The match is played at such a fast pace..Davy got such a bad call at set point in 1st set..horrendous call..He deserved the 1st set by all means as he had Fed on the ropes all throughtout 1st set

Fed playing better in 2nd and looks like Davys level dropped a bit

There goes Davy with the hip problem.

Fed will take this in 3

Davy looks gassed out

Shame for Davy... he is slower and slower...
Ok...LOAT will take one more gift.

Well Davy still holds... 3:2 in decider...

I can't understand... For someone who recently commented WTA players... He is fist pumping on every point :). LOL!
DAVAI KOLYA!!!

WTA is disgrace tennis .. grunting/fist pumping etc. on every point... this match is far away compare to WTA in this regard.

players like sharapova,zvonoreva,jankovic ...gosh ..pathetic.

RF in GOD mode now haha :D

what a nice match going on ..today's grinder should learn something.

if nadal was on other side of net he was going to lose.

God Mode?!? You were watching what match?
4:4... Getting out of trouble thanks to one more terible line call?
He almost lost against injured Kolya LOL... He will have to play a way better tomorrow...
...and almost every point was fistpumped... So much about emptyness of his comments...

Davy deserved to win it equally..just didnt convert those 3 BPs in 3rd

Rogers level was subpar today for sure

He wasnt in God mode I think at any moment in the match

Yes... Kolya missed his chances... Fed is not going to give you many more... anyway good for Davy... It would be nice to more of " playstation" Kolya in this year.

Very close match.High speed tennis.Fed hit about 2 or 3 great shots that let him pull out the match.

Nadal played here in 2009, reaching the final, beating Tsonga along the way. He injured his leg in the final and lost to Murray in three sets. If I'm not wrong, they've slowed down the court here since; the court in 2009 played quicker. The Delpo/Berdych match seemed so slow, good that Fed/Davy is fast paced by comparison.

KMA had obviously not seen Rafa played here in 2009, where the court was alot quicker. There's no grinder tennis played here in 2009, where Rafa took down Tsonga in three, and lost to a Murray playing one of his best matches in three sets in the final. This is a thread about Fed/Davy, I don't see why KMA always need to bring Rafa into the picture. Why question Rafa on an indoor court? Is it because now Fed couldn't win on an outdoor hard court and so all's left was the indoor hardbcourt for him?

yes old arrogant man can not win outdoors but the young warrior also can not win out of clay.how much time it has been to win a h/c title by nadal??

gosh even old man has won a outdoor title after that.

mani, what is winning Doha compared to winning the USO and Tokyo Open? If you're happy for Fed just because he can only win a 250 outdoor event, then I'm sad for you and Fed. What ambition is that? At least Rafa reached the Masters and Slams finals on the hard courts, losing to the no. 1 player. Fed can't even reached those finals! When was the last time Fed reached a hard court slam final, and we have here mani and KMA poking fun at Rafa!

Well I saw the match..Fed was mostly reacting to what Davy was doing..Davy was taking the ball early and running Fed all over the court..Fed was really lucky to win this..no doubt about it..but what matters is he won and exploited the few opportunities Davy give him..

Rafa hasnt won on H/C since like 15 months..fact

bt fact is that Rafa has reached 2 masters finals and 2 slam finals in that period and defeated all the H/C specialists like Federer, Murray, Delpo, Berdy etc to reach the final..hes just fallen short to just 1 guy..Djoko..please cut him sum slack..

We all know he has a problem with Djoko..and Djoko is the man that has stopped him from wining those 4 titles..lets not forget the other supposedly HC specialists didnt even reach those many finals (4) all of them put together..

My above post was on outdoor HC

Well said sanju. This thread is about Fed/Davy, I hope people stop poking fun at Rafa.

This Rotterdam court doesn't seem as quick as before, certainly not as quick as that Paris Masters 2010 indoor court and doesn't seem as quick as the Rotterdam court of 2009. For really fast pace tennis, please go watch the Llodra matches at the Paris Masters 2010, not even Nole and Davy could handle Llodra's fast pace!

Fedfans just haven't got it. Rafa is better player than Fed anywhere anytime except a contained indoor court with no elements to contend with, soon Rafa will clock his 20th win over the 'goat.

Federer is playing Rotterdam because he knows it's his only chance of even getting to the final with no Rafa, Nole or Murray.

lucky...

The rotterdam court is slow that is face. Tournament director said after last year final that they will slow down the surface from next year onwards.you may be google it.

btw Fed up 2-0.

and making so many final still losing so many finals doesn't help rafa. this has happened with fed against rafa on clay.

Titles matter.

Rafans..Fed has far far lesser points from now to RG..If he overtakes Rafa as No 2, it will mean trouble for Rafa at RG..I am sure then that Novak and Rafa would be put on same side of draw if they 1 & 3

Sanju...

i really hoping for that scenario and i even mentioned that couple of day ago.

mainly it depends upon IW/Miami results and will rafa skip any 1 of the 5 scheduled tournaments.

i mean 5 scheduled CLAY tournaments

Ahem mani, if you think getting to finals but not winning is bad enough, then I feel even more sorry for Fed, for not even being good enough to get to the finals. Anyway the rankings speak for themselves. Looking at how Fed played here, even if he wins, it doesn't bode well for him, as from now on, he'll be playing outdoors, and we know what that three boys can do to him on the outdoor hard courts!

sanju - don't worry about Rafa on clay. Even if he were to meet Nole in the FO semifinal, as long as he plays like he did at the DC matches, he'll beat Nole and Fed. Fed has to worry about Murray and Delpo on clay. The key for Rafa will be to finish his matches asap, that means be more ruthless on the tennis courts and finish off his earlier round opponents asap, in order to conserve energy. Fed can hope all he wants about Rafa and Nole killing each other in the FO semi, but a fit and healthy Rafa is good enough to deal with both Nole and Fed.

