer withstood an inspired Andy Roddick rally in the fourth set, then scored his sole service break in the last game to earn a dramatic 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14 triumph to regain the Wimbledon championship, recapture the World No. 1 ranking and re-write tennis history in stirring style. After the match, Sampras and John McEnroe were among the former champions who dubbed Federer with the mythical Greatest of All Time title.

"I have to give it to him," Sampras said after the record-breaking 77-game final. "The critics say Laver. And (Rafael) Nadal has beaten him a few times at majors. He's won all the majors, he's won 15 now, he's going to win a few more here. So in my book he is (the GOAT)."

Yet, Sampras concedes there is one player who threatens the Federer's status as GOAT ? Rafael Nadal. The World No. 2 owns a 13-7 career record vs. Federer, including three consecutive wins in major finals.

In a conference call with the media today to promote his exhibition match against Marat Safin on July 27 at UCLA on opening night of the L.A. Tennis Open, Sampras conceded the quandary Federer faces is that while many champions have named the Swiss stylist the Greatest Of All Time, you can make a clear the case he is not even the best of this time.

Skeptics point to Nadal's mastery of Federer in their head-to-head series and the fact Nadal has won six of their eight meetings in major finals ? including victories on three different surfaces in the Australian Open final, Roland Garros final and Wimbledon final ? as a sign the strong-willed Spaniard has the World No. 1's number.

While Sampras himself has bestowed the GOAT on Federer, he suggested today Federer must find a way to beat Nadal consistently in order to truly be called the GOAT.

"Tough question to answer. I do understand the argument as being the best ever you have to be the best of your generation and he has come up short against Nadal," Sampras said. "I can see the point and it's hard to answer it. It's not done yet. Roger's careeer isn't done yet and he has to beat (Nadal) and he's got to beat him in the final of majors. In my book he is (the greatest of all time), but he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. You've gotta be the man of your generation. Roger certainly is the man of his generation, but he's got to figure out how to beat Nadal."

Federer can play shots that only a tennis genius can produce. While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?

That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis ? and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player.

"It would bother me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors," Sampras said. "Does it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? The greatest of all time is (a label) we want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger; with (Federer's) record against Nadal you might not give it to him. If I was 7-13 against Andre it would be hard to say I was the best of my generation. It's hard to give a definitive answer when he's not done yet. Roger knows he has to figure out this kid, but it's a tough match up. Nadal is one of the few guys who believes he is better than him."

Sampras said he believes Federer's most formidable foe on Wimbledon's Centre Court could be himself ? a big server who could bring the heat, attack net and pressure the multi-talented Swiss into hitting shots from defensive positions on court. Laver himself said he would give Sampras the edge on grass over Federer because of Sampras' searing serve and his ability to attack.

"A true serve and volleyer that's willing to come in and put the pressure on him (would be a threat)," Sampras said. "As big as Andy serves I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game would make him a little bit more uncomfortable. I would obviously come in on both serves and put the pressure on his backhand. Would I beat him? I felt at my best on grass I was unbeatable there. It's a flattering comment (Laver made). Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. Roger probably feels unbeatable now. He'd be a tough guy to break, especially if he was hitting 50 aces. It would be a great match up."

fan4tennis , 7/15/09 8:18 PM


haha.. f4t is repeating her points again... Looks like she can't give any new perspective and also carrie. All they do is repeat.

This is how contadictory f4t and carrie,
1) They say we should just look at the H2H as it is as an indicator yet when we say Nalby and James Blake is better than Nadal just by looking at H2H AS IT IS, they say we need to look at how much meetings it is which means you have to look deeper, so we look deeper and found that 11 out of 20 is on clay so they say we should go back to look it as it is. LOL... Clearly Nadal is way behind in terms of being spinners than them.

2) They say the greats won't recognize Nadal as he threatens their records and that he is Spanish, then when a great say something like what Sampras said, they support the greats now. Not to mention that Sampras actually think he is more formidable against Roger than Nadal himself.

3) They say, Fed's field is weak, but when it is pointed out to them that Nadal's clay field is also weak, they just keep quiet and change the topic or repeat the same things over and over again.

4) They keep on mentioning Rafa's record in GS against Roger but at the same time they say GS is not important but H2H is more important, so if GS is not important, who cares if Fed beat him in Madrid or Roland Garros but they will bring up the same point again

f4t, carrie = The 'real' Masters of Spin, not Nadal.

torres9 , 7/15/09 8:31 PM


torres...fft and carrie are mother and daughter...didn't you know? ......from hell...they have no hearing...no eyes and no voice...they see what they wanna see...hear what they wanna hear and say things that only rafa fans will agree with....

fft..you say it best when you say nothing at all...

malteser1 , 7/15/09 8:39 PM


And how many times have you pasted that numerology article? At least 4 times--lol.

fan4tennis , 7/15/09 8:43 PM


just wanted to post this:

"I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it.You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal." (Sampras)

Taken without ask and without permission from tennis.com

A little different from:

"He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."

So I think Sampras is not contradicting himself

damniel , 7/15/09 9:26 PM


I can feel the bite in this topic...Eh. So annoying, yet I get it. Still personally think their can no one GOAT.

Sampras has the right to think this, even say it. But it is foolish to listen at this point. Fed is on the decline and Nadal is stable at worst. Fed will probably have a chance of hard and grass for next year or so, but the chances of them meeting are not great considering one of them seem to die before meeting the other in recent time. Mainly my man Rog has been doing the dying but...really...I don't think it will be much improved. I think Sampras is trying to imply there can't be a greatest with this, I'm sure he knows Rog may improve the record or level it at best, but Fed would have to play for years past better to have the lead now.

Fed fandom shines throught after this point-----.Ya know what, Go Roger! Make Sampras eat his words, I may not believe deep down you can do it from a statistics and age stand point but I'll simply have faith. It wouldn't surprise me if he beat Nadal, because he can find a way when need to beat a lot of other guys. I'll not say anything more negative, bias feels better. You rock ROGER!

This thread has officially drove me to the brink of multiple personalities. DX

Recordbreaks , 7/15/09 9:44 PM


well said Pete, this will further derail arguments on Fed being the goat (if we ignore his arrogance and non-sportsmanship).

posmatrac , 7/15/09 9:51 PM


everyone...can you plzzzz read what damniel said......he has quoted sampras verbatim....entirely differently to johan's 'trick of words' article.....

damniel...you are a legend man.....!

Fed is the best!

fft.....you are talking drivel again.....i don't know what the hell you are saying about the numerology article? a number of people have posted it...not just me....are you getting your wires crossed? my goodness...glasses and your mind going at the age of 50 already? is it the onset of dementia? plenty of OAP homes in UK fft...do you want me to check some out for you? i hear healthcare in the USA is expensive?

malteser1 , 7/15/09 10:16 PM


malt: I am laughing so hard because you are saying
"everyone...can you plzzzz read what damniel said......he has quoted sampras verbatim....entirely differently to johan's 'trick of words' article.....
damniel...you are a legend man.....! "

Those are verbatim from the article that carrie and I have posted, yet you screamed bloody murder when we posted it--LOL. He just posted excerpts from the EXACT SAME article you ridiculed. Are you suffering from dementia?? Glad to hear that there are plenty of homes for you over there!

fan4tennis , 7/15/09 10:35 PM


Emiliano55, in my opinion what pete is saying is when rafa & roger meet each other, no matter what tournament, (masters' series final, slam final, 500 level final, whatever) roger should win most of those matches. no one has control over whether or not they will get to the final of any tournament. so, all things considered, i think he's referring to if they should meet in the final, roger should come out on top; i.e. australian open, nadal wasn't considered one of the top two to win, if memory serves me correctly, roger and murray were top favorites to win, but since rafa made it to the final anyway, i guess pete feels like roger should have been able to pull that match out! again, i don't think pete is necessarily limiting their meetings to majors only, but to any tournament that roger and rafa face each other in roger should concentrate on improving his head to head. this is my take on what pete is saying!

memi , 7/15/09 10:49 PM


carrie , 7/15/09 4:34 PM

Carrie, rafa first beat world no. 1 roger in 2004 in the 3rd round of miami in straight sets. it all went downhill for roger since everytime he came up against rafa and now murray tho murray still needs the bigger wins.
i like your suggested title, it definitely beats this one!

homos , 7/15/09 10:59 PM


Fedfans create the case for the argument they want to have. Now they've decided that Roger doesn't get a chance to beat Rafa because Rafa doesn't often reach GS finals, and it's not Roger's fault. The 13:7 is not only for GS finals.

I just can't follow their line of thought, and as we are never going to agree I'll just stick to my opinion.

carrie , 7/15/09 11:11 PM


I don't know why Federer fans always think Nadal fans think of Nadal as GOAT, he's not, he's just better than Federer when they play. What Nadal does is make Federer's claim of GOAT over someone like Sampras, rather dubious because Sampras did not have a serious rival like Agassi who beat him 2 to 1, in fact it's the other way around. It's an interesting problem. Federer will end with the greatest record in the Slams, and a claim to best of all time in terms of records, but will most likely have a big losing record against a player of his own time in Nadal. Federer fans had better hope that Nadal stays at either one or two, because if he fell to third in the rankings of course they would play more often, then Nadal becomes an even bigger problem.

manderso , 7/15/09 11:58 PM


Wow Johan Lindahl writes phony articles. It's easy to stir up controversy when you're a dishonest journalist. Pete never said it the way Johan Lindahl published it and now this garbage is floating around the internet. Pete said that he thinks Fed's H2H against Nadal is a valid argument against Fed being the GOAT; however, Pete believes Fed is the GOAT based on his talent, record and consistency. I'm actually surprised tennistalk.com allows it writers to post untrue articles such as this one. Articles like this can really ruin the credibility of tennistalk.com.

iolife , 7/16/09 12:13 AM


Hey how about Richard Krajicek vs. Pete Sampras? Krajicek holds a 6-4 lead over Sampras. Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 by taking out Sampras in straight sets in the quarter finals. They are from the same generation which means Krajicek was one of Sampras' rivals. Does this take away from Sampras' greatness? I don't think so.

Let the records speak for themselves people. Roger Federer has 15 Grand Slams.

iolife , 7/16/09 12:37 AM


quite frankly, what pete said is irrelevant in a sense because he won't be the one to face rafa on the court, federer will! no matter what former players, sportwriters or anyone says, it won't help federer beat nadal and it won't help nadal beat federer. as far as i'm concerned, anybody has the freedom to declare federer the "greatest of all time," if he or she so chooses. it's pretty silly to me to use the phrase , "of all time," when federer hasn't retired yet. no one knows who will come after federer and to something as equally incredible. i know it sounds impossible right now because roger has 15 majors, and everyone figures there's is no way anyone can equal that, but greatness can be achieve in different ways with different combinations; just suppose one of these young players pull off a true grand slam, win a few majors, breaks some other records, whatever. if that were to happen, then " who is the greatest" debate would be a topic for discussion again. i don't see how anyone can say federer is the "greatest of all time" and then close the door to other possibilities. we have no way of knowing what the future holds! we can only say that at the present time, he is the greatest in his era. that's it!

memi , 7/16/09 12:45 AM


GIVE IT TO FEDERER, for PETE's sake (how's that?).....Roger "the Swiss Master" Federer is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME.....but when we talk about him in TERMS of RAFAEL NADAL, he's just the SECOND BEST!!!

agf25agf , 7/16/09 1:23 AM


iolife- That is a good point about Krajicek. Also about that not actually being what Sampras said. That relieves me actually, into thinking Pete's head isn't giant.

He is not ALWAYS second best to Rafael Nadal, in terms of comparison unless you only compare them in term of H2H Federer still owns. If you only compare players by H2H I guess you can argue that. But I thought it had to be careers in comparison. I mean some people think Agassi is better then Sampras because he won on all surfaces and all slams...Others would scoff at the sheer number of slams Sampras has and agree that he is better. You can't use one part for comparison. Though in time Nadal can close down all other issues.

BUT yes agf25agf said Federer is owned by Nadal when they play, he does come in second. (I'll go on from that so it doesn't sound awful to Fed fans)...except since the matches other than the FO 08 were competitive it isn't really ownage., he has issues with Nadal and therefore Nadal owns him, but is he better than him? That will take some time for Nadal to prove. (Which I feel he might.)

Recordbreaks , 7/16/09 1:51 AM


Recordbreaks--- in terms of diplomacy you are the GOAT!!! :-D.......you're cool!!!

agf25agf , 7/16/09 2:05 AM


agf25agf, you're cool for telling it like it is! ok, i won't rain on pete's parade!

memi , 7/16/09 2:21 AM


If sampras wants to bring it down to H2Hs, then Fed is also behind Muzz. As a muzz fan, even I can't accept that. The sheer durability of fed at the very top, together with the wonderful tennis that has taken him to the SFs and Finals of slam after slam after slam make him undoubtedly the GOAT. Not so much sour grapes on the part of sampras as an understandable inability to relinquish the honour of being all-time-slam-leader. He just isn't seeing clearly, but then it's very hard for the subject to be objective.

All that said, if rafa manages to achieve the career longevity of roger, then the GOAT title could one day pass to him.

alex , 7/16/09 2:30 AM


memi--- it's too late!.....a lot of people STORMed on his parade already!!! =D

agf25agf , 7/16/09 2:35 AM


I think in terms of ACHIEVEMENTS, Rafa is not even half way comparedto Fed, no question about that. GOAT...Fed can take that title all he wants. What we're talking about is plain and simple match up. When two players meet on court, who's the better player? Put aside all those trophies, awards, $$$, ....who among the two has the ADVANTAGE over the other? ......RAFA!

agf25agf , 7/16/09 2:54 AM


all i would like to say to all the fedfans is that we know roger is the greatest,why we have to answer and argue with nadal fans makes no sense to me...
say for example roger does better his record against nadal in the future,nadal fans will say he was never the same after his recent lay off from injury... TYPICAL they will never accept it,there will always be a reason for them.
roger is where he belongs at no1,and nadal where he belongs below ROGER....
why dont the rafa fans ask the organisers of the events to make sure that fed and nadal meet in the 2nd or 3rd round as nadal finds it difficult to the level of consistency that FED has,so that everytime fed wins a tournament he will play nadal for sure unless he goes out in the first round...that also will be rogers fault...
there is no denying they are both excellent players,but roger is much better...and u will see for urself in the coming years...
PS Blake is better than nadal coz of a beta H2H as already mentioned by torres and malty...
so u rafa fans grow up and appreciate the GREAT FED AT WORK...
GO ROGER GO......
SIMPLY THE BEST.........

boss , 7/16/09 3:07 AM


Cage fighting at its best! lol
Roger is the GOAT until someone can beat his GS record. Pete is not in the picture anymore because he didn't win the French, and in fact, never came close. Records are made to be broken, so go for it Rafa - let's see how many you can rack up. See me in a few years, and we'll just do a tally, shall we? Oh wait, Rafa hasn't won the US Open yet - oops - my bad. He's got to get that one, or else it's a no go, right? Isn't that what was always said about Fed, that he had to get all the majors, THEN he would be the GOAT? Now, he has them all, added another to beat the GS record, so that = GOAT. Some will always change the rules as they go along. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Rafterfan , 7/16/09 4:38 AM


"Some will always change the rules as they go along. Tsk, tsk, tsk."

Tell me Rafterfan, where are the rules written for being the GOAT???? Can't change rules when there never were rules to begin with for an UNOFFICIAL title. For the sake of putting this topic to rest, please provide the rules you say are there and who made the rules. Please list them here so we can refer to them, otherwise......tsk tsk tsk on you!

fan4tennis , 7/16/09 5:05 AM


"If Fed makes finals and Nadal makes them as well, then Sampras' view may be satisfied. However, if they don't, what happens then?"

Then it's a pity that Fed did not do his best in the 13 times that they have played and he had lost! Blaming the lopsided H2H on Nadal not reaching the finals is a bit twisted. How come it reached 13-7 in the first place if Fed was the best EVER???

phoenix , 7/16/09 5:28 AM


"89% of fans - despite this article - believe that Roger is the Greatest. First Sampras was envious of Roger's accomplishments and said that the competition was weak."

Where did you get this stat? Was there a survey conducted? Please cite your source because if there's none, then this is just one example of how far some fanatics will go to promote this GOAT FALLACY! Besides, when Pete was singing hossanas to Roger, you fanatics were tickled pink, now he's jealous? Come on, grow up guys.

phoenix , 7/16/09 5:37 AM


boss, is there a law which says that we have to live,eat, sleep, & breathe roger's achievements? we can always count on you guys to remind us 24/7. i know this will shock you, but nadal actually has some fans, hard to believe, isn't it? they don't all favor roger. have you ever considered that maybe nadal is content with federer regaining #1, after all, whether rafa is #1, #2, or #3 his purpose when he steps on the court against federer will be the same as always, TO WIN! a number is not going to change that. on a different note, the last time blake beat nadal was 2006 tennis masters cup. since that time, nadal won the last two meetings in 2008. my point is, blake can boast about having nadal's number back then, but i love the way rafa has challenged himself to reverse head-to-head meetings against players like youzhny, berdych, blake, tsonga. very impressive! unfortunately, we haven't seen them play each other this, although i hope they will soon. i think truely great players always work hard to figure out how to turn negatives into positives! nadal is the ultimate example of doing just that!

memi , 7/16/09 5:57 AM


alex, there is more than one route to greatness. . rod laver is definitely in the "greatest debate" and he wasn't at #1 for 237 weeks, but of course, he won all four majors in the same year, twice! so, don't close the history books yet!

memi , 7/16/09 6:15 AM


To-Do-List From Roger Doubters in the past:-
a) Beat Rafa on clay... Check (2 times)
b) Beat Rafa in Slams final....Check (2 times)
c) Win French Open... Check
d) Break Pete's record of 15 GS.... Check
e) Regaining no.1 after losing it... Check

New objectives sent by the Doubters Headquarters:-
-Have a better H2H than Nadal.... LOL....

FED IS JUST THE BEST!!!

torres9 , 7/16/09 9:25 AM


This GOAT thing was started by tennis commentators as a remark in passing, now it's consuming the whole of tennis. Steffi Graff has over 20 GS titles, and no one has ever referred to her as the GOAT. The sooner they drop this rather futile debate the better, because as f4t says, there are no clear criteria for deciding a GOAT.

carrie , 7/16/09 9:50 AM


What? Steffi isn't considered the GOAT?

Graf is considered by some to be the greatest female player. Billie Jean King said in 1999, "Steffi is definitely the greatest women's tennis player of all time."[3] Martina Navratilova has included Graf on her list of great players.[4] In December 1999, Graf was named the greatest female tennis player of the 20th century by a panel of experts assembled by the Associated Press.[5] Tennis writer Steve Flink, in his book The Greatest Tennis Matches of the Twentieth Century, named her as the best female player of the 20th century.[6]

torres9 , 7/16/09 9:55 AM


Another thing that carrie talked about is that she wondered how Fed would fare if he didn't have the lack of racket technology of Sampras and Laver. Errr... this only apply if other ATP players use wooden rackets. Nadal doesn't use technology?

Or is it that Babolat technology is inferior to WIlson's?

torres9 , 7/16/09 10:11 AM


torres, I am flattered that you think I wrote that article, alas, I didn't. it was written by Raymond Lee, I only posted the article on here.

The writer was comparing modern players (including Nadal) to players of yesteryear, pointing out that there cannot be a GOAT, because of all the things that have changed in tennis.

I wasn't aware that Steffi had been proclaimed the GOAT. We need a panel of experts to proclaim the GOAT in men's tennis then, not everyone having their two-penny worth.

carrie , 7/16/09 10:36 AM


excellent post from scorpiongirl...

everyone's entitled to say their real opinion but Pete's way of changing his words after his record is broken is a little wierd.
btw,just to mention the h2h as 13-7 without any analysis is ridiculous...is it Roger's problem that he made it to the finals of his own favorite surface and Rafa's favorite suarface between 2004-2007,but Rafa only made it to the finals of his own favorite surface?I'm surprised that Sampras is making this analysis.Sampras can't take a set from Rafa on clay...if the h2h is the only issue then quit the GOAT discussion because players of different eras don't have a h2h with eachother.

if Roger had lost matches BEFORE the final,like Rafa did this year,his h2h would look much better. I can hardly see these two as the same generation,they did not peak at the same time.
I don't think Roger is the GOAT,I just don't agree with this discussion.

niloofar , 7/16/09 11:23 AM


I like scorpiongirl's analysis and totally agree.
Le us suppose that sampras was somewhat more consistent on clay and reached many semis and finals, only to face an andre agassi. Now andre was not a claycourt player either but it is quite clear he would have beaten sampras over 9/10 times on clay. What would sampras's H-H be against his own top rival then?? Probably a loosing one.
The fact is that in Sampras's era there was no dominant clay court player as there is today in Nadal, and any of those players in sampras's era would loose to Nadal on clay. You cannot blame Federer for playing on his weakest surface against the best clay court player in a few generations and coming out with a bad H-H record on clay.

rezz123 , 7/16/09 11:43 AM


Yup, scorpiongirl is truly spot on.

Nadal just didn't make it to the finals especially in the US Open in the 5 years Roger won it. Had he made it, most probably ROger would have owned him. Now when Roger is already half-a-step-slower, Rafans wanna brag about Rafa beating Fed.

Where were Rafa to stop 13 GS of Fed? Owhh yeah... Not gud enough...

torres9 , 7/16/09 11:51 AM


everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the issue about ROGER being the GOAT, was not initiated by a FED Fan. It was brought up, because some of the sports analysts, and some tennis legends have said so. Others may agree, other may not.. what important is.. atleast ROGER is being considered as one.. that alone is a great compliment for a sportsman.. just like what Roger said, he feels great to be up there.. and in the first place.. we cannot really determine who is the GOAT, if we don't have the exact definition, standard..gauge as to who is on top of the list. Our choice, would always depend on our own set of standard.

jennyger , 7/16/09 12:10 PM


"Had he...would have..."

Why speculate on things that would have happen? The FACT IS, on the 20 occasions that Rafa and Roger indeed met, Roger LOST 13 TIMES! Now that is fact, not mere speculation.

phoenix , 7/16/09 12:11 PM


Why speculate on things that would have happen? The FACT IS, on the 5 occasions that Blake and Rafa indeed met, Rafa LOST 3 TIMES! Now that is fact, not mere speculation.

torres9 , 7/16/09 12:13 PM


If you insist that losing 3 times is the same as losing THIRTEEN TIMES, then I give it to you and to your math teacher for teaching you well.:-)
I envy your employer, though. He can pay you 3 dollars an hour instead of 13, and you will not know the difference.:-)

phoenix , 7/16/09 12:24 PM


BTW, if 3 equals 13, then certainly, Rafa's 6 GS is greater than Roger's 15GS :-)

phoenix , 7/16/09 12:32 PM


Well spotted, phoenix!!!!!!!!!! Less is more.

carrie , 7/16/09 12:36 PM


Any suggestions for Federer's outfit at the USO to rival the military style at Wimbledon?

carrie , 7/16/09 1:03 PM


I have no idea but i trust Nike to outdo itself and come out with a more outlandish outfit this time. An attire to highlight his "graceful movement" perhaps?

phoenix , 7/16/09 1:42 PM


How bout the fact taht Fed have 15 GS compared to Nadal's 6? That is a fact? 237 weeks facts facts facts... 21 SF....

torres9 , 7/16/09 1:51 PM


As to whether or not Roger Federer is the GOAT. I would say this. First there is no book or rules which was written specifically to address once and for all, all the remefication of what constitute the GOAT, and who can be the GOAT using all these rules. Therefore it is not possible to say 100% that someone is the GOAt or shall ever be the GOAT. Having said that "if" there were such a book of rules, no doubt "Roger Federer" would be on top of that list, and he would be the GOAT! Therefore the question remains: "What are the people involved in writing up such a definition waiting for"?! In order for the GOAT to be 100% GOAT, there has to be a clear definition of what constitute a GOAT. Without a complete definition, it is not possible. Forever peoples opinions have a play on things. Is it any surprise that most FEDfans BELIEVE Roger Federer is the GOAT?! If he is not the GOAT it is "only" / "simply" because there is no clear rule which breaks down what the GOAT is, but "if" there were such a definition, Roger Federer would be it. HANDS DOWN!!! C'MOn Roger! C'MON! You are the "ONE"! Thank you for all the GREAT posts FEDfans!... Malty, tomnjerry2, scorpiongirl, torres9, recordbreaker! YOU ROCK! :) The FED ROCKS!!! :)

sky , 7/16/09 2:04 PM


torres9,

By your own analogy, Rafa's 3 losses to Blake is the same as Roger's 13 losses to Rafa. It follows then that Roger's 15 GS means zilch! Numbers don't count because they are all the same. And that is all coming from you.:-)
In trying to extricate yourself from defending an undefensible GOAT position, you unwittingly degraded the value of your idols 15 GS.:-)

phoenix , 7/16/09 2:15 PM


sky! Hi buddy! Your back...can you see and feel the seething jealousy coming through these threads of the rafa fans....it is strange that rafa himself thinks of fed as the best tennis player there has ever been....and all they do is degrade themselves with their petty arguments....

as you say sky...Fed Rocks.......

Fed is the best! Go:roger:go.......

less is more carrie.....so lets have less of you on the fed threads and more of you on the rafa threads...where you belong....and to bring up the dress code again.....phoenix..where have you been...it's so old news...yawn yawn.....

C'MON!
Allez Federer!

malteser1 , 7/16/09 2:38 PM


phoenix, 3>2, dont you agree?

And also the number 1 is smaller than number 2 but Roger's been no.1 with Rafa no.2 for ages and if you think no.1 is less than no.2 then Roger and Rafa is the 2 worst players on the planet.

I never said 13

torres9 , 7/16/09 3:26 PM


I never said 13>3 which is entirely what you put in my mouth. And you just need to read the 'numerologist' article and you will realize that you Roger has numbers heavily favored on him.

FED IS JUST THE BEST!!!!

torres9 , 7/16/09 3:31 PM


Federer's 15 Slams By The Numbers
By The Numbers

by ATP Staff
|

05.07.2009
1 ? Federer's new South African Airways 2009 ATP Ranking after winning the Wimbledon title; Number of times in the past 17 Grand Slams that he has not reached the final.

2 ? Number of times Federer reached all four Grand Slam finals in the same year (2006-07)

3 ? Australian Open titles won (2004, '06-07) and three times he?s won three Slams in the same year

4 ? Times (or more) reached final in each of the Grand Slam tournaments

5 ? US Open titles won (2004-2008) and number of times Federer has lost to Nadal in Slam finals

6 ? Wimbledon titles won (from seven consecutive finals)

7 ? Consecutive years of winning at least one Grand Slam title

8 ? Eight losses in his streak of 21 consecutive semi-final or better Grand Slam appearances

9 ? Countries of opponents he's beaten in Grand Slam finals (Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Great Britain, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, and U.S.)

10 ? Record consecutive Grand Slam finals reached between 2005 Wimbledon and 2007 US Open

11 ? Appearances at Roland Garros before winning first title (same as Andre Agassi) and number of different opponents he's beaten in Grand Slam finals

12 ? Titles won during his 2006 season, when he came within one match of completing a calendar-year Grand Slam

13 ? Titles won in his streak of 20 consecutive semi-final or better Grand Slam appearances

14 ? Ties Pete Sampras for the most Grand Slam singles titles in the history of men's tennis

15 ? New Grand Slam titles record

This is another Fed article on ATP WORLD TOUR website...

torres9 , 7/16/09 3:35 PM


Roger Federer established himself as one above the rest Sunday, fittingly claiming his record 15th Grand Slam title at the All England Club ? the site of his first major triumph six years ago at the age of 21.

The Swiss maestro, who completed the career Grand Slam last month with victory over Robin Soderling in the Roland Garros final, accomplished the historic feat in 25 tournament appearances. In comparison, previous record holder Pete Sampras won his first Grand Slam in 1990 and his 14th in 2002 ? a span of 13 years and 45 majors ? and finished his career without the elusive clay-court title.

Federer?s road to 15 Grand Slam titles is made even more impressive when taking into account that many of his recent triumphs and heartaches have come against great rival Rafael Nadal. Since their first Grand Slam meeting in the 2005 Roland Garros semi-finals, the two have faced off in seven championship finals with Nadal denying the Swiss on five occasions.

Below, we look back on Federer?s historic achievement, beginning with his first Grand Slam title at 2003 Wimbledon:

2003 Wimbledon - After failing to reach the semi-final stage in his first 16 Grand Slam appearances (Pete Sampras won the 1990 US Open in his eighth appearance at a major), Federer's immense talent had gone largely unrewarded until his arrival at the All England Club in 2003. He had been touted a potential champion a year earlier but suffered a first-round loss to Mario Ancic. Expectations had been high since 2001, when he stunned seven-time champion Pete Sampras to reach the quarter-finals. But in 2003 Federer became a Grand Slam winner after an exquisite performance at Wimbledon, where he lost just one set and did not drop serve in his last two victories over Andy Roddick and Mark Philippoussis.

2004 Australian Open ? After winning the Tennis Masters Cup in Houston at the end of 2003, Federer entered the 2004 ATP World Tour season in fine form. The Swiss did not disappoint and dropped just two sets in racing to his second career Grand Slam final at the Australian Open, an event where he had never progressed past the fourth round in four previous visits. After defeating rivals Lleyton Hewitt, David Nalbandian and Juan Carlos Ferrero to reach the title match, Federer dismissed the challenge of Marat Safin in straight sets in the final and, in doing so, rose to No. 1 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings for the first time.

2004 Wimbledon ? Playing in his first Grand Slam as the top seed, Federer returned as defending champion to SW19 and was largely untroubled on his way to a second straight Grand Slam final, dropping just one set to Lleyton Hewitt in the fourth round. The Swiss, who had warmed up for the grass-court Slam with victory at Halle, faced World No. 2 and first-time finalist Andy Roddick in the final. Federer did not have it all his own way, forced to contend with the inclement British weather and good play from Roddick. Federer rallied from a set and a break down in the third set before sealing victory 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4.

2004 US Open ? Rebounding from the disappointment of a first-round loss in Cincinnati to Dominik Hrbaty and a second-round loss to World No. 79 Tomas Berdych at the Athens Olympics, Federer battled past World No. 7 Andre Agassi in five sets in the US Open quarter-finals before coasting through his final two matches against Tim Henman (6-3, 6-4, 6-4) and Lleyton Hewitt (6-0, 7-6, 6-0) to win his first title at Flushing Meadows. Federer became the first player since Mats Wilander in ?88 to win three Grand Slam titles in a season and the first player in the Open Era to win his first four Grand Slam finals. His 11 titles in 2004 were the most by a year-end No. 1 since Ivan Lendl won 11 in ?85 and his .925 match winning percentage was highest since Lendl compiled the same mark in ?86.

2005 Wimbledon ? Federer?s next Grand Slam final appearance did not occur until Wimbledon in 2005. Having lost a desperately close five-setter to Marat Safin in the Australian Open semi-finals and been denied a place in the Roland Garros final by Rafael Nadal, the Swiss was out to prove a point on the grass at the All England Lawn Tennis Club - where he was two-time defending champion. For the loss of just one set he enjoyed a smooth passage through to the final, where he once again faced Andy Roddick in a repeat of the 2004 final. This time it was a much more straight-forward affair for Federer, who broke the renowned Roddick serve four times to win his third successive Wimbledon crown. Federer ended Wimbledon with a 36-0 record on grass since 2003 and on an all-court winning streak that would eventually reach 35 matches.

2005 US Open ? In the final Federer faced American legend Andre Agassi, playing in what was to be not only his last Grand Slam final, but his last final on the ATP World Tour. Laying sentiment aside, Federer held his nerve to recover from dropping the second set 2-6 by edging the third set tie-break to set himself up for a comprehensive 6-1 fourth and final set. Federer became the first player since Don Budge in 1937-38 to complete the Wimbledon-US Open doubles in back-to-back years. He became the first player since Rod Laver in 1968-69 to win five majors in back-to-back years. It was Federer's 23rd consecutive win in a final, an astounding streak that ultimately was halted at 24 by David Nalbandian in a fifth-set tie-break in the Tennis Masters Cup.

2006 Australian Open ? Unstoppable Federer became the first player since Pete Sampras in 1993-94 to win three straight Slam titles when he captured his second Australian Open crown. After smooth passage through the first three rounds, Federer was pushed the distance by Tommy Haas in the fourth round before edging past Nikolay Davydenko in the quarter-finals. A four-set victory over Nicolas Kiefer secured his place in the championship match, where he faced little-known Marcos Baghdatis. The Cypriot had won over a legion of fans on his inspired run to the final, and looked poised to upset Federer as he took the first set 7-5. However, the Swiss? experience prevailed as he edged the second set by the same score-line before racing through final two sets 6-0, 6-2.