PS. A Rafa who began his 2011 not being fully fit, ie with illness and injury, still was able to play more matches than anyone else and not get himself seriously injured. Look at Nole, playing fewer matches than Rafa and yet got himself a bad back injury that affected his indoor season. What this proves to me is that Rafa is still the fittest and strongest boy out there, so now worry a out his being tired, as long as he plays with the right strategy and mindset.

Sorry I mean '...so don't worry about him being tired....'

lucky..

Rafa-Nole last year clay matcches was straight set affair there is no gurantee that he can plays against nole like his DC matches.

If you missed to pass a exam by 1 mark or you just get 1 mark in both cases you are failed.

There is no difference making finals or semifinals if you can not win the whole thing.

mani, this is not passing exams, the ranking points speak for themselves. Your thinking is that if Fed didn't reach the finals, then Rafa is not much better by reaching the finals but not winning. It's some kind of sore grapes attitude.

Do note that Rafa lost to Nole on clay last year because he was only using his CC forehand and backhands and hence he was predictable. He had added his DTL forehands and backhands during his DC matches, something not seen during his matches with Nole. Do note that Fed also had beaten Rafa on clay on two occasions, but when it mattered, Fed failed to beat Rafa.

I understand some Fed fans were hoping against hope that Nole would beat Rafa at the FO. They just want Rafa to be beaten and his fans to feel miserable about it. Whatever happen, it still wouldn't change the fact that Fed is not good enough to beat Rafa on clay at the FO. Rafa would be beaten at the FO later on, especially when he grows older, however that wouldn't change the fact that Rafa always beat Fed at the FO!

Also Rafa is getting closer to beating Nole match after match, I can't say the same about Fed beating Rafa, on clay and outdoor hard courts, even during Fed's peak and Rafa's pre peak period.

I know ranking speak itself and there is no doubt that nadal is deserving no. 2 player atm but imo making finals and not winning the tournament is not any better thing than losing finals except ranking points.

Fed has lost so many clay finals against rafa so imo its does not add any importance to his clay achievement same with rafa performance against nole on all surfaces.

i mean to say "than losing SEMIFINALS except ranking points."

mani, it's only last year that Rafa lost six finals to Nole. In the past, Rafa had won all his finals against Nole. Why are you talking as if Nole was always beating Rafa on all surfaces?? Their H2H is 16-14, still in Rafa's favor. Rafa is 9-2 on clay and 2-1 on grass against Nole now. Nole is 11-5 against Rafa on hard courts, but prior to 2011, their H2H on hard courts isn't far off, at 7-5. It's too early to jump into conclusion now, as if Rafa has no chance to beat Nole going forward. It's unlike Fed/Rafa, where it's unlikely that Fed would reverse their H2H to be in his favor. In fact Rafa's H2H against all players he played against are very impressive, with only Davy having a positive H2H against Rafa, 6-4, but I foresee Rafa to get the better of Davy and reverse this H2H soon.

Unlike you, I'll never feel that reaching the semifinal is as good as reaching the final. Again, Rafa is not the only one losing in finals, Fed has very good experience losing in finals too. Rafa is also the only one having positive H2H against the other three members of the top four; and except for against Nole, his H2H on the hard courts is equal against Fed and positive against Murray.

Is Rafa not 8.2 against Fed in slams? Rafans don't make a song and dance about that. Infact it won't be long before Rafa beats Fed for the 20th time.

Is Rafa not 8.2 against Fed in slams? Rafans don't make a song and dance about that. Infact it won't be long before Rafa beats Fed for the 20th time.

nadline , 2/19/12 7:38 PM

You mentioned that every possible opportunity and before rafa beats Roger 20th time i hope Nole beats rafa 17th time or say 10th consecutive time...sounds good to you ?

LOL..what a retarded argument being put up. How often do your hear statements like ' federer has undoubtedly been the second best clay court player in this era 'and' had he been part of any other era he might have been ranked as one of the all time greats on clay' !! what do u think makes experts and everyone say this? of course the finals federer has reached ! Even though he barely won anything but reaching so many finals has earned him that status..now nole has reached manyy semi finals on clay but in terms of status he is nowhere near federer (nole will have a great future on clay though) , why? ITS OBVIOUS !

ah, ivan lendl reached 8 FINALS on the trot at the US open , some call it of the finest achievements of the open era, even though he won just 3 of them ! and people say reaching finals is nothing or the same as reaching a semi, ABSURD

Gonzalez said the highlights of his career are the 2 weeks he had at melbourne in 07 when he finished runner-up ! a slam final is describing somebody's career and people think its not important LOL..he did not even mention the semi reached at RG because that is nothing compared to the final !

Any reasonable person can understand that reaching the semis requires crossing many hurdles but crossing the semi requires you to cross eve tougher hurdles and then the toughest one is winning the final usually..so falling in the semis means failing the toughest 2 hurdles, reaching the final means falining ONE !

I HOPE PEOPLE GET IT. cant be more simple than this

@mani4Tennis , 2/19/12 7:45 PM

You think you are the only ones who can go on and on about Nole beating Rafa but you get so tetchy when we bring up Rafa beating Fed.