2006 Wimbledon ? Federer joined Sampras (7) and Borg (5) as the only players to win four or more Wimbledon titles in the Open Era. He went undefeated on grass (12-0) for the fourth straight year and established a new record grass court winning streak (48 matches). The Swiss came into Wimbledon in red-hot form. Since his triumph at the Australian Open, he had reached the final at all seven events played ? collecting titles on three occasions. The man responsible for each loss was Rafael Nadal ? a Spaniard setting the clay-court season alight with victories over Federer at ATP World Tour Masters 1000 events in Monte-Carlo and Rome and ultimately Roland Garros. Federer was able to put the disappointment of missed opportunities behind him though as he found his feet on the grass with victory once more at Halle, followed up by a comprehensive victory at Wimbledon ? with just the one set dropped throughout - against Nadal in the final.

2006 US Open ? By conquering New York for a third straight year, Federer became the first player to reach all four Grand Slam finals in a year since Rod Laver in ?69. He also joined Laver as only player to win at least three Grand Slam titles in two different seasons (Laver won Grand Slam in 1962, ?69). As was becoming the norm in Grand Slam events, Federer coasted through the early rounds at Flushing Meadows and was untroubled until he met home favourite and World No. 7 James Blake in the quarter-finals ? even then only surrendering one set to the American. For the third time, Federer squared up to rival Andy Roddick in a Grand Slam final and, for the third time, he had the answer to Roddick?s barrage of attack. From 2004-06, Federer compiled a match record of 247-15 (.943), with Nadal the only player to beat him more than once during that stretch.

2007 Australian Open ? Just when fans thought Federer couldn't get any better, for the first time he won a Grand Slam title without dropping a set as he romped to his third Australian Open trophy. He became the first player since Bjorn Borg in 1980 (Roland Garros) to win a Slam title without conceding a set, and at the time was just the fourth player in the Open Era to do so. Federer came into the tournament having won his past five tournaments and he ultimately ran up a career-best 41-match winning streak. At Melbourne Park the Swiss handled Novak Djokovic, Tommy Robredo, Andy Roddick and surprise finalist Fernando Gonzalez.

2007 Wimbledon ? At the All England Club, Federer dropped only one set en route to title match before defeating Nadal in five sets to capture his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title and join Bjorn Borg as only players to win at least five straight crowns in Open Era. He compiled an undefeated grass court record (6-0) for the fifth straight year and extended his record grass court winning streak to 54 matches. The riveting final against Nadal was widely celebrated by fans, yet it was soundly eclipsed one year later by the pair's historic five-set epic final showdown.

2007 US Open ? Federer won his 50th ATP World Tour title in Cincinnati and then at Flushing Meadows avenged his loss to young challenger Novak Djokovic in the Canada final to win his fourth US Open title. For the third straight year Federer completed the Wimbledon-US Open double and he became the first player in history to reach all four Grand Slam finals in back-to-back years. The 2007 US Open also marked Federer's all-time record 10th consecutive appearance in a Grand Slam final. For the third time in his career, Federer won three Grand Slam titles in one season, which provided little notice of the challenges Federer would face in the following season.

2008 US Open - The tennis world had begun to question whether Federer's best days were behind him when he arrived at Flushing Meadows for the 2008 US Open. He was coming off back-to-back losses to Nadal in the Roland Garros and Wimbledon finals, both of which cut deep. In Paris, Federer was thrashed 1-6, 3-6, 0-6 and at Wimbledon Nadal snapped Federer?s run of five consecutive titles. Federer, who in August had relinquished his No. 1 ranking after 237 weeks to Nadal, was also in danger of failing to win a Grand Slam title in a season for the first time in six years. But the Swiss produced arguably his best tennis of the year to beat young challengers Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals and Andy Murray in the final to win his fifth straight US Open. Federer joined Bill Tilden as the only man to win five straight US championships.

2009 Roland Garros - When Federer suffered his crushing loss to Rafael Nadal 12 months prior in the 2008 Roland Garros final ? when he scavenged just four games ? there was widespread doubts that the player who many call the greatest of all time would never complete the elusive career Grand Slam. But one year on Federer entered Roland Garros buoyed by a win one week earlier over Nadal on clay in the Madrid final. Better news was to follow when Nadal suffered a shock loss to Robin Soderling in the fourth round. Yet Federer still had to grind out his toughest path to any of his 14 Grand Slam titles. In the fourth round he was within five points of a straight-sets loss to Tommy Haas and again had to rally from behind to beat Juan Martin del Potro in five sets in the semi-finals. In all Federer dropped six sets en route to the final before playing one of his best matches on clay to eclipse Robin Soderling in straight sets. The doubters had been silenced. ?This is the most satisfying win of my life, along with my first Wimbledon,? Federer said. ?I have tried for so many years, so there was much pressure involved... I always believed in it but it becomes harder with time.?

2009 Wimbledon ? Federer came into The Championships chasing a hat trick of accomplishments: by reclaiming his title at The All England Club, he would overtake Rafael Nadal at No. 1 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings and also become the all-time Grand Slam title leader, surpassing Pete Sampras? mark of 14 majors won. Already buoyed by the triumph at Roland Garros, Federer?s date with destiny seemed inevitable following Nadal?s withdrawal prior to the tournament with a knee injury. Expectation was high that Wimbledon would see Federer play Andy Murray for the title, and Federer came through on his end ? cruising through to his seventh straight Wimbledon final with the loss of just one set ? but a resurgent Andy Roddick prevented the dream final, crushing the hopes of a nation with an upset win over Murray in the semi-finals. Federer had comfortably beaten Roddick in two previous Wimbledon finals, but the American showed his finest form against the Swiss on Championship Sunday ? resulting in the longest match in Wimbledon history in number of games played. With Roddick proving impenetrable on serve, the two dueled for more than four hours before Federer finally broke the American for the first and only time on championship point, celebrating the 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14 victory with Sampras watching from the Royal Box. Federer said afterwards: "I'm happy I broke the record here in some ways because this is always the tournament that's meant the most to me because of what we spoke about with my heroes and idols being so successful here. It definitely feels like it's come full circle for me, starting it here and ending it here."

torres9 , 7/16/09 3:48 PM


Roger Federer: Appreciating A Genius
Appreciating A Genius

by James Buddell
|

07.05.2009
Roger Federer© Getty ImagesRoger Federer has been blessed with a game of aesthetic beauty, an immaculate on-court disposition and discipline that only the all-time great champions possess.

He is the prince of players worldwide, a global ambassador for the sport and is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time.

Pete Sampras earned the tennis world?s respect by virtue of a nerveless and competitive streak that reaped him 14 Grand Slam championship titles in 12 seasons, but Roger Federer?s all-round game has taken the sport to new levels.

In the summer of 2003, after capturing his first major title at The Championships, Federer admitted, ?I?m so happy just to have won one. But will I win 15? I don?t know. The strength of the game is against it. In any case, I have to wait two more years to find out how good I am.?

Federer had tasted his first success on the major stage and never looked back. Since then the meticulous perfectionist has left nothing to chance: nothing in his behaviour, his lifestyle or his schedule has been allowed to compromise his pursuit of excellence.

Blessed with a game of aesthetic beauty, an immaculate on-court disposition and discipline that only the all-time great champions possess, Federer has shown tremendous consistency throughout his record-breaking, graceful and stylish career.

Federer is one of only six men to have completed the career Grand Slam, while he has rewritten tennis history by advancing to 21 straight Grand Slam championship semi-finals (or better), seven straight title-matches at The Championships and 20 major finals overall.

Over the course of the six trophy-laden years it took to break Sampras? all-time Grand Slam championship title-winning record, a mark few believed would ever be broken, Federer?s charming and modest persona, coupled with a fluency in four languages, has made him accessible to a global audience.

He has transcended tennis to become one of the most recognisable sportsmen on the planet.

Towards the end of the Sampras? career he was written off when he didn?t win a title for 22 months. Sampras silenced his critics at the age of 31 by lifting the 2002 US Open title in what proved to be his final tournament as a professional.

Federer too, has silenced his own doubters, who witnessed him breaking down in tears during the Australian Open trophy presentation ceremony in January. At the time his nemesis, Rafael Nadal, was the ?king? after a scintillating 2008 season, and the popular refrain was ?How can he be the greatest ever when he may not be the greatest of his generation??

Federer was clearly at a crossroads: he had lost his aura of invincibility, taken losses to a variety of opponents and was enduring the longest title-drought of his career. But he spent time away from the circuit where he worked on his fitness and strokes and returned close to his majestic best.

Federer won his first title in seven months by beating Nadal at the Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open in May, which represented his 15th ATP World Tour Masters 1000 trophy. His confidence was lifted again by the impetus of his first Roland Garros title that completed a career Grand Slam last month and he arrived at The Championships refreshed, relaxed and hungry for more glory.

On Sunday, under the gaze of a triumvirate of former champions ? Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Sampras ? Federer became statistically the greatest champion of them all, in a win that sealed his return to No. 1 in the South African Airways 2009 ATP Rankings. It was his 16th final out of 17 Grand Slam championships.

At 27 years of age Federer is competing with new-found confidence, which spells trouble for his rivals. Back at the top of the sport, the Swiss shows no sign of letting up on his desire to set records that will likely stand the test of time.

torres9 , 7/16/09 3:54 PM


I'm loving this poo-flinging contest between Fed and Rafa tards, so let me throw a few things out there to further stir up the pot:

Facts being what they are:

Roger Federer has won three of the last four Slams. Nadal has PLAYED IN three of the last four.

Since Nadal first beat Federer when it counted -- French semis, 2005 -- and announced himself as a full-fledged rival, Nadal has won six Slams. Federer has won -- wait for it -- 11. But I suppose nine of those didn't count, because he didn't have to beat Nadal to win. (And I thought the champion of a Grand Slam was the man who won seven matches, not the guy who beat Nadal. What do I know?)

Now for opinion:

Federer is the better tennis player, period. If Federer and Nadal meet and each brings his A game with him, Federer wins probably most of the time and more times than not in straight sets. The problem is Federer very rarely brings his A game when he plays Nadal. Why? Couldn't tell you, but I suspect a lot has to do with Rafa's absolutely unmatched will to win. (The evidence is how his knees -- even at 23 -- can't hold up to his style of play. This is not the first extended period Rafa has missed, and it won't be the last.) Nadal will run down every shot and make some sort of play, so I think Federer tries to make too good of a shot more often than he needs to, and the errors pile up. It's definitely a mental thing, and it reached the low point in Australia where it wasn't a question of whether Federer would lose but how and when.

However, I wonder about Madrid. Was that a turnaround or a one-time thing based on Rafa's balky knees? I guess we won't know until Rafa is 100 percent, but Federer has played with what seems fully restored confidence since. I have no doubt that the Federer of 2008-early 2009 would have cracked in the fifth set of Wimby once he saw that Roddick wasn't going to just roll over and die as per usual. But he didn't. Instead, he gutted it out, didn't try to force things when they weren't there and let his opponent crack. Does that sound familiar Rafa tards?

If Federer brings that same mindset to his future matches with Rafa, the record will even up quickly.

SenorPlaid , 7/16/09 4:01 PM


I beg to differ SenorPlaid.Nadal is just a very bad match-up for Fed.I mean Nadal's will definitely plays a part but more than that its the match-up.I mean whats Roger supposed to do when he gets those high topspinning,loopy shots to his BH more than half the time? I believe Roger is starting to cope with those better than he was before..I already noticed it in the AO final,a match he lost.But its not easy to be agressive .Its a lot easier said than done.I was happy with his tactics in Madrid..they were spot on..and no I dont buy the Nadal was 'tired' excuse.Roger has had plenty of gruelling matches which he won and then went on to win the tournament.Same has been the case with Rafa.But again,thats just one match.
We'll have to wait and see what happens.Unlike Andre for Pete,Nadal's strengths fit right into Federer's relative weaknesses.Rafa's wins on Roger esp.on clay also boost his confidence.
Its really a complicated dynamic.
That said,if Rafa has the H2H Roger has consistency and fortitude to go deep in slams ( again,that will end sooner or later as it cant go on forever but currently its the way the situation is).Roger's taken breaks at the right time,worked on his conditioning and technique better and it helps.
Personally,I dont care about the H2H much because of these variables attached to it...also,pretty much every all-time great has had a blip on his resume.Pete himself for instance never did anything significant at RG except the one semi-final result.Dosent take away anything from his greatness IMO.Same is the case with Roger.When I look at his accomplishments..his H2H against Rafa (who is also 5 years his junior and in his peak years) dosent mean a hell a lot to me.

janhavi , 7/16/09 5:37 PM


Maltyyyyyyyyy! Mwah! I'm back for a little entertainment. LOL Not much reason to hang around here without the FED on the court, but there have been some POWERFUL FED posts of late! Wow! Very POWERFUL! I feel as if several "LIGHTNINGs" has struck TT lately! LOL Woh! LOL :) Go FED go! Your the MAN! Your the "ONE"! You ROCK!!!

sky , 7/16/09 5:44 PM




I have no idea but i trust Nike to outdo itself and come out with a more outlandish outfit this time. An attire to highlight his "graceful movement" perhaps?

phoenix , 7/16/09 1:42 PM

I guess it will have to be a tutu.

carrie , 7/16/09 8:02 PM


fedfans....sky! my beauty! how ya doing?! fedfans...a suggestion....read the following article from the bleacher report....about 'our roge'....enjoy the analysis...

senorplaid...you confuse me....am still not sure whether you are a fedfan...a rafafan...or someone who sits on the fence...if you have a moment...could you enlighten me? This is a long article fedfans..so take from it what you want....
torres....baby...you are on a roll with your articles man....as tomnjerry would say....'m loving it!'....take it easy...

fedexfan...where the hell are you? zoey...still thinking of you and looking forward to your return....homegirl...mwah...xxxx


The Bleacher Report: Roger Federer the Greatest: critical analysis......
There is no doubt to all of the men and women experienced and cultivated with the history of tennis, that Roger Federer of Basel, Switzerland is the most graceful player the sport has ever seen. All of us have asked ourselves or our companions at some point, "Is he floating to the ball?"

Among the most potent of these thoughts are what the late great writer David Foster Wallace termed, "Federer Moments."

"These are times, as you watch the young Swiss play, when the jaw drops and eyes protrude and sounds are made that bring spouses in from other rooms to see if you?re O.K. The Moments are more intense if you?ve played enough tennis to understand the impossibility of what you just saw him do." (article here)


There is no question about his grace and elegance and the genius with which he plays.

The statement that irks a few people is "Roger Federer is unquestionably greatest tennis player of all time," not as much because of the content, but the ire is with the way it can be considered unquestionable.

The John McEnroes and the Mary Carillos of the world, state it without the critical questioning and analysis from a tennis mind. So three fundamental questions rise up.

a. Why is Roger Federer the greatest player of all time, besides the menial reference to the 15 grand slams?

b. Are there arguments against his status and how credible are they? and


c. Could anybody be considered greater?

To come to a firm conclusion, each of these questions have to be answered and the end result should result in a definite affirmation.

Why is Roger Federer considerered the greatest player of all time, besides the menial reference to the 15 grand slams?,

First and foremost, the answer to why he could be considered the greatest. As in the introduction to this article, the grace and the genius with which Roger Federer plays is unquestionable.

But to answer this most subjective of questions quantitatively, would require the test of any tennis player.

Namely the qualities would be, forehand, backhand, footwork, serve, return game, mental toughness, fitness, net Play, adapability to style/surface and anticipation and they will be rated on a scale of 1-10 and be added out of 100.

Forehand?10/10. The greatest forehand in tennis history. "The great liquid whip."

As modern as Federer?s forehand seems, it?s also a remarkable amalgamation of many of the greatest forehands from prior years?from the powerful topspin of Bjorn Borg to the crackling penetration of Pete Sampras, or back to the forceful discipline of Ivan Lendl, the opportunism of Rod Laver and even the power of Andre Agassi with the precision of a neurosurgeon.