Fedfans are hanging on to Nole for dear life as their salvation from Rafa, because between Federer and Rafa they've got nothing to say. At one time they were hanging on to Delpo, infact Nalby enjoyed that spot for a little while as well.

One day, you won't even have Nole to hang on to.

@nadline, its funny na...even many of my friends who are Fed fans were cheering for djokovic to somehow win the final when rafa had beaten roger in the semi..many fed fans have found a refuge behind djokovic and this cannot be denied.

@nadline, its funny na...even many of my friends who are Fed fans were cheering for djokovic to somehow win the final when rafa had beaten roger in the semi..many fed fans have found a refuge behind djokovic and this cannot be denied.

vamosrafa , 2/20/12 12:37 PM


This s natural no one saint out there....jealousy is essential element of human nature.

@mani, fair enough and i agree that its true to a good extent but trust me ,if novak beats rafa i never count on others to beat nole ! i just wait for the next time rafa meets novak and performs better.i dont need another player to quench my thirst for revenge against him
p.s, i also made a long post regarding the 'importance' of reaching FINALS, i am surprised you have not reflected upon that

vamosrafa, I think that's because Fed fans just want somebody to stop Rafa from winning more slams. Once Nole reaches ten slams or more, they'll start cheering against him and wish for somebody to beat Nole all the time. They're more concerned about protecting Fed's 'Goat-hood' than anything else. I foresee Nole turning his negative H2H against Fed to positive soon and we'll see the Fed fans hating Nole like they hate Rafa.

@lucky, yea thats what i think too....its ok if loyal fans dont want their idol's records to be eclipsed but seeking refuge behind some other player all the time and spewing hatred just takes away the shine from the so called 'loyalty' towards roger :)

btw, i must appreciate your loyalty and love for rafa :) you are always there to defend our man and you sound optimistic and LOGICAL ..i also like your arguments generally and u have a good understanding about the game , just dont leave TT because we need rafans like you..nadline is also one heck of a loyal rafan :)

Not all fans are gloryhunters.
And while I would love for Roger's records to stay untouched for as long as possible it doesn't necessarily mean I only like or dislike players if they are protecting or threatning Roger's records.

When I first became a fan of Roger's was when I saw him play in the masters cup back in 2003. At that point he had one lone GS and wasn't even number one in the world.

I became his fan because of his playstyle, for me, it's still the more varied and beautiful tennis that has ever been played. Also I really like Roger's personality.

If you ask me who I want to win in slam finals between djokovic and nadal I will of course say djokovic since nadal is closer to roger's slam count and I don't like either of the players.

Djokovic's celebratory moves in the AO this year were so ugly and distasteful. I can't see myself supporting such a player even though he plays an attacking type of tennis which I like.

I am becoming more of a fan of murray simply because he's toning down a bit on the oncourt reactions when he misses and his game is also very varied which I like.

If Murray was to get close to roger's record, probably after Roger is retired, I see myself still supporting murray.

+1 for the dislike of djokovic's post AO 2012 celebration. all of his celebrations in the last year have been tacky and lacking grace. He is a wonderful player but he will never know how to win gracefully like Nadal and federer.

I just hope as a very nouveau tennis nation that serbia's current success and in particular djokovic's, doesn't set an example to younger players and doesn't rub off too much on the future of the etiquette of tennis, it will mean that the rich tradition that exists in tennis may start to diminish.

If you ask me who I want to win in slam finals between djokovic and nadal I will of course say djokovic since nadal is closer to roger's slam count and I don't like either of the players.
bleck , 2/20/12 2:47 PM


If I ever came out with a statement like 'I don't like Roger' I will immediately be jumped on by his fans. Still, not liking Rafa proves that there is no accounting for taste.

"Still, not liking Rafa proves that there is no accounting for taste."

Find Roger's game boring as you said you do is far tasteless.

"If I ever came out with a statement like 'I don't like Roger' I will immediately be jumped on by his fans."

Nadal fans are generally more agressive and blind that Roger ones.

Also, who would attack you, if I dind't know I would say this site was hosted in nadal's backyard in Mallorca such is the difference in the number of fans in this site.

bleck I think the imbalance of nadal to federer fans is a recent feature, not really sure why there are so few fed fans on this site at the moment. I HAVE found that Nadal fans can be pretty offensive on this site but both fed and nadal fans still tend to promote good discussion on this site. The only fans who don't provide content of worth tends to be the serbian ultra's who are incapable of objective thought. Since Djokovic has been winning and playing so well this site has become far less worthwhile as a destination for tennis discussion and news due to the mountain of stubborn and arrogant comments that ensue after every djokovic win... Nadal and federer fans at least have a mutual appreciation of each other's hero. Djokovic fans respect no one, speaking generally on this site of course, before a couple of you djokovic fans jump in saying that this isn't true.

"Still, not liking Rafa proves that there is no accounting for taste."

Find Roger's game boring as you said you do is far tasteless.
bleck , 2/20/12 3:58 PM



Hahahahahaha! So funny.