Its greatness moves the rating of all of those shots to 8's. Not much more can be said, he can hit all of the shots ever invented and has himself invented hundreds. Its greatness cannot be underestimated, his genius can be attributed to this shot. It will be taught in textbooks everywhere in the coming future.

Backhand?9/10. It is arguably the most powerful, versatile one-hand backhand of any tennis player ever.

It is the basis of his style and fundamental to the importance of change of pace, he can hit one of the best slices in history, one of the greatest dropshots, developed in 2009, with sufficient topspin and a great defensive lob, with great creativity.

Now as most tennis players remember when they started tennis, the pros and cons of the single-handed. The one con of the single-handed backhand, is the ability to handle highballs. Nadal is the only player in history to have the lefty topspin forehand that allows high balls to disrupt Federer, which is the reason he attacks only the backhand and avoids the forehand at all costs.

Footwork ?10/10. Initially when we talk of movement in tennis we think of those who best track down one ball after another. These are the rabbits, the men and women who oppress opponents by dint of their exceptional defense. When we think of these, there are only two, Borg and Nadal.

Then there?s footwork, not to be confused with footspeed. The race in tennis is not necessarily won by the one who is most swift but the most disciplined. After all, the vast majority of movement in tennis is rarely further than four yards. But when it comes to harnessing speed and discipline together, no one does it better than Roger Federer.

So adept is Federer at tracking the ball that he seems able to float to it. Of course he?s actually moving swiftly. Yet Federer?s feet rarely scamper. With unsurpassed posture, he is always able to adjust his feet and strike the ball precisely on his terms.

To be great at tennis, you have to have great footwork, all the greats have it relatively at the same level, except Federer, it is the most unique and singular in the history of tennis. He never seems hurried and all of us have asked ourselves or our companions at some point, "Is he floating to the ball?"

Serve?10/10. Federer's serve is one of the great serves in tennis history. He can play all the shots, with all the spins and slices and is a vital part of his success. The consistency it has is only touched by the greatest of the great It is not at the level of Pete Sampras, but nobody's is.

Return Game?10/10. Federer's return game is perfect.



Mental Toughness?10/10. Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Roger Federer their games are different, what single quality is in all of them. The quality you can see on their faces and recognize it. The losses to Nadal, dont constitute lack of mental toughness. This is one place where you can point to the 15 grand slams.

Fitness?10/10. Nobody has ever seen Federer tired on the court, even when injured in AO 2008 and AO 2009.

Net Play?10/10. The best net player of the era of groundstrokes. Whenever he does come into net, he finishes.

Adaptibility to Style/Surface?10/10. Adaptibility to style can only be attributed to Federer. He can play any sort of style of tennis at the highest level.

Serve and volley, power groundstrokes, mix and match play, spin and touch play, passing shots. You can see Rod Laver's aggressive play, Borg's top spin groundstrokes, Connors' return game McEnroe's hands, Lendl's passing shots, Sampras' serving and volleying, Agassi's power strokes in his game and added to the genius of his play.

He can play all the styles, attacking the net, baseline groundstrokes, counter punching, junk balling, all court. He can not only play them, he can defeat them. No pushers have beaten him.

His dominance on all surfaces is documented. He has won on all surfaces and is dominant on all of them. No player in history has shown this wide array of dominance on all surfaces.

Laver's calendar year grand slam had three grand slams with grass and one with hard court. Borg never won the US Open on hard court. Sampras never won on clay. Only the Mallorcan can and has beaten him on clay.

Anticipation?10/10. Rod Laver on the Charlie Rose show, upon being asked what he admired most about Federer, "Well, his creative play is great, but the thing I most admire, well what we all admire, is his anticipation. It is the most amazing thing I've ever seen on the court."

It is the root of his genius, it is at the root of tennis excellence, it leads to his great movement, fitness, return game, net play. It has led to the federer moments we have all felt.

Federer's forehand is considered the greatest in history, but the most unattainable and admirable quality of Federer, the quality that will go with him when he leaves tennis, is this occult anticipation.

Conclusion 99/100?He is truly worthy of the title, no other player has ever been this complete.

But this does not mean the questions about the title of greatest of all time are wrong. What is wrong is dismissing them. These questions need to be addressed.

Are there arguments against his status and how credible are they?

There is only one word against his status of greatest of all time it is Nadal. There is the question of his 7-13 record against Nadal. This is a very credible question and needs to be analyzed from both views.

One thing has been proven, Nadal with Borg, is at the height of defensive tennis on clay. He is one of the greatest athletes in tennis history. The question is, is Rafael Nadal's game greater than Federer's?

As proven with the above discussion, Federer is far and above better, in terms of tools and play, than his predecessors. So it leads to the question, is Rafael Nadal the greatest tennis player ever?

The answer is no to both. There is an old adage to winning in tennis, beat your oppenent by taking his best and being better, or beat your opponent by forcing him to not play well. Nadal has a winning record against Federer, 13-7 but it does not mean he is better.

Nadal is a lefty, and Federer has a single handed backhand. Now as most tennis players remember when they started tennis, the pros and cons of the singlehanded. The one con of the singlehanded backhand, is the ability to not handle highballs.

Nadal is the only player in history to have the lefty topspin forehand that allows high balls to disrupt Federer, which is the reason he attacks only the backhand and avoids the forehand at all costs. Nadal also has a lefty serve so on the deuce court, it allows him to kick serve federer out of the court thus setting up an easy point.

These are the only two ways Nadal gets most of his points against Federer. Also, Nadal's athletic prowess helps, but it does not last as evidenced by his injury

Thus, Federer does not play his best. If Federer plays his best, he is the best in the history of the game and nobody can beat him. That is why Nadal, always describes Federer as the greatest of all time, even after he won the Australian Open.

Secondly, on the 13-7 record, 11 of those matches were played on clay, Nadal's preferred surface. In the rest, on hard court and grass, Federer has an advantage. Also, when Federer was at his absolute apex on most of the hard courts and grass courts, Nadal, would have to play his best and reach the finals of those tournaments to play Federer.

The few times he did, Federer, usually won. When he started reaching them, Federer was injured with mononucleosis and had turned 27, while Nadal was 22.

In conclusion, Nadal's winning record is a great counter point against Federer's status, but it is not completely credible when it is omitting, the number of times they have played on clay, Federer's injury and relative age, when they did not play on clay.

Could anybody be considered greater?

The only players in the discussion of greatest of all time are, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

If Federer is the greatest of them all, his achievements have to surpass all of them.

Pete Sampras: Sampras was one of the most dominant grass players ever and also a very great hard court player, he won until this month the most grand slams, 14, but never won on clay at the French open and made the semifinals only once.

Bjorn Borg: Borg has a very similar temperament and similar era of dominance to Roger. He has 11 grand slam titles, but never won the US open on hard courts. He played the Australian Open only once, but since it was a hard court slam, Borg could not have won more than one if he did play it. He retired at 26.

If he kept playing and played all of the Australian Opens, he, at a generous maximum, would have ended up with 14 grand slams. The major hole in his record is that he did not win the US open on hard courts.

Rod Laver: The Rocket Laver is the only challenger to Roger Federer's push as the greatest tennis player ever. His two calendar year grand slams, in 1962 and 1968, are his supporters' arguments and the missed time in his career is also a big argument.

But the fact is that, the Tennis tour at that time consisted of 25 amateur players in 1962 and 42 total professional players in 1968. This is very huge deterrant which suggest that the era in which he won them cannot be compared to Federer's or Sampras' or Borg's.

Also another huge deterrant, is the fact that when Laver won the calendar year grandslams, three of the four slams were played on grass and one on a very fast form of clay.

With those standards, Bjorn Borg would have won five calendar slams, Pete Sampras would have ended up with 20 slams and Roger Federer would not lose to Nadal on clay due to the fast courts and would have ended up with 20-25 slams. Laver also only one hard court title in his career.

In conclusion, Roger Federer is truly the greatest player in the history of tennis and his achievements surpass anything that has ever been done.

His win in the French Open, after four straight finals, his 15 career grand slams, his 21 consecutive semifinals on all surfaces, show the form of dominance that cannot be matched by the aforementioned players.

Also, in addition to his achievements, Federer has played with an artistry, genius and grace that has not been seen in tennis, there are 4 or 5 moments in every match, where he achieves something that has never been done in a tennis match.

He is the tennis equivalent of Mozart and Baryshnikov, as he mostly plays in beauty and with genius.


malteser1 , 7/16/09 8:17 PM


sky, torres, malteser, whoever else is riding the federer's glorytrain, save it! ! some of us are old enough and wise enough to know better; simply put, FEDERER IS NOT THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. there is no greatest of all time. i guess if you guys repeat enough times, it will become true. in fact, we don't know yet if he will be the greatest in his era when it's all said and done. this GOAT thing is nothing more than a major exaggeration that some federer supporter like maybe john mcenroe started and others jumped on the bandwagon. no one denies that federer has incredible achievements, but so do borg, laver, sampras. i don't recall anyone discussing pete sampras as the GOAT day and night during the time he was winning his 13 & 14 slam. the media, commentators, others have a pattern of using the their commentary booths to promote whomever they like. they just happened to like roger and want him to be declared the "greatest of all time." so, that's what they are selling 24/7. there are lot of ill-informed people who don't know tennis well enough to know the difference; therefore, they buy what they hear in the media and pass it along! nonetheless, there are some people who can distinguish between fact and fiction!

memi , 7/16/09 8:36 PM


Ok, memi... I agree with more than half of your post. So let me put here the undebatable about Roger.

1) Most successful player in Grand Slam history OAT
2) Most dominant player in ATP ever OAT in a span of 4 years(2004-2007 (93%,95%,95%,88% W-L ratio)

FED IS THE BEST!!!!

torres9 , 7/16/09 8:50 PM


Hi memi,

Okay there are many factors worth considering, other than simply the number of slams won, but all of these are incredibly open to counter-debate.

E.g. Take the qualification that you must have won slams on all surfaces. Some would say this year's RG title finally seals beyond doubt fed's credentials as the GOAT. But wait a minute, Fed himself admitted that he was waiting for the opportunity of not having to meet rafa to win the FO.

At the end of the day, the nearest you'll get to a scientific, objective definition of the GOAT is the number of slams won. It requires far too much top class tennis over far too many tennis seasons for the stats to lie. And when you then consider the fact that he is still, even after his years of domination, the only top player constantly reaching SFs and Finals without fail, it only adds to the gap between him and the rest.

rafa's knee problems are really unfortunate, but that aside, you still have to look at the variety and craft of fed's all round game and admit that he does have something extra. But I'm sure you won't:) That's taking nothing away from rafa, a truly brilliant player, but I would expect muzz to place more of a dent in rafa's GOAT aspirations than rafa has in fed's.

alex , 7/16/09 9:23 PM


memi "there is no greatest of all time" as you say, but the point is at this stage there should be

the FEDfans did not create Roger Federer, Roger Federer created Roger Federer, He alone (with the help of his team, and loving wife) is responsible for his GREATNESS! We are spectators, enjoying the moment, the adventure, the awesomeness of Roger Federer (the tennis player), that is all. The time has come to recognize a GOAT for what he is. Roger Federer continues to be as a tennis player in the world of tennis the most dynamic of players. Whether or not one likes Roger Federer is not relevent. What is relevent are his successes and continued dominance (presently rated #1). They speak the loudest. Just as it should be. :) Go Roger Go! C'MON! Let's see what happens at the US OPEN Let the games begin... (I must be in a hurry!) LOL I am told patience is a virty. :)

sky , 7/16/09 11:23 PM


alex, although it's clear that you and some others have a special attachment to the "nadal knees" story, this is not about nadal knees. this is a debate about whether linking roger's name to the "greatest of all time." is by any stretch of the imagination logical. i don't lose sleep over nadal's knees because only God knows the future of his health, my health, your health, and I'm not God. nadal doesn't even know what will be the state of his health in the future. no one knows what's blowing in tomorrow's wind! none of these players can tell you how their bodies will hold up, because there is no guarantee! it's reality! again, personally, for those who see roger as the GOAT in their minds, that's their choice. i wholeheartedly do not agree!!

memi , 7/17/09 1:22 AM


malteser and torres please both get lives outside of blogging on a tennis website. Your posts are boring and thusly inanely repetitive as you both seem intent on copy and pasting the same points over and over and over again. One wonders whether either of you even plays tennis considering the amount of time you spend on these various blogs. please therefore explore the outside world rather than boring everyone unlucky enough to encounter one (or many!) of your posts with your obviously overly partisan, overly agitated rubbish.

willmw101 , 7/17/09 2:22 AM


GREATEST of ALL TIME? How can we bestow the superlative "GREATEST" when somebody is "better" than him? Give me a definite answer on the 13-7 H2H... is RAFA better or not? Even just this ONE aspect of their co-existence in the tennis world leaves a big "question mark" over Fed's head. "Greatest" is absolute...no questions, no doubts, no "ifs", no "buts"!...... So far, the Swiss Master is the greatest of his generation....UNTIL Nadal came into "being".

agf25agf , 7/17/09 2:23 AM


when you say the greatest, it doesn't mean that you are perfect. let's say in one class..how do the teachers pick the best student in a class? it is measure by how good the students in all the subjects, but not necessarily mean that you should be able to top all the subjects.. a top in class.(assuming you have 7 subjects) may be dominant in 6.. but only 2nd best in math.. one student from that class is very good in math, always getting the highest score, beating always the best in class, but in other subjects, he is just 2nd, or 3rd best. when you summarize all their grades.. the student who's dominant with the 6 subjects but only 2nd in math will be treated as the best in class.. although there is somebody there who could always beat him/her in one subject.. Therefore, being the best or greatest does not imply perfection.. it simply implifies.. that given all your achievements against the others.. your records is the best.. Nadal may have beaten Fed 13 times.. but Nadal have also been beaten by other players.. and if Nadal will not be able to get into semis 21 times consecutively like Roger did.. then what does it implicates? Nadal is not a consistent player.. therefore cannot be better than Fed..

jennyger , 7/17/09 3:14 AM


willmw101, thank you! the endless repetition of the same points over and over and over again and again and again, is insane. i'll say one thing torres and malteser are in a class all by themselves!

memi , 7/17/09 3:17 AM


Clearly Pete's comments were taken out of context, twisted and manipulated to seemingly contradict his true feelings that Roger is the greatest of all time. Either poor journalism or just sneaky enough to entice debate. Either way it's a moot point since it's impossible to compare players from different generations. Do you think Laver or Borg could beat any of today's top players with a wooden racquet? End of discussion.

chr18 , 7/17/09 4:57 AM


Yup... jennyger.... that's exactly my point... Greatest doesn't mean PERFECT where you have to be the best in EVERYTHING... Important is being the BEST in what matters... And also being an all-round player winning and being in the final in every Slams....

Until Nadal actually wins 16th Slam, Federer is still better than Nadal...

FED IS JUST THE BEST!!!

torres9 , 7/17/09 6:05 AM


willmw....what i suggest you do buddy is count the posts on this thread before you come on here pointing the finger.... i hardly think 9 posts on an overall thread of 101 is 'over egging the pudding'....count the posts from one of your own - carrie - who is a frequently boring...overly partisan person in terms of rafa....12 posts and counting...so buddy before you start speaking your crap.....perhaps you would do well to go to a maths class and learn to count.....and dont come on here telling me to get a life....i have a wonderful life thank you very much...its only when people like you come crawling onto threads saying NOTHING except criticising others that brings forums like this down to base level......you are not my mother/father/sister/brother...talk tennis...bring a debate or a discussion so we can talk...otherwise take your pointing, critical finger and point it at the right people...those who have nothing to say about the great federer and if you don't agree with that Will...who the hell cares anyway?....go join the 'i hate fed club....i have nothing to say club....'obviously some of the rafafans have nothing better to do than come on a fed thread and spread their animosity...you being one of them...cheers buddy...that's what you'll be remembered for...nothing else.

torres....great reading your posts lovely.....

malteser1 , 7/17/09 9:05 AM


WELL...WELL...WELL....N*O*W* to be the "GREATEST" doesn't mean you have to be the BEST in everything!....JUST BE THE BEST in what MATTERS then you'll be "considered" the greatest. SO HEAD to HEAD records D*O*E*S*N'T matter....it's just a number people put there to "accentuate" ones name.....C*L*A*Y doesn't matter because Fed just have O*N*E* slam from that surface!....ALL the things that don't F*A*V*O*R Fed in any aspect of the game doesn't matter!.....any OPINION that questions the abilities and those that doesn't GLORIFY Fed to the most HIGH are A*L*L* C*R*A*P!!!

C'MON the FED!!! ....... if you can just hear your fans...YOUR HEAD WILL BURST LIKE HELL!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 11:13 AM


either you have a poor mind, or you just refuse to understand.... he may not be the best in clay.. but over-all, counting all his achievements, he is the best.. the best meaning.. he has the best record.. meaning he is the most consistent.. compare to what rafa has achieved so far... he is still the best..like i said, if rafa can surpass the nos. of records that fed has achieved. then he's the best.. but as of now.. not yet....

jennyger , 7/17/09 11:25 AM


agf....why don't you put forward 'the best of rafa' stats...and lets see where that takes us...could be interesting...no?

jennyger....have just watched the wimby match again...and am SICK and TIRED of people discussing THAT JACKET...fed didn't even know about it..he was handed it by a guy in his 60's..wearing a blue t-shirt and a green/blue kilt...when roge was sat down after the match waiting for the trophy presentation...this guy came up to him and handed him the jacket..to wear at the presentation...FACT....so anyone on this thread or others that argued that this was fed being arrogant...is just talking a pile of crock and if you don't believe me...watch the footage at the end of the match..and you will see the old guy hand fed the jacket......JOB DONE...RESULT...Brraaappp!

Fed is the GREATEST GRAND SLAM WINNER EVER!!!! THE GREATEST, MOST CONSISTENT 21 CONSECUTIVE SEMI FINAL SLAM PLAYER AND MOST CONSISTENT SLAM FINAL PLAYER....EVER....yah! yah! yah!

and by the way torres...your 'OAT' argument had me laughing my head off!

C'MON!

Allez Federer! (how does that sound agf?)

malteser1 , 7/17/09 11:39 AM


Does not the argument go the other way , federer had rafa in his era but still went on to win 15 slams!

nirv02 , 7/17/09 11:44 AM


jennyger-- I REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND people with POOR MIND like you!!!

Did I ever say GREATEST=PERFECTION?... I think you have to address that to "somebody" else. To quote you--- "Nadal may have beaten Fed 13 times...but Nadal has also been beaten by other players."---- Tell me, who among the greats has NEVER BEEN beaten before? Who among the greats HAVE BEEN BEATEN BY THE SAME PLAYER T*H*I*R*T*E*E*N T*I*M*E*S???

To quote you again--- "...and if Nadal will not be able to get into semis 21 times consecutively like Roger did.........Nadal is not a consistent player." You poor thing....you can't play with words with just about anyone here, cos you will end up swallowing back what you throw up. YES, that Feds record and it's hard to emulate, BUT CONSISTENCY , my dear, is not all about reaching the semis. YOU are saying then that Roger is the ONE and the O*N*L*Y player in the history of the game that can be considered CONSISTENT.

to remind you AGAIN...or to make you UNDERSTAND in simple words.... We, Rafa fans, believe that Nadal is NOT YET the BEST amongst the greats, BUT when Rafa and Roger meet in court, Nadal will most likely beat Federer than otherwise....MEANING --we believe RAFA is a=the BETTER player than ROGER....which YOU will never agree with for sure..... and we don't give a damn if you DO or you DON'T!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 12:05 PM


C'MON malteser, you're better than that! It's Carrie's or Fan4tennis' job to match you up with posting stats! You can copy EVERYTHING and POST it here which I consider waste of time....just refer the person to where you'll TAKE you're stats ...easy! I don't think this is a contest of who'll post the MOST stats for Rafa or for Fed.

I believe in WHAT I believe and no amount of STATISTICS can change that!......with all due respect, I JUST DON'T like YOUR guy!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 12:19 PM


Roger Federer is the G-L-O-A-T!!!

Greatest Loser of All Time!!!!

homos , 7/17/09 12:27 PM


agf, Sampras was beaten by Agassi 20 times, please read more tennis history. You and carrie really need to polish your tennis knowledge which will give a bad name to Rafans.

Carrie gave a statement that DJoker-Fed statistics is 1:1 and then when malty pointed that she was wrong she said she meant Grand Slam finals. WHen did Fed-Djoker played 2 times in Grand Slam finals.

FED IS THE BEST!!!

torres9 , 7/17/09 12:29 PM


willmw101, couldn't agree with you more, but they aren't the only ones. I would also like to add that it would be better for them to post links to articles on other websites than to post them here... I prefer to read them in their original form free. Also it helps to separate articles from personal comments.

To those who keep wanting to put the label of GOAT to Federer, please read this article from tennisweek.com by Raymond Lee titled "Reviewing The Great Debate":

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=66362 41

In summary it talks about tennis history and puts some of the arguments for GOAT in perspective. Just because some of the old tennis legends didn't achieve the numbers that Roger has doesn't make them any less great.

cable , 7/17/09 12:30 PM


torres --- ISN'T SAMPRAS the one who OWNED AGASSI? 20-14 in favor of PETE! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!
SAMPRAS is , hands down, greater than Andre!
TRY YOUR LUCK next TIME!!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 12:41 PM


torres---ooooooppsss!!! WILL THAT GIVE A BAD NAME TO FED FANS??? HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 12:59 PM


SUDDENLY.........a very "loud" S*I*L*E*N*C*E!!!! STILL researching????????? YOU want the site??????? I'll let CARRIE to give it to you!!!!!!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 1:09 PM


USE the ATP Polls ....it might work!!! HE HE HE!!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 1:21 PM


torres, stop moaning about statistics that anyone can look up, there is nothing clever about knowing the h2h between players. It's just that some of us have a life other than tennis, and don't carry these facts around in our heads. Why don't you all get a life.

carrie , 7/17/09 1:44 PM


carrie--- torres was RUSHING to PROVE us WRONG.....he ended up with HIS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH! Fed fans must be so ashamed of him right now......or laughing with us for him!.....while he's REFRESHING his TENNIS HISTORY!!!! HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 1:57 PM


agf -

"Give me a definite answer on the 13-7 H2H... is RAFA better or not?"

muzz has a 6-2 H2H with fed - a ratio of 3:1 compared to rafa's ration of less than 2:1. So, if H2H is a proper measure of who is the best player, then muzz must be better than fed by even more than rafa is better than him :::)))
Greatness is measured by more than you perform against one particular player.

Plus: break down the roger-rafa H2H stats onto surfaces and you find that if you remove rafa's 9-1 H2H on clay, on all OTHER surfaces, federer still leads the H2H 5-4, despite the fact that federer is not the player he was 2 to 3 years ago ... There is no doubt that rafa's recent dominance has been exaggerated by his clay game. That's taking nothing away from a brilliant rafa, who managed to win on all surfaces at a far earlier stage in his career than fed did.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the best and least controversial measure of greatness has to be the total number of slams won.

alex , 7/17/09 2:11 PM


how do you define consistency then, being beaten in the 4th round of a GS? lol....how about being no.1 in 237 weeks??? aw!and yes, you did not say Greatest is Perfection.. but you said greatest is absolute... so there.. poor mind.. ..
malt...don't mind what they think.. atleast Roger is wearing with no. 15, not just 6.. har har har...

jennyger , 7/17/09 2:17 PM


nice point there alex.... very well said.. but then again... even if we lay out all the cards in front of them.. they would never understand.. they just couldn't fathom that..

jennyger , 7/17/09 2:52 PM


thanks jennyger - I'm a muzz fan by the way, but I think it's important that our loyalties don't blind us to objective reality. I have nothing to gain or lose by putting fed ahead of rafa (so far) in the greatness stakes. It's simply premature to be talking about rafa as 'greater' than fed. rafa fans shouldn't be so defensive - just enjoy the fact that your guy has beaten the GOAT so many time, FGS. As a muzz fan, I certainly do :)

alex , 7/17/09 3:04 PM


malteser if you are really so insecure as to attempt to justify that you have a life outside blogging on a TENNIS BLOG then I suggest you seek professional help. I am not a hater of federer, I happen to believe that he can be called the greatest when his and nadals careers are over, until them I support them both due to their incredible service to the sport. All you and torres do on various articles and blogs on this website is copy and paste other articles with stupid inane words added in so we can all see how much of a wannabee white gangster you are. At this point i'm kind of hoping that you are so young that ignorance can be blamed for your idiocy, however i doubt it.

willmw101 , 7/17/09 3:29 PM


J-O-K-E.........O-F.........T-H-E.......C-E-N-T-U-R-Y............
car rie telling fedfans to GET A LIFE! oh my god..has the woman gone mad?

quote:torres, stop moaning about statistics that anyone can look up, there is nothing clever about knowing the h2h between players. It's just that some of us have a life other than tennis, and don't carry these facts around in our heads. Why don't you all get a life.

unquote....

this is the woman - a supposed rafa fan - who has posted M-O-R-E on any of the fedthreads than a-n-y o-t-h-e-r....fedfan...other than a TRUE, LOYAL fedfan....torres...

and by the way...we are all very proud of torres...who supports his argument over and over again...problem is...agf for one...you aint listening buddy!

willmw...how do you know that i am white? that is very presumptious of you....braaappp!!!! my skin is dark....so put a sock in it....

i see you have posted TWICE on this thread...another criticism....there are plenty of posts from me my friend where i have given my comments and thoughts on federer et al..primarily when the matches are being played...in the interim it is always great to share views on articles and comments from other tennis fans around the globe.....if its too hot for you to handle honey....get out the kitchen....yeah..you are right..i am sort of young...but really don't you worry about my age grandpa...okay?

i am as much of an idiot as you are...go put ya slippers on...light ya pipe and start rocking in ya chair....surely someone of your calibre cannot be a tennis fan.....you got nothing better to do than get personal with fedfans.....

alex..that was a very fair post you made and i mentioned a while ago about the 5:4 stats in favour of fed over rafa on hard courts and grass.. but no rafa fan wants to acknowledge that......that whilst rafa is a great champion....he cannot be classed as consistent as fed..tho' agf is arguing otherwise.....his consistency and effortless play in terms of his tennis ...his lack of injuries in comparison to other players has meant he has been able to sustain that consistency...that is what is so great about federer...

it is only the rafa fans who cannot seem to accept that federer is a truly humble champion, man, legend, icon, great friend to sampras... (all words spoken about him by sampras)....

and whilst i know that you are alex a muzz fan.....i think you have to discuss his play with federer in two different ways....fed/murray's results in the masters series...fed/murray results in the majors/slams.....

i know that murray has improved in respect of wimby this year...he has now made the semis...his previous best was a QF..and of course he was able to reach the US open final last year...

but in terms of fed/murray and where they are both 'at' in slams....federer is streets ahead...he is able to sustain that mental/physical strength..that so far has eluded murray....that is not to say alex that i dont think murray will get a slam one day...i think he may well do...but he does not have that consistency yet......what do you think?

malteser1 , 7/17/09 3:43 PM


Rubbish article written only to bring out the worst in alleged tennis fans...

noleisthebest , 7/17/09 3:51 PM


oh...willm...by the way...go check out all the articles posted on the fedthreads by the rafa fans....many more posted by them...i suppose your ungracious criticism isn't aimed at them? right? yeah right....nice one willm....boy...oh boy...you bring a helluva lot to this forum...

cable...too late...the link/article you posted...already been done...perhaps you should the posts first before you post a thread..willm will be on your case otherwise...he sounds a bit testy to me...

malteser1 , 7/17/09 3:56 PM


malt -

I don't think we do need to discuss muzz-fed at slams because there is very little to discuss - they have only met ONCE. It would be very unfair to judge muzz on the basis of what was his very first slam final appearance (USO 2008) - in that match muzz looked pretty much dead-on-his-feet after a gruelling encounter in his very first slam SF appearance against rafa, finishing less than 24 hours before the final. I think even you would agree that the next time they meet in a slam it will be a very different story than the USO final 2008.

Don't forget that when fed was muzz's age he had only recently won his very first major. Muzz may never be the GOAT but it would be more realistic, on the basis of the evidence so far, to talk of him eventually winning say 3-5 slams, rather than the potential 1 you faintly complement him with. But I'm encouraged by the fact that you feel the need to subtly downplay muzz's prospects :)

alex , 7/17/09 4:16 PM


alex--- I just need a single word answer, not a novel that has been publish in so many threads with different versions before! Is Murray a better player than Roger? YES! Is Rafa a better player than Murray? YES! Is Roger better than everyone else in terms of SLAMS WON? YES! Actually , he's the best ,NOW! Is Rafa a better player than Roger? YES! Is Rafa better than Fed on grass? Hell, NO! Is Rafa better than Roger on clay? Definitely by a mile, YES!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 4:40 PM


agf -

You must be more into novels than I am because the above comments are entirely my own thoughts. It's good to know other folks out there are thinking like me :) Please let me know where I got them from as I'd like to read them.!

Single word answer? Is fed the GOAT? Yes.

alex , 7/17/09 4:50 PM


Who said Rafa is consistent? Fed fans are always putting words on the Rafans' mouth! YOU're the ones who's always there saying that Roger is consistent and we just believe otherwise . Didn't Federer lost to Murray in the R32 in Dubai and Cincinnati before? YES! Did Rafa ever lose in the 1st round of a tournament? YES! Did Rafa beat Federer before the semis before? YES! R32 Miami 2004.....NOT in THE 4th Round, EARLIER!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 4:56 PM


alex--- ok, you can't read between the lines! What I mean by novel, which I should have written -"novel", is the enumeration of #s, stats, etc. by the fed fans just to prove their point.

Is Fed the GOAT? NO!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 5:04 PM


Haven't read these either! Unlike you, I don't spend much time on fed's threads.

The stats don't lie ... to people who read without bias.

But keep shouting for rafa, I genuinely believe he may one day be the GOAT.

alex , 7/17/09 5:16 PM


alex--- you might be one of those RARE BREEDS who's on the center, BUT don't expect Fed fans or Rafans not to be BIAS because that's the way IT IS! ...... much "happier" that way!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 5:27 PM


Sampras has said exactly what I have been saying ALL along!!!!........

I feel exactly as he does......and Sampras has the right like every one of us here to give his opinion.....which I happen to agree with!

Yes, its a fact that Federer has won 15 Grand Slams........Roddick deserved to win by the way........Fed got lucky there!!..

Yes, its a fact that Federer is one of the greatest tennis players of his generation

Yes, its a fact that Federer floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee

Yes, its a fact that Federer has made AND broken so many records

Yes, its a fact that he is the only player to remain number one for the most consecutive weeks, and

Yes, its a fact that the list of his accomplishments goes on and on and on....

But what else is a fact......is that he has gotten beaten consistently by Rafa.....Rafa is the ONLY player that can beat Federer even at his BEST!!!

Yes, its a fact that the head to head is compelling.....and yes

Yes, its a fact that if Federer does NOT improve that head to head before he retires........no one in this world could honestly look themselves in the mirror and truly believe that Federer is really the greatest of ALL time............not with a head to head record like this!

And lets not kid oursleves by saying that if Rafa does not make the final then it is not Fed's fault.........since when Rafa has such a history of NOT reaching the finals?!!!!........when he does reach the finals of a Slam I know one thing for a fact......Rafa is NOT afraid or is in awe of Federer!........he knows he can beat Federer!!!...........so dont even talk about Rafa with low confidence and all that......since when?!!!!!!

Yes, its a fact that Federer has created a legacy but the fact still remains that he has not been able to beat Rafa consistenly in a Grand Slam..........a fact that will ALWAYS hang over his career!!!!

This situation reminds me of Michael Jackson!....the King of Pop and entertainment....no doubt.....but all those controversies!!!.....ummmmm!!!

AND THATS A FACT!!!!!!!!!