LOL..what a retarded argument being put up. How often do your hear statements like ' federer has undoubtedly been the second best clay court player in this era
'and' had he been part of any other era he might have been ranked as one of the all time greats on clay' !! what do u think makes experts and everyone say this?
of course the finals federer has reached ! Even though he barely won anything but reaching so many finals has earned him that status..now nole has reached manyy
semi finals on clay but in terms of status he is nowhere near federer (nole will have a great future on clay though) , why? ITS OBVIOUS !

ah, ivan lendl reached 8 FINALS on the trot at the US open , some call it of the finest achievements of the open era, even though he won just 3 of them !
and people say reaching finals is nothing or the same as reaching a semi, ABSURD

Gonzalez said the highlights of his career are the 2 weeks he had at melbourne in 07 when he finished runner-up ! a slam final is describing somebody's
career and people think its not important LOL..he did not even mention the semi reached at RG because that is nothing compared to the final !

Any reasonable person can understand that reaching the semis requires crossing many hurdles but crossing the semi requires you to cross eve tougher
hurdles and then the toughest one is winning the final usually..so falling in the semis means failing the toughest 2 hurdles, reaching the final means falining ONE !

I HOPE PEOPLE GET IT. cant be more simple than this

vamosrafa , 2/19/12 9:52 PM


Making any GS final is great achievement for any player but it is relative thing e.g. making his 1st & only GS final would be always great achivement for player like
Gonzalez or any other player who has made 1 or 2 GS Final but now it compares with murray who has already made 3 GS final and now assume he made another 3 GS final
and doesn't win any one of them in that case IMO it will not be that bigger achievement

You given lendl example that he made 8 consecutive USO final that a great achievement but now think what would be bigger ahievement if he had won 5/6 consecutive
final from them look how the final win can change the achievement perspective.

I'm agree that making final better than making just semifinal but i am just saying that importance of making final lessen by big difference when you loose it especially
when you are the player who has mostly won this kind of final in past.


Expert opinions that "federer has undoubtedly been the second best clay court player in this era" has backen by some other strong factors a) He was the best player
on all other surfaces in that period b)He was consistently (in almost all) making finals in all clay tournaments c)He was only beaten by the same player again n again
in finals.
Now assume if Rogerlosing to many different players in clay finals in that period in that case would you call fed the 2nd best clay courter of his era??

So in that case just making finals was not the only factor to consider him the 2nd best clay courter but kept losing to rafa was also big factor.

Now Consider Roger or Rafa making RG final but not winning IMO that would not be any big achievement for either of them but if murray or Nole makes to final and lost
even then it would be bigger achievemnt for them.

Achievement is relative thing...your future achievement will be always calculated on the basis of your past achievement.


Avoid grammatical mistakes comprehension in English is mot my fortress.

Actually English phrase

"Call it the price of being better than every one else nothing is every good enough"

It completely justify the Fed & Nadal success level in future.

mani, your argument above puts Fed even in more sorry state. Didn't Fed lose six slam finals to the same guy Rafa, and mind you, not all of them on clay! Rafa had beaten him on clay, grass and hard courts in slams. So, whatever Rafa is dealing with now, is not anything worst than what Fed had to deal with in Rafa. The more you argue, the more you make Fed looks bad. Fed had also lost to a 20 yo Delpo in that USO final and it was Delpo's first ever slam final! I don't know whether you feel better that Fed didn't make it to the slam finals to meet Rafa there, at the FO, Wimbledon, USO 2010. For me I certainly am happy that Rafa made it to the AO final this year, when I only expected him to reach the semifinal. Of course it would be better if he could win the title, still he exceeded my expectations and I'm happy about his progress. It's a matter of time that Rafa will start beating Nole again especially in slam finals, that I'm confident.

"Didn't Fed lose six slam finals to the same guy Rafa, and mind you, not all of them on clay! Rafa had beaten him on clay, grass and hard courts in slams. So, whatever Rafa is dealing with now, is not anything worst than what Fed had to deal with in Rafa."

What nadal is going through with djokovic isn't worse YET. Don't forget nadal was 16-7, I believe, against djokovic at the beginning of 2011. Now 1 year later the H2H is 16-14. Give it another year, year and a half and then we can talk.

Also I don't know if it makes you feel better or take the loses more lightly but the nadal-djokovic matches of late have nothing to do with the Roger-nadal rivalry.

" Fed had also lost to a 20 yo Delpo in that USO final and it was Delpo's first ever slam final!" Yes, Roger played badly after being 1 set up and serving for the second. Can't win them all that's for sure. Roger lost a great chance of winning 4 straight slams with that loss.
And mind you Del Potro was playing great tennis, was it 6-2 6-2 6-2 the score at the semis against the #2 seed.

"I don't know whether you feel better that Fed didn't make it to the slam finals to meet Rafa there, at the FO, Wimbledon, USO 2010. "

For me it was unfortunate that Roger didn't make it to those slam finals. He was with 8 straight slam finals going to RG and he definitely had a good chance at the title at wimbledon and the US Open.

"For me I certainly am happy that Rafa made it to the AO final this year, when I only expected him to reach the semifinal."
Also expected nadal to not reach the final.

" It's a matter of time that Rafa will start beating Nole again especially in slam finals, that I'm confident."
Nadal is not going to lose all the matches against djokovic but I do expect a similar scenario to the Roger nadal matches. Nadal will win 1 or 2 out of 10 matches they play.
I say this because although some people think that the AO final was good progress for nadal I think otherwise.

That match was similar to the 2009 AO final in the sense that nadal has an extra days rest and djokovic played an exhausting semifinal.
The final showed that djokovic owns nadal mentally or at least that nadal has some sort of mental block. So close to victory yet he manages to lose.
We've got to give credit to nadal though. He was 0-40 in the 4th set and 5-3, I believe, in the 4th set breaker. So the match could've easily ended in 4 sets.

Excuse me bleck, my post was addressed to mani, why do you need to buck in and question me?? In any case I wasn't asking you about your opinion.

You wish to think that Rafa has no hope against Nole that's your choice. You're not god, so whatever you think doesn't affect what will happen on the tennis courts. You may hope against hope that Rafa can't beat Nole consistently. I'm sorry to say I don't see that happening, especially on clay and on grass. If you expect Nole to keep playing at this level, then I'll say Ive already see some cracks in his play, the first was his serve. Also both Murray and Rafa are getting closer to Nole's level now, and I did explain in my previous posts, on other threads, that we may not even need to talk about Nole's chances in the fourth set, or Rafa's missed passing shot in the fifth, had Rafa employed the right strategy in the second set.

You know what bleck, compared to that USO final last year, Rafa had played much better in this AO final, but I can't say the same about Nole, not even in his match against Murray in the semifinal! Not forgetting this was only the beginning of the year, whilst that USO final was after a long hard season!

^^^ I don't wish to think, I think that nadal won't beat djokovic consistently because I've seen no signs that indicate it will happen.
Just as I'm not God you're not either.

And you help to prove my point by saying that " Ive already see some cracks in his play" and "Rafa had played much better in this AO final".
So basically djokovic played in a level worse than 2011 nadal played better and still nadal lost. What does that tell you?!

Do you expect djokovic to start playing even worse and nadal to raise his level even more?

Djokovic is not going to play his best all the tournaments every single match.
What we know is he is extremely confident in his game and himself. We also know djokovic is on par if not superior in terms of fitness and stamina so nadal can't tire him into submission like he does with everyone else.

I'm basing my view on the last year and the beginning of this one. What I know is djokovic has beaten nadal 7 times in a row on hard, clay and grass, best of 3 and best of 5, even after having an exhausting semifinal and one days less rest.

Djokovic nows the matches against nadal are in his racket and he wants to make history. This years FO will definitely be an interesting one.

bleck, if you've watched Nole's semifinal and final matches, you would have noticed that Nole almost lost his matches. If it was the Nole of 2011 AO, I believe he would have won the two matches in four sets. You can't deny that both Murray and Rafa had their chances of beating this Nole. Cotrast that to the AO final and USO final of last year, tell me do you think they had chances of winning against Nole last year? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

You can't deny that both Murray and Rafa are getting closer to beating Nole. I don't see how Nole can be so fortunate each time he meets Murray or Rafa. The chips are going to fall on Murray's or Rafa's sides some days, so I'm not wrong in saying Rafa will have his chances of beating Nole in future. I think that's a logical assumption, unlike you when you insist that Rafa has no chance or minimal chances.

I'm not sure that the match is always on Nole's racket, if you have watched their matches at IW/Miami last year. Don't forget, Rafa had DF in the second set to lose the set, after he broke Nole's serve to get back on serve, and was 40-30 at one point in that game. It's more of his nerve than anything else. As I've mentioned before, had he won the second set playing more aggressively ( which he was capable of doing judging by the way he played in the fourth set to even the match), he would most likely be the one holding the winner's trophy and we won't be here arguing whether he could beat Nole.

bleck, after seeing Nole broke his back in order to beat Rafa at the USO final, I'm not sure he's as fit as Rafa, not forgetting Rafa had played more matches than Nole did up to that point. Rafa was still able to play and won his two DC matches after that but Nole had to retire from his and ended up taking a six weeks break to heal his back.

Rafa lost his matches to Nole not because of fitness but because he was too predictable. Notice that his DTL forehand and backhand had gone missing during most parts of last season; they're coming back to his game as this AO final had shown, though they're still work in progress. Rafa is still working on improving them and his overall game, especially his ROS and his serves.

"You can't deny that both Murray and Rafa are getting closer to beating Nole."

No that I can't deny.

"I don't see how Nole can be so fortunate each time he meets Murray or Rafa."

What do you mean fortunate. If djokovic had been fortunate he would've won the AO final in 4 sets.

"...unlike you when you insist that Rafa has no chance or minimal chances."
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying nadal will beat djokovic only ocasionally, maybe 2 or 3 times out of 10.

" As I've mentioned before, had he won the second set playing more aggressively ( which he was capable of doing judging by the way he played in the fourth set to even the match), he would most likely be the one holding the winner's trophy and we won't be here arguing whether he could beat Nole."

What I know is nadal was 0-40 in the 4th set and had djokovic taken one of 3 break points he would've been serving for the match. As you say if nadal played more agressively I can also say if djokovic didn't go MIA in those BP or the TB. Ifs or had he done this or that we could go with this type of argument all day long.

bleck, before they could go to the fourth set, they had to go through the second set first. As I've mentioned, Rafa winning the second set, we won't be talking about that fourth set or that fifth set. The players were affected by their nerves during the match, Rafa DF in the second set, Nole overhitting his shots in the fourth set and Rafa missing his passes in the fifth set, all might be due to nerve induced by their opponent's play. You may choose to look at the fourth set, fact was Rafa did win the fourth set tiebreak and was leading 4-2 in the fifth set, so I'm not wrong to say Rafa had his chances. Yes Nole was fortunate to win in five sets and unfortunate not to win in four. Rafa was unfortunate not to win in five, so the margins between winning and losing a match was rather small in this case. Likewise for the Nole/Murray match, and hence my comment that the chips may fall the other way going forward.