MonaLisa , 7/17/09 5:39 PM


Fed fans, our man was honoured in Basel yesterday.You can check the details on the official website and also view pictures in the photo gallery and the forum.
Roger looks absolutely royally adorable. .The pic taken with his parents is exceptionally cute. :D

janhavi , 7/17/09 6:05 PM


nirv02, you're absolutely right! the reason federer has lost as much is because rafa is in his era. since history is not built on "ifs" , i'll try to stick to facts. 2008 french open final, 2008 wimbledon final and 2009 australian finals, all three contested by roger vs. rafa with rafa winning all three. now, turn your attention to 2009 french open and 2009 wimbledon, federer winning both, but without having to face rafa in either one. as a result, one can conclude that if rafa had played against him in those two finals, the result could have possibly been different. although we will never know, using logical reasoning, based on past facts, we can certainly make a legitimate argument that rafa chances to win those two also would have been great!

memi , 7/17/09 6:32 PM


jennyger, i assume you follow tennis and you mean to tell me that "inconsistency" means when a player loses one time, in four years at the same slam. then, he is an inconsistent player. we're referring to federer's record against nadal, not nadal losing to robin soderling one time in the four times that they've played against each other. is that inconsistency or does it goes to show that anyone can defeat anyone on any given day. are you sure you're don' t have another sport confused with tennis. losing once in four years is the greatest proof of consistency that a player can demonstrate! please share with us how you arrived at your definition of consistency. i'm curious!

memi , 7/17/09 6:59 PM


Fedfans simply won't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Why is this a Fed thread, doesn't it have 'Nadal' in the title? Could someone please eplain to me why this is a Federer thread, I'm baffled!!!!!!!!

carrie , 7/17/09 7:41 PM


"senorplaid...you confuse me....am still not sure whether you are a fedfan...a rafafan...or someone who sits on the fence...if you have a moment...could you enlighten me?"

Malt, who made you the arbiter of a commenter's proper level of allegiance, but more important what difference does it make if the points I make are valid?

Janhavi, I've seen similar analysis of Federer's game vs. Nadal and how Nadal's game singularly befuddles Federer. (So then why does Murray own a 6-2 record against Federer?) I don't know enough to say with any kind of authority whether the high top-spin to the backhand is the sole reason -- and honestly, I don't think anyone knows that that's the case except that Federer's backhand is acknowledged as his weakest side and that since Nadal wins most of the time, it must be because of his top-spin to the backhand. I would like to see an analysis of errors off the backhand side vs. forehand by Federer before I drew any conclusions, but I doubt any such analysis exists.

Speaking of analysis, if you'll indulge this tennis fan (of dubious Federer liking to some) I have a long take on the matter to try and determine what the issue is. I went into the numbers to see if anything showed up, and it certainly did.

My perception is that Nadal holds a big mental edge, that Federer tries for too much of a shot because he knows that Nadal will get to anything less. Unfortunately, I can't find (quickly) any match stats about winners vs. errors, but I was able to collect a few interesting things that certainly would suggest some sort of mental issue, although that might be too broad a term.

1.) First serves in. This is all entirely on the server and has nothing to do with the returner. Put another way, the server either gets the ball or he doesn't. What the returner does has nothing to do with it.

In their 20 matches, Nadal has gotten a higher percentage of first serves in every match but two -- Wimbledon 2007, Masters Cup 2007 -- both Federer victories. Why? Nadal doesn't have the best serve, but he's smart enough to know that just getting the first serve in is more critical than what you do with it. And in 16 of the 20 matches he got in the first serve more than 70 percent, which is phenomenal. Federer managed the feat only twice -- the aforementioned victories. (Incidentally, the lowest percentage for Federer was this year's Aussie -- 51 percent. You could very easily make the case that if he could have gotten in his first serve at just a normal rate, say, 60 percent, we wouldn't be having this discussion and would be talking about a possible Grand Slam.) There isn't a perfect pattern, but it's clear that the more frequently he gets in his first serve, the better Federer does against Nadal, and 62 percent appears to be something of a magic number. When Federer makes 62 percent or more of his first serves, his record is 4-5. The rest of the time: 3-15. It's a perfect 3-0 if it's above 68 percent. That's presumably with Nadal still hitting high top-spin to the backhand side. If Federer gets in his first serve, he wins, period.

2.) Break points. Federer's chances that have fallen by the wayside in certain matches, particularly the French, have been well-known, but it doesn't appear to hold up in the stats beyond perhaps a slight edge to Nadal. Nadal has had more break opportunities than Federer in 11 matches and converted more chances in 12. Federer's record when he's had as many break points or more than Nadal is 6-2. Nadal's is 12-1. Nadal won the one match where the number was equal (Dubai 2006), thus the unevenness in records.

3.) Service return: What's interesting to note is that Federer has the advantage in most points won off of opponent's first serve -- 11-9 -- but that not having that advantage doesn't bother Nadal nearly to the same extent. In matches that Federer has won, he won a higher percentage of first-serve return points in all but one -- interestingly, Madrid. (That's right. The first time Federer has ever beaten Nadal when Nadal won more points off of Federer's first serve than Federer off of Nadal was the last time they played each other.) On the other hand, Nadal has won five times when Federer won more points off of Nadal's serve. What that means I'm not entirely sure other than Federer's serve -- when it's on -- is more difficult to return, which isn't exactly a groundbreaking conclusion.

But perhaps more important than what you do with the first serve is what you do with the second serve. And Nadal has a clear advantage here. Nadal holds a slight edge in matches with a higher percentage of second-serve return points (11-8-1), but a huge advantage in winning percentage in these matches -- 10-2 to 5-4 for Federer (again, a tie that Nadal won -- the French in 07 -- leads to the disparity).

As something of a tennis-stats novice, I will admit that these things probably mean different things than what I conclude (the point above could just mean that Nadal has a better second serve) and perhaps they mean nothing. Perhaps these are patterns that show up in every H2H tennis matchup, I don't know. But regarding Federer-Nadal, they do seem to suggest rather strongly that the difference comes down to the service game -- a perceived strength of Federer -- and more than anything the opportunities Federer provides Nadal in this phase of the game. Given Nadal's near-perfect record when holding an advantage on the second serve, Federer needs to make sure he gets the first serve in and he needs to take better advantage of Nadal's second serve when he gets those (rare) chances. In fact, when he has gotten his first serve in 62 percent of the time and held an advantage in 2nd-serve return percentage, Federer is 4-0 (Wimbledon 06 and 07, Masters Cup 07, Madrid 09).

So, it would seem that if Federer just does those two things, the rest will take care of itself.

SenorPlaid , 7/17/09 8:02 PM


To follow up quickly, one thing I would like to investigate in another life when I have time to do so is whether Federer's first-service percentage in matches vs. Nadal is lower than that of those against other opponents. If it is, then it's game, set, match that the difference is purely mental.

SenorPlaid , 7/17/09 8:13 PM


Wow. An amazing analysis, SenorPlaid. You must really like tennis! :)

Btw, Malteser wants to know your allegiance straight-up so she knows whether she should hate you and call you names or not. I'm a Federer fan first and foremost, but she's attacked me multiple times simply for criticizing him fairly.

Still, I can't help but admire her passion, overwhelming though it may be.

-Arvis

Arvis , 7/17/09 8:30 PM


agf ' Tell me, who among the greats has NEVER BEEN beaten before? Who among the greats HAVE BEEN BEATEN BY THE SAME PLAYER T*H*I*R*T*E*E*N T*I*M*E*S???'

You proved yourself dumb by correcting my H2H which I mistyped (Sampras and Agassi had been beaten more than 13 by the same player). Thanks for proving your own dumbness.

torres9 , 7/17/09 8:56 PM


MonaLisa,

Yes, Nadal has beaten Fed 13-7 H2H

Yes, its a fact that Nadal has won 6 Grand Slams........4 on clay and ONLY 1 in Wimby (lucky win) and 1 AO

Yes, its a fact that Nadal is one of the greatest tennis players of his generation

Yes, its a fact that Nadal runs like a cheetah and move like a bull

But what else is a fact......is that he only beat Fed consistently on 1 surface.
Yes, its a fact that the head to head is compelling.....and yes

Yes, its a fact that even if Federer does NOT improve that head to head before he retires........everyone in this world can still honestly look themselves in the mirror and truly believe that Federer is really the greatest of ALL time, just not the greatest clay courter.

Yes, its a fact that Nadal has created a CLAY legacy but the fact still remains that he has been beaten in the 4th round by the World No.23 which will hang on for the rest of his career.

This situation reminds me of Spongebob!....the King of Spounges who beat a Starfish but got beaten by a planton...

torres9 , 7/17/09 9:08 PM


Thanks, Arvis. Big tennis fan, yes, but actually I'm a big fan of statistical analysis -- longtime baseball seamhead. All too many arguments are of the subjective variety. So to what extent numbers can help us shape the argument and ground it in facts and reality, I'm always interested to contribute what I can. (And it's a slow work day here -- obviously.)

And yeah, I got that about Malt. I just wanted to call her out anyway.

SenorPlaid , 7/17/09 9:09 PM


Interesting data SenorPlaid. We already know the first serve has always been very important for Roger, but how that differentiates when playing Nadal broken down by numbers/percentages is another level of information. Thank you for that. I'm sure you are on to something relevent to how Federer can overcome Nadal (when he will pull it off). I look forward to the next match between these two Greats. I have a feeling Federer will give Nadal more than Nadal will bargain for. I know how Nadal puts out everything he has on the court (a trait, that is fun to watch) but the FED of late is a tougher opponent. the FED's "new" found peace/ level of relaxation has (I believe) improved upon his confidence level (mental toughness), and I expect he may WIN more (games/sets/matches/finals/trophys) then he did in 2008.

sky , 7/17/09 9:17 PM


actually scratch that, rather I will say

roger will "ACCUMULATE" more games, sets, matches, finals, trophys then he did in 2008 ( accumulate seems to have a better more potent ring to my ears rather than just "WIn" somehow. Although the end result is obviously the same) LOL :) Go Roger go! C'MON Roger! LOL

sky , 7/17/09 9:28 PM


*sigh* Why does it seem like everyone who posts here has some kind of crystal ball they use to see the future?

I don't know how this epic rivalry between Federer and Nadal is going to play out. I'd love for Federer to come out on top, yes, but if he doesn't, it will only be because Nadal is/was and AMAZING tennis player. And that's what this all boils down to. All the excuses and garbage that the fans here invent to "prove" why one is better than the other ultimately diminishes the greatness that BOTH of these players are achieving.

And, as a tennis fan, that irritates me.

So, is there any way we can all put our crystal balls away and just enjoy this amazing generation of tennis as it's happening?

-Arvis

Arvis , 7/17/09 9:51 PM


Arvis...got to admit...your comments have surprised me tonight.....i dont think i have ever had a major issue with you..and you have always been a somewhat calming influence at times...however i detect a note of impatience in your posts...primarily with me....i don't have an issue with you and i cannot recall certainly of late what it is that has been said that has pissed you off....and to say something to senorplaid....

quote:
Btw, Malteser wants to know your allegiance straight-up so she knows whether she should hate you and call you names or not. I'm a Federer fan first and foremost, but she's attacked me multiple times simply for criticizing him fairly.

unquote...

smacks of unfairness to me...but that's your choice and your problem.....

get your facts right first...i have NEVER called anyone names FIRST....i am not someone to attack unless attacked FIRST....got a problem with that? and why the hell should i lie down and take it? like some forlorn little maiden....i dont think so....

so next time before you open your big mouth...get it right....i certainly don't hate anyone on this forum....perhaps one person...who shall remain nameless....who has given me endless grief from day one...but what the hell...it's all cyber nothingness..

senorplaid..you dont know me..i don't know you...i couldn't give a crap what you think about me.....i thought your analysis was interesting....i'm not as good as you in terms of your depth of analysis but i dabble here and there and am still learning....
i asked you a question with no hidden agenda....arvis and you decided WRONGLY where i was coming from.....you both took it the wrong way...get over it.....

I think you are having a bad day today Arvis....just because i disagree.....doesn't give you the right to stand all high and mighty...there are plenty of people on this forum who have said worse things about roger....and arvis...be fair...you know who they are...so whilst i guess i should take it as a compliment that you mention my name.....put your brain into gear before you shoot off next time...

malteser1 , 7/17/09 10:25 PM


Torres--- LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!! M*I*S*T*Y*P*E???????? after 30 POSTS.....you'll say that as your EXCUSE!!!!
YOU , who's always QUICK to answer BACK, will let that pass??? FOOL yourself!!!
12:59 was the time when you posted your stupidity....and you retracted it at 8:56 pm......IT TOOK YOU 7 long hours to thinkof HOW you'll REASON OUT your DUMBNESS!!!

We are talking ABOUT the GREATs of their generations ..... and SAMPRAS surely was ahead from his RIVAL,( Agassi) in terms of H2H.
You're PROCLAIMING Federer as the best of his generation (and the GOAT) and YET someone OWNS him in terms of H2H!!!

agf25agf , 7/17/09 10:41 PM


Heh, Malty, figured that would probably tick you off. :)

Honestly, girl, I'm very fond of you, but I thought you were perfectly aware how "big" your personality is on these boards. You're passionate and fiery, and you never, ever let up in your unwavering support of your hero. And you display quite a bit more reason and heart than many other posters here. But, I mean... come on, you constantly cut down, insult, attack, and belittle. And you know you do. And NO, you don't always need to be provoked. I know, because you've attacked me and called me names before without me ever saying a word to you or about you. I mean, you just told me to "put my brain into gear" when all I did was poke a little fun at your wild, habitual flag-waving. It's part of that awesome Malteser-brand passion, and that's great, but you could at least accept it with a smile and a laugh instead of try and rationalize it or explain it away.

Ach, but what the crap do I know?

And yes, I am really bored today. Long Friday.

-Arvis

Arvis , 7/17/09 10:55 PM


"i asked you a question with no hidden agenda....arvis and you decided WRONGLY where i was coming from.....you both took it the wrong way...get over it....."

Get over what? You're the one who asked me to explain if I were a Fed fan or not and that your inability to figure it out befuddled you. Maybe I am and maybe I'm not, but I again ask: Why would it even matter one way or the another? Unless you had an agenda, it wouldn't. I might not be quite the regular (yet) as Arvis, but it took me reading only one of your posts to know you didn't have much tolerance of any criticism of Federer, whether justified or not. Nothing wrong with that, but own it.

SenorPlaid , 7/17/09 11:47 PM


SenorPlaid--- I welcome someone like you who 's coming from outside the two opposing poles. It's better not to reveal where your money is cos, in one way or the other , it would come out "naturally" and we'd feel where you'll tend to gravitate. This forum is full of fierceful characters, I won't exclude myself from them.....and a lot of hard-headed souls who're always ready for the kill! Bear with us and enjoy...who knows we might even have an argument in the future! For now...Cheers!

agf25agf , 7/18/09 12:34 AM


clear definition of consistency??? easy girl. being no.1 in 237 weeks? all players have experienced defeat in one way or another.. but being able to stay on top among the others for quite longer than the others is surely a great measure to know who has better consistency.. and yes GS? i think no one would argue that this is the ultimate dream of every tennis player.. so they always give their best shots having been given opportunity to take part.. this is where they want to play their best game.. so if someone like rafa or fed loses in earlier rounds in a GS, marked more in the history of tennis compare to a regular ATP. Top players are always expected to atleast to make it in the QF, because GS is the battle of the toughest... so Rafa to be greater than FED, he should show his consistency in a Grand Slam.. the one that matters most..:)
I don't deny that Rafa is a great player, i even believe that he has potentials to be the GOAT someday if he will be able to maintain his healthy body, but as i said.. as of now FED is the GOAT.. unless somebody will beat his magnificent records...

jennyger , 7/18/09 3:55 AM


SenorPlaid and Arvis, you are two of the most rational and moderate ppl around here. There's nothing wrong with criticising the great Roger Federer's record. He's not the all shiny 100% perfect tennis player that some of his ardent fans make him out to be, no one is. We can still be a fan of his and accept that he has faults in his game and character like any normal human being.

malteser, you may not see it in yourself but some of the language you use is aggressive and downright condescending. It comes through loud and clear everytime you feel that someone criticizes Roger's record. We are not trying to bring him down by any means, but looking at his achievements from other angles and have an open mind on where he is placed in tennis history, rather than putting him on the highest pedestal blindly without question. By the way, I didn't know that link was already posted. There is just too much to read through all comments. In any case, some of the members here may have missed it like I did. It's not like I posted the whole contents of the article here.

cable , 7/18/09 4:00 AM


it's really lovely to wake up this morning....and see that cable...senorplaid and arvis are all part of the self-congratulatory club....good for you guys....

arvis....if you meant it in fun...then why no smiley face?...secondly...i 'know' you pretty well on this forum...and whilst i detected that you had had a bad day...i don't think for you to say what you said was fair...but it's done now....as for me being 'big' on this posts...no..no...no....arvis...don't elevate what i say....it is not a good thing...i am as 'ordinary' as the next guy....

quote.......But, I mean... come on, you constantly cut down, insult, attack, and belittle. And you know you do. And NO, you don't always need to be provoked. I know, because you've attacked me and called me names before without me ever saying a word to you or about you.....unquote.....