As I've mentioned before, Rafa spent more time on the court than Nole, so he's not fresh either. Contrast that to AO 2009, where Fed was spending lesser time on the tennis court than Rafa and having a longer rest period than Rafa, so who had better advantage and yet still lost?

^^^^ What does that question have to do with what we're discussing. Why are you bringing roger to the discussion?!

We've already brought him into the discussion in this thread. Anyway, Rafa didn't have much advantage over Nole where physical issues were concerned. We could see that Nole wasn't playing as well as his start of 2011, that I think we can agree. Rafa was right that Nole couldn't sustain his 2011 level all the time.

I have to say Nole's 2011 level was something like Fed's 2006 or Rafa's mid 2008 to mid 2009. We have to see how Nole's 2012 turns out to be, my guess is it'll be a good year though I don't think it'll be comparable to his 2011, just like Fed's 2007 was a good year but still can't compare to his 2006; Rafa's 2010 was a good year but I view his 2008 clay court season right up to his Miami 2009 being his best period, winning three slams, four Maaters, one Olympics gold.(for Rafa it's a bit special as his good season always starts during the clay season).

I agree with you that djokovic's 2012 should be worse than 2011. I just don't expect him to win as much or more than what he won in 2011. His level has already dropped. He played much better in the 2011 AO but he still won the tournament.

Although his shots, serve for example, might drop in level his mental strenght hasn't, and I think it won't as long as he keeps winning.

Nole's 2011 level was higher than Fed's 2006/7 level (or Rafa's 08/10 level). Nole got those results against a much tougher playing field and reraised the bar when it comes to the tennis gold standard.

That said, as a Rafa fan, I'm hoping Rafa can solve the puzzle and rise to the challenge (as he seems to enjoy).

People who think that AO 2012 final was a better match than Wimby '08 are blind or have short memories. Rafa and Nole both played well overall but not at their respective highest level. Whereas the contrasting styles of Rafa and Fed combined with their high level of play and the drama of the rain delays and darkening skies made that match uncomparable with any other IMO. But, who knows, I'd probably have a different opinion if Fed pulled out that win.

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/believers.html

Good article to read..I was making this point multple times last year if you remember.. Novak is all about positive belief , he is breathing it and thats making him win the tight matches..Rafa is alla bout guarded caution and many a times is playing not to lose and that is making him lose the close matches or lose after being up in matches against Nole..

Conspirator, it's arguable that Nole's 2011 competition was stiffer than Fed's 2006 or Rafa's 2008/2009. Fed wasn't the Fed during his heyday and Rafa wasn't the same Rafa of 2008 or 2010. Just look at how Rafa struggled against his opponents in the earlier rounds of the slams in 2011. Murray wasn't that competitive either, after his AO loss to Nole, until during the clay season and after.

Rafa's 2008 IMO was more competitive, with Nole threatening to become the no.2 player and aiming for no.1; Murray started to fullfil his potential by beating Rafa in the USO SF to reach the final. We have Tsonga and Simon, not forgetting Davydenko all doing well, with Tsonga reaching the AO final beating Rafa in the SF before losing to Nole in the final; he also won the Paris Masters that year. Simon had also beaten both Fed and Rafa in 2008 and reached the final of a Masters. Davy had also won the Miami Masters beating Rafa in the final. It's a lot more competitive back then, Fed even though affected by mild mono, could still reach three slam finals and winning one.

I do feel that Rafa's 2010 was less competitive compared to Nole's 2011, but his 2008 was certainly more competitive than Nole's 2011. For Fed's 2006, I think a Fed fan would be able to tell us more about it.

sanju, I've read that article and contributed my thoughts there. One need not say it out loud, that he or she has the belief; one can also remain silent and yet still has the self belief. It's easy to have the belief when one is winning but not when one is losing all the time. Do remember what happened to Nole in 2009 after that Madrid semifinal against Rafa. Thar defeat seemed to break his heart and during his post match presser, his was in tears and mentioned that he didn't know what more he could do to beat Rafa. He didn't do well at the FO that year, losing to Kohl in the third round. When Rafa was winning so often during 2008, the sky seemed to be his limit, didn't he approached his matches with confidence though also with caution? Fast forward to late 2009 and beginning of 2010, we saw him struggling after his injury and losing his confidence. So you see, the trying times is not when one is winning but when one is losing. Both Fed and Rafa have come through bad times in their careers, it's through some self belief, that their careers are not finished, that they continue to work hard at their game even when they're not winning, and we see after all those trying times, both come back and win some more slams.

It's also because of self belief, that Rafa continues to work hard to solve the Nole puzzle and he's getting closer and closer in solving the puzzle. If Rafa doesn't believe he can beat Nole again, why then is he working hard now?

Lucky, will have to agree to disagree. Fed was much better in 2011 than 2008 even though he made it to three finals that year. 2008 Fed dealt with getting over mono and Nole was nowhere near the player he was in 2011. Murray beat Rafa in USO SF partially because he was much more rested.

Sanju, agree with you about Nole's success and positive belief. I love how Nole is stating calendar GS as a goal for him this year. Why not? Believe in yourself! Rafa's best year in 2010 he also had positive belief saying things like "See you at US Open" after winning the FO.

Conspirator, got to agree to disagree with you. Now we know Nole is better in 2011 than 2008, but Rafa was better in 2008 than in 2011! We're talking about their competitors, not they themselves, if you know what I mean.