Arvis.....i absolutely do not understand what you are saying....i think the last conversation you and i had..you sent a video link in of a mad woman supporting roger.....yes? and i laughed my head off...and we exchanged some really funny posts at which point you said you were glad i had taken it in good humour......

which was why your post was a little shocking/disappointing to be honest.....but i accept how passionate i am at being a fed fan....no different to the 8 million fans out there....

i actually think that torres is a better poster than me...along with janhavi and the other fedfans...

the flip side of passion tho' arvis is passion that runs into insulting other posters....and i can say to you that this namecalling that thankfully has stopped (until next time...who knows...) was started by the rafa fans....and you know who they are....and they were directed at me...and i gave it back...i have NEVER called anyone names until they have first.....and yeah...i know that's childish arvis...but you fight fire with fire sometimes right?

cable.....don't make this out to be more than it is....if i come through loud and clear..then turn down the volume...know what i am saying? a debate/forum is about criticising your opponents stand....and let's face it ......WE ALL DO IT....agf is on a bit of a roll right now.....and some of the other rafa fans on the other threads...so try to be objective here.....

if i want to put roger on a pedastal...that is MY CHOICE... not yours....don't tell me that the rafa fans dont put RAFA on a pedastal...it's what we do with our 'heros'...the big difference tho' guys is that whilst i have NEVER called rafa names and i haven't......and have been complimentary and positive about rafa.....what irritates and annoys me more than anything is when people like fft,carrie,homos,posmatrac, call roger names and try to belittle his achievements....as a passionate fan...i find that unsportsmanlike and uncalled for...of course i am going to say something.....

cable you don't know me....when you say 'we are not trying to bring him down'.....what you could do is go back over the fed threads and see some of the posts written by carrie and fft and then IF you are a fair rafafan...you will see what i am talking about....if you come onto the forum every now and again....you wont see the bad press,insulting words from some of your own..that being the case.....well....am fairly certain that you would then understand a little more where i was coming from. Try not to make it too personal tho'....you said yourself there is way too much to read through...so you are only building a snapshot of events rather than the whole picture.....anyhow enough said.

alex.....quote.....

on the basis of the evidence so far, to talk of him eventually winning say 3-5 slams, rather than the potential 1 you faintly complement him with. But I'm encouraged by the fact that you feel the need to subtly downplay muzz's prospects :)

unquote....

murray is a great player....but not my favourite as you know....and if he has only reached one slam..then what does that say at this point in time?..simply...that he got knocked out in the earlier rounds...(apart from the US Open)....murray is one of fittest athletes out there...so to use tiredness as an excuse...i don't buy it...it applies to all of the players...and it could always be argued...'well if they hadnt played him then......this could/would have happened'......it is part of the game of tennis.....looking at the hours that fed played at the FO...he played more games and put in more hours then any of the other players...and still went on to win the final.....

i think that murray will do very well in terms of his slam count alex....i didn't subtley play down his chances...but who knows when? the pack are improving all the time...right? i think that roddick will give murray a good run for his money....i really do........one thing that does bother me tho' and you....am sure...will give a different take on it......is when murray has to 'use the crowd' to pump himself up...it's just one of those things that irritates me about his game.....but i accept all players are different......

Sky...i wondered where you had gone buddy...it is kind of quiet right now in comparison...i know....but i'll check in with you later......

malteser1 , 7/18/09 10:18 AM


obsessive compulsive disorder!

homos , 7/18/09 10:36 AM


is that what you have homos? i don't think there is any cure...but i wish you well.....

malteser1 , 7/18/09 1:36 PM


ocd malteser1 i told ya, book an appointment soon, it's for ur benefit.

posmatrac , 7/18/09 4:47 PM


jennyger, i learn something new everyday! i had no idea that the criteria for being consistent is that a player has to hold the #1 ranking for 237 weeks or more and get to 20 semifinals. here i thought that more than one player could be consistent at the same time, at his individual position. i.e. rafa held the #2 spot longer than any #2 player in history and then moved up to #1, not down to #3. silly me, i actually thought that meant he was consistent! for the last two or three years, either rafa or roger has won all slam finals,with the exception of the 2008 australian won by djokovic and a batch of master shields. there again, i thought they had to be consistent to do that! now, come to find out, consistency is when a player has the exact same record as federer. jennyger, everybody needs to take a lesson from you on what determines consistency! you have schooled me!

memi , 7/18/09 6:02 PM


hey pos! i was wondering where you had gone.....thanks so much for your concern...i took your advice....had my appointment earlier today....unfortunately...they told me there is no hope for me.....and to keep taking the tablets......am sure you want me to overdose on them...but i'll be as careful as i can....thanks for your concern pos.....xx

malteser1 , 7/18/09 7:12 PM


malt: "if i want to put roger on a pedastal...that is MY CHOICE... not yours....don't tell me that the rafa fans dont put RAFA on a pedastal...it's what we do with our 'heros'..."

Many Rafa fans I know DO NOT put Rafa on a pedestal. Saying he is a great tennis player is not the same thing as putting him on a pedestal or considering him a hero. My heroes are personal to me and Rafa is just a great tennis player that I admire. Rafa said it best when at the Olympics last year when asked why he was staying in the Olympic Village instead of a resort hotel. He said (paraphrased) " Why would I do that? All because I can hit a tennis ball over the net better?"
The fact that you put someone you have never even met on a pedestal like that and require constant validation as to "his greatness" and live through HIS achievements is quite sad.

fan4tennis , 7/18/09 7:51 PM


" .. they told me there is no hope for me.."

torres has been practicing without a license again :)

posmatrac , 7/18/09 8:03 PM


your right fft...i am a very sad person...

as sad as a 50 year old woman who gushes, drools and salivates over a 23 year old man and talks incessantly about his pink shirt at the FO....who stalks and tracks down any article about rafa's GP...and consultant....who gives a blow by blow account of rafa's injuries...who is the spokeswoman for team rafa......and glorifies in her 'hero's' accomplishments.....how wonderful he looked in pink...pink...pink...pink.....and thanking everyone on this forum for their kind words about rafa when he was injured like you were rafa's spokeswoman or something....you are as sad...i.........f not more...................as me fft.....

and then who takes great pride in dissin' the roge's accomplishments....who repeatedly posts negative comments about the fed....who is a shameful fan of rafa who is a dignified and humble champion...unlike one of his 50 year old fans...old enough to be his grandmother....

or have i got that wrong about who you are supporting? i wasn't sure whether you have jumped to the murray camp or is it roddick? you see..i forget who you do actually support.....

malteser1 , 7/18/09 8:46 PM


In order to try to prove a point (what that point is was lost in your tirade), you have to resort to lies??

Show me the posts where I: "as sad as a 50 year old woman who gushes, drools and salivates over a 23 year old man and talks incessantly about his pink shirt at the FO....who stalks and tracks down any article about rafa's GP...and consultant....who gives a blow by blow account of rafa's injuries...who is the spokeswoman for team rafa......and glorifies in her 'hero's' accomplishments.....how wonderful he looked in pink...pink...pink...pink.....and thanking everyone on this forum for their kind words about rafa when he was injured like you were rafa's spokeswoman or something....you are as sad...i.........f not more...................as me fft....."

I didn't realize thanking someone for kind words about Rafa's injury was a crime. I guess I should be more like you and use my posts to insult everyone, lest I be considered "speaking for Rafa." BTW, I've told you before and you persist in lies. I happen to be in my 40's and I do NOT consider Rafa one of my heroes. He is a great tennis player whom I admire. I did not realize that YOU determined the age range for fans.

fan4tennis , 7/18/09 9:03 PM


"or have i got that wrong about who you are supporting? i wasn't sure whether you have jumped to the murray camp or is it roddick? you see..i forget who you do actually support....."

Why is it such a great concern to you who I, or anyone for that matter, support? As SenorPlaid said "Why would it even matter one way or the another? Unless you had an agenda, it wouldn't."

fan4tennis , 7/18/09 9:08 PM


bye fft...i'll leave you to gloat in your own little fantasy world.....

malteser1 , 7/18/09 9:29 PM


LOL.... knew you couldn't provide the proof!! Just like you to lie! You've proven you've done it before so no surprise that you'd lie again.

fan4tennis , 7/18/09 9:52 PM


Federer has losing records against three of the current time players Nadal, Murray and Simon. I probably wouldn't consider him as the best, let alone the greatest.

Nothing , 7/19/09 2:37 AM


memi, you are most welcome dear..lol but somehow i think i still failed to instill some knowledge into your mind.. consistent.. more consistent, most consistent... did you know there is such comparative and superlative??? rafa consistent.. roger, more consistent.. so there okay???another lesson for you...

jennyger , 7/19/09 3:46 AM


no fft...i am not a liar.....the problem is i am fed up with cuttin' an' pastin' your lies and posting them here....you know as well as i do that you said the things that you said about rafa's shirt at the FO..you and carrie were salivating away over his pink shirt....you know as well as i do that you kept on and on and on about rafa's injuries making excuses left, right and centre and thanking everyone for their concern....bla bla bla...you also are aware that whenever a direct question is asked of you...you NEVER answer them....you know it...i don't have to go around on archive to find out all your posts...because you posted them....it's not a question of me lying..

it's a question of you knowing that i am NOT going to do your dirty work for you...and to come on here to very glibly and say that the only reason i haven't posted what you said is because i am lying...is pure lies in itself...and you know it fft....you are someone who very carefully....bats it back.....and rather than being a 'man' admitting your mistakes...admitting that you said all of those things...(which you did and you know it)....you turn it around because YOU cannot be bothered finding your posts......or rather...you've been BUSTED.....and you don't want egg on your face.....so its simpler for you to say...'you lie'....absolute rubbish...grow up fft...admit you said it...admit your mistakes...admit that you've been busted.....

You lie all the time fft.....you are the queen of lies......

malteser1 , 7/19/09 9:27 AM


nothing...yes...yes...we know...we also know that rafa is the king of clay....having beaten roger in 9 tournys...all on clay.....

do you know that federer has a 5:4 h2h over rafa on grass and hard courts though?
do you know that murray hasn't won a slam? yet you mention him in the same breath?

and i don't think at this point, you can consider simon in the same breath as federer...as otherwise we go back to the wins of blake over rafa?

Did you know that blake has beaten rafa and so technically are you saying he is better than rafa?

are you saying that soderling is better than rafa as he knocked him out at FO?....or murray better than rafa when he won rotterdam earlier this year? what exactly are you trying to say....'nothing?' 'cos I'm confused....

malteser1 , 7/19/09 2:24 PM


Nah malt. You're just ticked off that someone dared call you out. You, immaturely thought that you could just post insulting tirade after insulting tirade, making up words as you went along, and everyone would accept it as gospel. You have been proven a liar, when you started changing people's words and adding extra tidbits to them that fit your needs, then claimed them as quotes--lol. Now all of the sudden, YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THE QUOTES??????

I'll tell you why you can't. Because I never said those things. You can't prove it because it's not true!!! YOU LIED AGAIN!!!! I DID thank certain people (knowing they weren't Rafa fans) for kind words they said towards Rafa and I'm still not understanding how that is a crime. Only in your world is it bad to say thank you.

fan4tennis , 7/19/09 7:39 PM


lady...boy oh boy do you like to call the tune.....stop with ya capital letters and ya multiple question marks...your gonna give ya self a heart attack....

i stand by what i say...i will not buckle because of your continuing bullying...cos that is what you are....you know that you have said those things fft...you know that you have said those things...and without me going back to what you did say when rafa/fed were playing at the FO....then it means you get outta jail....right?

tell you what...why dont YOU go back to archive and post the nasty quotes that you said about roge....and the drooling posts you said about the pink shirt....oh my god...fft..you are becoming quite the dementia patient here.....you need to relax lady....you really do...no end of screaming and shouting with your caps lock on and your multiple punctuation is gonna get me to move...you can carry on all you like...the true roger fans on this forum know how bizarrely stubborn you can be...i dont have to keep cutting and pasting what you say...it's boring for everyone...including me having a rabid rafa...oopss....murray....ooops...roddick shameful fan on this forum who continually goes on and on because she doesn't have anything new to discuss...she would rather carry on like a banshee until she gets her own way...problem is fft..you said those things..you know you said those things and me thinks you are protesting far too much......

and who the hell are you to accept thanks yous from anyone? you are the WORST advert for a rafa fan on this forum....i think i even prefer agf to you...at least he/she has calmed down and put forward some interesting arguments of late...you just keep bringing up old, tired news...you have become more boring than usual fft...smarten up your act.....it may be the making of you...

malteser1 , 7/19/09 8:01 PM


malt: "you have become more boring than usual fft"

Then why do you keep posting lies about me? All I asked was for you to provide the proof of your nasty comments about me. You refuse to and instead demand that I do it instead? Why should I do your dirty work for you since you are the one that is claiming I said those things? You're the "going for my masters" queen and supposedly soooo smart and you can't provide a simple quote?


ATTENTION ALL: According to malt, NO ONE is allowed to say thank you to anyone who says a kind word about their fave player, unless she approves or you can provide documentation of being a spokesman for your player.

fan4tennis , 7/19/09 8:19 PM


grow up fft..and stop boring everyone....you are becoming more than tiresome...

malteser1 , 7/19/09 9:10 PM


agf, i went back to my hometown after my mistyped post. WHy don't you just admit your lack of tennis knowledge for not knowing that there are greats who get beaten more than thirteen as you claimed.

Even if I misplaced Agassi and Sampras in the sentence, both of them lost more than 13 times. Both of them are greats.

But of coz, FED IS THE BEST among them ^^

torres9 , 7/19/09 9:22 PM


OK! we won't SEE eye to eye EVER because you're talking about something which doesn't go along with what I'm talking about.

The issue has EXPIRED already....You answered again after 2 DAYS......I got it now--- YOUR HOMETOWN DOESN'T HAVE COMPUTERs YET!!!

agf25agf , 7/19/09 10:01 PM


Duhh, agf, why do you equate things without thinking deeply of all possibilities. Of course when I went back o my hometown I will catch up with my old frens thus have no time to be surfing the internet.

And there's no EXPIRY DATE on anything or any time limit that you respond here. I can post anything just as long as the admins here dont delete or ban me.

Just admit that you really dont know much about tennis history which is why you always post things without research.

FED IS THE BEST!!

torres9 , 7/19/09 10:35 PM


DON'T CRY! It's fine if I don't know anything about tennis history THAN toPRETEND that I know WHILE I'm just COPYING EVRYTHING from the net and ANNOUNCE to the whole world that "I KNOW EVERYTHING!"

WHY do I have to think DEEPLY of all the possibilities ABOUT your life? And you don't have tO EXPLAIN anything AT ALL for missing tennistalk because there's NO internet cafe in your hometown!.....I truly understand WHERE you came from!

agf25agf , 7/19/09 11:42 PM


The posts on this website is turning into a war like the one in the Middle East. Give it up ppl. You're not going to change the opinion of the other side. Just accept that not everyone is going to like Roger or Rafa and not everyone hates them either. Some love them both, and some don't even like them. That's the way the world works. Everyone has their own opinion and looks at the world through their own filtered glasses. There are more important issues in this world than trying to convince the other side (without any possibility of success) that your player is better.

cable , 7/20/09 1:47 AM


I'm soooo bored of this GOAT deabate, really.....
and frankly, since when do we have to give a damn about what Sampras says?
Peace in the tennis world people

Shireling , 7/20/09 10:45 AM


Hi Malteser, how come Federer at his prime doesn't have a H2H edge over three of his comtemporary players who are considered to be good players!!! He will have to prove himself more to be considered as the best.

Nothing , 7/20/09 11:15 AM


yeah, i agree with you Shireling, let's stop arguing about this. Some entries has been more on personal attack rather than exhanges in opinion. Having said that, I sincerely apologize for those i might have offended. Let's all be mature enough to understand and respect each others opinion. Whether we agree or not on some discussions, i think it's better that we don't use personal attacks or we refrain from using unnecessary "foul words" in stressing our own comments. Let's not provoke each other and be intelligent/fair/objective/ with our criticism. We are all fans of tennis, with different preferences and different way of thinking. Let us all try to understand that. Let's enjoy this site to gather latest news in the tennis world, make friends, and share opinions in the best way possible.
Peace to all of you...!

jennyger , 7/20/09 11:56 AM


Couldn't agree more jennyger - thx for your wise words.