I disagree that Fed of 2011 is better than Fed of 2008, come on, how can you say that, when Fed was able to reach the final of Wimbledon and extended Rafa to five sets, while he can't even beat Tsonga in five in 2011? Fed was playing much better in that 2008 USO and was giving Murray a lesson in the final. Contrast that to the Fed of 2011 USO, where after he was two sets up, managed to lose the match in five and even when he had two match points! Really, Nole didn't play all that well in that match and had to give chase when he was two sets down. Fed was helped by his serves most of the time during that match.

Now Fed was better in the AO 2011 than his AO2008, because in 2008 he was ill. Fed obviously played better in the FO2011 final than his FO2008 final, of course that was also due to how Rafa played. Rafa was imperially good at that FO 2008 final and I don't think Nole had reached that level on clay even in 2011. Now Fed had injured his back during the end of 2008 and that's why he lost early in TMC. Fed of 2011 was winning everything during the indoor season partly because Rafa, Nole and Murray were all injured.

Talking about Murray, as I've mentioned, after his AO loss, he hardly did anything, losing in his first matches at Dubai, IW and Miami. He only woke up during the clay season. Also don't forget, Murray had won two masters and reached the final of USO in 2008; in 2011 he won two masters and reached the semifinal of USO. Murray also reached the SF of TMC in 2008, he had also won four or five titles that year. Murray was a better player in 2011 than his 2008 of course, but he was also injury prone and ended his 2011 with injury.

Now comparing Rafa of 2008 vs Nole of 2011. First, no comparison on clay, Rafa was simply a master class on clay in FO2008. Even in Hamburg that year where Nole played one of his best clay court tennis, he still lost in three. Not forgetting for most clay tournaments back then, Rafa had to beat both Nole and Fed back to back. Nole had never being able to beat Fed/Rafa back to back on clay and he fell to Fed at the FO2011. On grass, Rafa of 2008 was simply in excellent form, losing only one set along the way to the Wimbledon final. Nole was a bit shaky throughout his Wimbledon 2011, losing sets to Baggy, Tomic and Tsonga.

Nole was better at the hard court slams in 2011 than Rafa's 2008, that's obvious. So, I would say Rafa was a better clay and grass court player and Nole a better hard court player. I still maintained that 2008 was a more competitive year than 2011, and 2011 a more competitive year than 2010.

How can I say that about Fed? AO, we're agreed. FO, easily 2011 beating Nole and much better performance against Rafa. Who did Fed beat in 2008 Wimby to get to final? Hrbaty->Soderling->Gicquel->Hewitt->Safin, not a tough draw in 2008. In USO, Murray had short rest after tough match with Rafa so he had little left against Fed and besides, slam Finals is not a strength for Murray, so. Indoors not worth talking about because Fed is King indoors period in 2010 to current. Murray is better now, he had four SF in 2011. In 2008, yes he had a final, but in other slams, 1R, 3R and QF, no comparison.

Finally, Rafa in 2008 won two slams, Nole 2011 had 3 slams. Nole wins. Rafa 2010 was better than Rafa 2008 on the whole. Rafa was smoked in 2008 AO by Tsonga and was a shell of himself in 2008 USO.

My two favourite players of all time are Sampras and Nadal.

I love the "beauty" of Fed's game and the fire in Rafa's game but in my many years of watching tennis, from a purely objective standpoint putting aside favourites, in my opinion, Djokovic's performance in 2011 is beyond anything I've ever witnessed. At his best, he brought the game to new levels of play, pure and simple.

OK, I'm done. :)

...almost.

Murray in 2011 GS had one Final and three SF, definitely better than 2008 for him.

You have to take into account the whole field. Btw, who were the grass court experts that Fed and Nole beat at Wimbledon in 2011? Rafa in 2011 was certainly not the same Rafa of 2008 and Fed too. Fed in 2008 had reached the finals of MC and Hamburg, in 2011 he couldn't even made it to the finals in any of the clay Masters. Where are the comparisons? I've already mentioned about Murray in both 2008 and 2011, I'm not going to repeat. And, I've also mentioned about Rafa on clay and grass in 2008 and Nole on the hard courts in 2011. I'm sure the Nole of 2011 can't deal with the Rafa of 2008 on clay and grass, that's my take.

Don't know why, the ones cheering for Rafa in this website is really way too offensive! And not just that, whenever they find someone is not supporting Rafa in any match, they immediately jump on to a conclusion that it must be due to keeping in mind of Federer! Don't know, where they get that from every time? It sounds as if, all other players are a non entity! And they effortlessly goes on claiming that Rafa is better than Federer any time on any surface! I wonder, how many of them would check the head to head count between the two players, take away Rafa's clay court win, and then see how empty that statement sounds like! It's true that Rafa defeated Federer in 2 AO finals and 1 Wimby final, but Fed that won 4 AO, 5 US & 6 Wimby!!! Now, how come they overlook that? Until Rafa wins at least 5 of each of those titles in his life, no matter against whom in the finals, no logic could make him a better player against Fed except on clay, no matter how many Masters or whatever other titles he wins!

But, now that I get the information that this site was hosted from somewhere near Mallorca, I do understand why such illogical and offensive Rafans and Federer hater comes from! I have never heard anyone saying they find Federer boring, at any level! When someone who says that, I have doubts about the sanity of that person, or is forced to suspect that he or she is only a sports lover like me, with no other intentions!