Peace in the tennis world

Shireling , 7/20/09 1:15 PM


Cable, I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm just some sober-minded analyst who's not above the occasional snark ... ;-) (but thanks anyway).

Now if I can just stop congratulating myself long enough, I had a couple more addenda to add to my lengthy (and on-topic) post above to kind of square the circle:

1.) I made a few mistakes in the record on service games. Federer's record when serving 62 percent is 4-6, 3-7 when not (not 3-15). I missed one of the matches at 62 percent, and apologize for the duff into the net. All things considered, the magic number for Federer is not 62 percent, but 63. He's 3-3 at that percentage or above and 4-10 the other times.

2.) The six matches that Federer lost when he did serve at 62 percent or above are interesting in and of themselves and DO seem to add to the appearance that Nadal does just a little bit better -- which is enough -- of taking advantage of his opportunities. In a rivalry this tight, that could be all the difference.

* 2005 French. Federer served 62 percent, won 6 of 12 breakers, won a higher percentage of points off of Nadal's first serve and won half of the points on Nadal's second serve. All things considered, we should have expected Federer to win this match, except, of course, he didn't. Why? Nadal took better advantage of his opportunities (even though Federer didn't fail in this regard). Nadal was 9 of 13 on break chances and won an incredible 62 percent of the points on Federer's second serve.

* 2006 Italian. You all know this one. Federer again served 62 percent, but Nadal was at an other-worldly 84 percent. (One of three times he made 80 percent or more of his first serves). Federer took 4 of 10 breakers (compared with 3 of 9 for Nadal) and won 46 percent of his second-serve chances, but considering how few there were, Nadal's 48 percent tipped the match. Actually, all things considered, this match can be considered a draw. Of course, there are no draws in tennis, and it's to Nadal's credit that he won the title in a fifth-set tiebreak at 7-5, but really there wasn't a hair-breadth's difference between the two on this day.

* 2007 French. This is the match that first raised the issue of Federer not being able to take full advantage of his chances after he went 1 for 17 in break opportunities. If he takes only four more, which is still not a great percentage, he probably wins the match. As is, he served at 64 percent and was tied with Nadal at 45 percent on second-serves returned. But his inability to complete the kill cost him.

* 2008 Monte Carlo. Federer served 62 percent (to Nadal's 80) and took 4 of 5 break chances. His second-serve -- again when he got the rare chance -- was 58 percent, which is excellent. Nadal, however, was at 71 percent -- just an eye-popping percentage -- and won 6 of 7 breakers. Nadal won 7-5, 7-5 in a match that was a lot tighter than a straight sets score would indicate.

* 2008 French. (Anyone else starting to detect a pattern here?) Federer served at 68 percent, but let's face it: He wasn't going to beat Nadal that day even if he was at 80 percent. This was clearly the biggest beat-down either one has put on the other, and you can do nothing on such a day but tip your headband to Rafa and take your runners-up plate. It happens to everyone at one point or another.

* 2008 Wimbledon. There's really nothing more to add about this match that hasn't already been said, except that it harkens back to two things: One, that this match (like this year's Federer-Roddick epic) was essentially another draw. Two, that again, the stats do seem to suggest that Nadal has just a bit more able to take advantage of his opportunities. Federer converted only 1 of 13 break chances; Nadal 4 of 13. Obviously, that was difference on this day.

And one bonus thought: Going over the matches makes one appreciate how great this rivalry truly has been when it comes to the actual matches. Sixteen of the 20 matches been played in a tournament final, which has to be a record among men. (My guess is Navratilova-Evert tops the total if not the percentage.) And many of these matches have been as high drama as you can get. Eight went to a deciding set. (Nadal: 5-3) Two more featured a fourth set tie-break that determined it. (Nadal won both.) Only seven of the 20 matches went straight sets, and only two can really be considered blowouts: the 2008 French and Federer's 6-4, 6-1 semifinal win at the 2007 Masters Cup.

To be continued ... hopefully.

SenorPlaid , 7/20/09 4:21 PM


Warning: Please don't take anything that follows too seriously!

"Sampras says Federer needs to get on top of Nadal"
- I hope this doesn't mean they are supposed to wrestle now!

"He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."
- Again book! This seems like publicity for book publishing.

"LA-based Sampras will play Marat Safin next month at the Los Angeles ATP event in an exhibition which recalls the 2000 US Open final, when the young Russian thrashed the reigning king of the courts."
- Now I see! Safin seems to miss thrashing!

"He has to figure this kid out, he has to beat him,"
- Beat a kid!

PS: All criticism is welcome.

tejas , 7/20/09 6:58 PM


I've asked this before - I guess I could google it. How old was Roger when he beat Sampras (and how old was Sampras for that matter?)

Rafterfan , 7/20/09 9:57 PM


Got it - Pete was 29 and Roger was 19 (almost 20).

Rafterfan , 7/20/09 10:24 PM


And they ONLY met ONCE?!

agf25agf , 7/20/09 11:39 PM


One year ago, Roger Federer's 4½-year hold on No. 1 was all but gone.

On Aug. 4, midway through the Olympus US Open Series' run-up to the U.S. Open, Rafael Nadal ascended to the top, ending Federer's 237-week run at No. 1.

What a difference a year makes ? not to mention three of the last four Grand Slam titles. As the 2009 US Open Series launches its sixth season, Federer is back at No. 1, and no one can catch him ? at least until the U.S. Open.

"Once I was No. 1, everything just clicked, and everything was easy," Federer said after he regained the top spot following his victory at Wimbledon. "I beat all the other top-10 guys, I won every final I played, and so I hope that's going to return again. I'm delighted, of course, I'm No. 1 again."

After losing to Nadal in the French Open and Wimbledon finals in 2008, Federer struggled through the summer ? his best showing was the quarterfinals, in Cincinnati and the Olympics in Beijing ? until he won the U.S. Open in September. Nadal, meanwhile, piled up points by winning in Toronto, reaching the semifinals in Cincinnati and capturing the gold medal at the Olympics. That means he has a lot of points to defend, and he automatically loses the 800 he tallied in Beijing.

The bigger issue, of course, is the tendinitis in his knees that has sidelined him since his loss to Robin Soderling in the round of the 16 at the French Open, denying him a chance to defend his Wimbledon title. Nadal has been cleared to resume practice today, and he is expected to return to the court at the Aug. 10-16 Rogers Masters in Montreal, the first of two back-to-back mandatory events that will bring together the top players on the ATP Tour.

"I am really looking forward to practicing again and to do what I like to do the most: to play tennis," Nadal said in a statement. "The event in Montreal is important, and I expect to be there fit to play. Until then I need to continue to work on my recovery and practice well."

To get back to No. 1 Nadal will have to at least duplicate his 2008 performance in the US Open Series. And he'll most likely have to win the U.S. Open in September, ending Federer's five-year reign. Nadal's best performance in the season's final Grand Slam is the semifinals, which he accomplished last year.

The challenges ahead for Federer are claiming a third Grand Slam title in a season for the fourth time and ending the year No. 1.

"It's fantastic, because definitely, when you lose No. 1, you never know if you're ever going to return to it," Federer said. "I always thought it was easier staying No. 1 than getting there."

Getting back to No. 1 and staying there after being knocked off the top is even harder. Only once since the Open era began in 1968 has a man finished the year No. 1 after losing that spot the year before. Ivan Lendl finished 1989 at No. 1 after Mats Wilander had ended Lendl's three-year run at the top in 1988.

Pete Sampras, who finished No. 1 for six consecutive years, believes Federer can stay at the top.

"Being No. 1 and staying No. 1 takes a lot of work," Sampras said. "It's a testament to his resolve to get back there. ? He probably will finish No. 1."

FED IS THE BEST!!!

torres9 , 7/21/09 12:27 AM


RAFA got to the #1 spot by winning slams @ the EXPENSE of the then #1 player (Federer)!.... With all due respect to Roger, he got BACK to #1 in the ABSENCE of the reigning #1! WHICH one is SWEETER?

agf25agf , 7/21/09 12:47 AM


Fed is sweeter becoz all of the people were saying that's he's finish and before you know it, he won FO and got WImby back. Rafa's absense is entirely Rafa's own doing.

FED IS THE BEST!!!

torres9 , 7/21/09 2:33 AM


The former #1 didn't bother to defend the title and the ranking. Lack of foresight perhaps?

happyspectator , 7/21/09 3:12 AM


Fed is the Sheriff when Rafa is not around.

posmatrac , 7/21/09 3:12 AM


That's what makes the 237 consecutive weeks at #1 so impressive. Year in, year out dealing with matches, competition AND injury, not to mention age.

Too bad the supposed Sheriff calls in sick or injured so often.....

happyspectator , 7/21/09 3:19 AM


At least Rafa won't be whining to the press that he hates to be introduced as the World No 2 as someone else did.

fan4tennis , 7/21/09 3:20 AM


He's used to it....feels like homecoming....

happyspectator , 7/21/09 3:25 AM


And he was damn good at it too!! Don't forget that from that number 2 position, is where he got his fight and ending up being number 1! If fed can regain it, so can Rafa!

fan4tennis , 7/21/09 3:30 AM


Nope, won't be forgetting that.....just hope that he'll wise up this time around with his schedule.....injuries always carry a premium and, likewise, he is not getting any younger.

happyspectator , 7/21/09 3:34 AM


Kleenex deal with Fed turned out to be a sound enterprise.

posmatrac , 7/21/09 3:35 AM


considering the few points that separates rank no. 1 and 2, either one of them has a chance to end us no. 1. pardon my innocence in the tennis scoring system, but i would just like to know if murray has a chance too if he won the US Open?

jennyger , 7/21/09 3:46 AM


Murray is more deserving than Rafa to get no.1 after Fed this year because at least he has the BALLS to participate in all Slams. Rafa got beaten by Hewitt and Stan and then couldn't stand the tought of being humiliated in the 1st round in Wimby.

Rafa needs to learn to be a MAN and not get afraid of being beaten even when 100%. This is the reason why he's no.2 to Fed.

FED IS THE BEST!!

torres9 , 7/21/09 4:20 AM


by all means jennyger, thank you for your words of wisdom on consistency. the atp is missing out on not having you to teach consistency expecially to the top players and up-and-coming players as well. with all of your knowledge you could tell them a thing or two! i get the feeling, nadal will be disappointed to learn that losing in the 4th round of the same slam for the first time in four years proves that he is an inconsistent player! go easy on nadal when you tell how inconsistent he is compared to federer. well! i guess that means beating the GOAT (as roger is referred to) thirteen times out of twenty and owning fifteen masters shields the same as king federer is pretty inconsistent!

memi , 7/21/09 6:26 AM


tosser9 you should go out there and play elite tennis and give nadal a lesson or two on what it's like to have balls!

or does hiding behind your keyboard constitute having a spine and guts? bravo! no wonder you are a federer fan. go away and acry now, you've earned it!

homos , 7/21/09 7:20 AM


memi, you may interpret my comments anyway you want.. as different individual, it's safe for me to assume that we have different taste and standards.
you have proved your stand on the matter, and so as mine. let's put this discussion to rest and move on. we don't have to end up arguing about our point of views in tennis.. peace!

jennyger , 7/21/09 7:33 AM


Haha... homos, I can't see your face here too and you are 'hiding behind your keyboard' just like what you said of me.

Be a MAN and look yourself in the mirror.

FED IS THE BEST!!!

torres9 , 7/21/09 8:19 AM


The arguements go round and round and round. I admire both Raf and Rog and it's doing my head in. It's premature anyway, both players are still competing aren't they? Please guys n' girls let's just wait and see, shall we?
Hi Alex! see you on the next magical Murray thread!

deuce , 7/21/09 3:33 PM


I think it's wrong for the ATP to take off all the Olympic points in one go, when the players won't have a chance to defend them for 4 years. They should take off 1/4 every year over 4 years. Players like Murray who went out in the 1st round don't have to worry about losing a lot of points, as well as Federer, who basically was down pan alley this time last year and was rescued by winning the USO, otherwise he would have ended 2008 as ±3. If Murray had put his mind to it, he would have sent Fed packing as he always does, what a lost opportunity.

The §1 ranking is up for grabs, there are only 400+ points separating the top 2, so I wouldn't get too cocky torres, you never know what could happen. Rafa has said he is going to take it slowly and is not chasing the §1 ranking, so his fans will be patient to see him get back to normal and wipe the smile off all the faces of the Smugalots.

carrie , 7/21/09 3:40 PM


Sure, if Fed plays his best like he always does, he would have won 100% of his matches. Owhh well, what I love now is that Fed is back home, no matter how long his stay there, he already proved he can bounce back and win Slams and also he got 15 Slams.

I congratulate Rafa for hindering Fed's Slams collection but alas he, Djoker and Murray has done all in their power to stop Fed getting to 15 but did not succeed.

Personally, I think Fed has graduated from this Grand Slam degree. Whether he wants to take a post-graduate course, it is optional.

There are little left for him to achieve now. Maybe getting the year-end no.1 would make him equal with Sampras's 5 times year-end no.1s.

What else? Being no.1 for most consecutive weeks?

He can retire now and still be considered the GOAT. Rafa, Djoker and Murray has a lot of catching up to do.

FED IS THE BEST!!

torres9 , 7/21/09 3:54 PM


"considering the few points that separates rank no. 1 and 2, either one of them has a chance to end us no. 1. pardon my innocence in the tennis scoring system, but i would just like to know if murray has a chance too if he won the US Open?"

Jenny, my guess is that Murray would have to win the Open to even have a chance.

* Nadal won the Aussie and then just about every Masters tourney up till Madrid; and

* Federer has won two Slams and equaled Murray's one Masters

So Murray is two Slams behind Federer and one Slam and two Masters behind Nadal. No number of Queens Cup titles will overcome those deficits, so to have any chance at all, it would appear that not only will Murray have to win the Open, he'll have to add at least two more Masters titles -- and hope that neither Nadal nor Federer win anything -- just to have a shot of winning it in London by winn the Masters Cup.

Or, he could blow the Open (as long as it's not to Nadal or Federer) and win EVERY Masters tourney the rest of the year for the same chance.

It's a shot but a very long one indeed. I wouldn't mortgage the house on it, if I were you.

SenorPlaid , 7/21/09 4:12 PM


I just checked and Sampras had a losing record against four of his rivals; Michael Stich, Richard krajicek, lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin. Using Pete's own criteria, Sampras should never have been part of the conversation as to being the GrOAT. He didn't even have a winning record against some of his biggest rivals.

Don't get me wrong. I think Pete is one of the best players ever. I just think he is having sour grapes now that Roger is surpassing most of his records. I think you should be judged on how you did throughout your career, and not individual records against certain players.

mnolson1 , 7/21/09 5:18 PM


SPOT ON. ANd Sampras met Gustavo Kuerten (King of Clay of Sampras's era) only 3 times and even lost to Guga on hardcourts in Tennis Masters Cup. At least Fed was able to beat Nadal 2 times on clay and beat Rafa 2 times in Tennis Masters Cup.

torres9 , 7/21/09 5:36 PM





(Toronto)(Cincinnati)(Olympics)(US Open)
1) Federer 11,200 10 150 200 2000
2) Nadal 10,735 1000 450 800 900
3) Murray 9,700 450 1000 10 1400


Points Dropping through US Open = Federer (2,360), Nadal (3,150), Murray (2,860)

+ As of 20 July

torres9 , 7/21/09 5:57 PM



Current ATP-rankings

1. Djokovic 12 500 pts
2. Murray 8 750 pts
3. Federer 8 670 pts
4. Ferrer 6 970 pts
5. Nadal 6 385 pts

Unibet Mobile prematch,live betting

Unibet Mobile betting Unibet Mobile betting

Scan QR code to access Unibet mobile.
Bet on Sports wherever you are and whenever you like, with Unibet's quick and simple mobile client you can place bets, check results and see live odds.
 For more info about QR codes & scanners click here.

ATP Calendar

Date
Tournament
21 Jul
Atlanta

USA, USA

21 Jul
Gstaad

Switzerland, Switzerland

21 Jul
Umag

Croatia, Croatia

27 Jul
Kitzbuhel

Austria,

Recommend Tennistalk



Follow us

Follow Tennistalk on Facebook Follow Tennistalk on Twitter

Tell a friend

Your name:

Friend's name:

Friend's email:

Other tennis links