And among all of the posters, I find bleck the most logical. His arguments and explanation are just and intelligent, showing time and again, why this website is still worth visiting despite such foul mouthed Rafans!

Making any GS final is great achievement for any player but it is relative thing e.g. making his 1st & only GS final would be always great achivement for player like
Gonzalez or any other player who has made 1 or 2 GS Final but now it compares with murray who has already made 3 GS final and now assume he made another 3 GS final
and doesn't win any one of them in that case IMO it will not be that bigger achievement

You given lendl example that he made 8 consecutive USO final that a great achievement but now think what would be bigger ahievement if he had won 5/6 consecutive
final from them look how the final win can change the achievement perspective.

I'm agree that making final better than making just semifinal but i am just saying that importance of making final lessen by big difference when you loose it especially
when you are the player who has mostly won this kind of final in past.


Expert opinions that "federer has undoubtedly been the second best clay court player in this era" has backen by some other strong factors a) He was the best player
on all other surfaces in that period b)He was consistently (in almost all) making finals in all clay tournaments c)He was only beaten by the same player again n again
in finals.
Now assume if Rogerlosing to many different players in clay finals in that period in that case would you call fed the 2nd best clay courter of his era??

So in that case just making finals was not the only factor to consider him the 2nd best clay courter but kept losing to rafa was also big factor.

Now Consider Roger or Rafa making RG final but not winning IMO that would not be any big achievement for either of them but if murray or Nole makes to final and lost
even then it would be bigger achievemnt for them.

Achievement is relative thing...your future achievement will be always calculated on the basis of your past achievement.

mani4Tennis
, 2/20/12 7:50 PM

mani4Tennis, that is very well said. I appreciate your style of explanation, and it very well suggests that the Rafans do understand things suiting them and not what experts actually meant through that argument saying Fed being the 2nd best on clay and would have been one of the best ever to play on clay, had he been playing in some era!
So, in that case, his closest rival would be Samprass, who was all conquering like that Federer has been during his peak, but Fed beats him by far when it comes to their supremacy on clay, because Samprass's clay court record is pretty ordinary! And Djokovic doesn't comes in comparison because he has just started, and not even Nadal because his records are tilted heavily on clay courts and no where near to those all time greats like Samprass and Federer etc.

Well we're all entitled to our own opinions. There's no right or wrong opinions, so whether one agree with another's opinions doesn't make it a more valid opinion. The Fed fans would think Fed is the best, Rafa fans would think Rafa is the best, and Nole fans would think Nole is the best. There simply won't be be any easy agreement.

My thoughts, Rafa is the best on clay, tie with Fed on grass; Fed is the best on fast hard courts, tie with Nole on slow hard courts. Their careers are not finished yet, so things may change, though I doubt anyone can challenge Rafa's records on clay.

I nearly choked on my breakfast when I read about Federer's 'supremacy on clay' Solitudine, please stop, you are creasing me up.

Solitudine: "And they effortlessly go on claiming that Rafa is better than Federer any time on any surface! I wonder, how many of them would check their head to head count between the two players, take away Rafa's clay court win, and then see how empty that statement sounds like!"

I have checked their h2h and this is what it looks like:

On clay : Rafa 12, Roger 2
On grass: Rafa 1, Roger 1
On outdoor h/c: Rafa 5, Roger 1
On indoor h/c: Rafa 0, Roger 4

On clay and outdoor h/c Rafa is supreme, Roger is king on indoor h/c and the jury is out on grass.

Rafa beat Federer the first time they met on h/c when Rafa was still wet behind the ears and the one and only time Roger has beaten Rafa on outdoor h/c was way back in 2005. Roger is fortunate that he didn't meet Rafa more on h/c when Rafa was young and still perfecting his game on the surface or he wouldn't have won all those slams. Rafa's imperfect h/c game was good enough to beat Roger on the surface.

By the way Fedfans, it is not blasphemy to say someone is better than Roger in tennis. It is my opinion based on the evidence.

Corr, typo: On grass, Roger 2, Rafa 1. But I still think the jury is still on that.

"Roger is fortunate that he didn't meet Rafa more on h/c when Rafa was young and still perfecting his game on the surface or he wouldn't have won all those slams."

Roger was reaching the majority of finals of the h/c tournaments he played. Nadal just had to do his part and win his matches so he could meet Roger.
It isn't Roger's fault nadal was losing to youhzny, blake, roddick, gonzalez,...

"By the way Fedfans, it is not blasphemy to say someone is better than Roger in tennis. It is my opinion based on the evidence."

When you say better in tennis do you say as a whole or the specific H2H.
Roger is better than nadal in tennis. # titles, # weeks number 1, just compare the data.

Now nadal definitely has the upperhand against Roger. But a player has to play against the entire field and not only one certain player.

So nadal leads on clay and outdoor h/c, Roger leads on grass and indoor h/c. Of course having played the majority of their matches on clay makes the H2H more unbalanced.

Solitudine only comes on here to trash Rafa and his fans. What else is new!

I simply cannot get over how the Fed fans cannot accept Rafa's superior h2h against Fed! Just unbelievable! Now one more time the rationale is that most of their matches were on clay. Yet didn't we have Solitudine say that Fed had supremacy over Rafa on clay?

Well, that blows that argument! Sorry, Fed fans, you can't have it both ways. One is saying that Fed is better on clay and another is saying that since most of Rafa's wins against Fed were on clay, their h2h is unbalanced.

You Fed fans need to get together and get your stories straight!

Finally, anyone who would even pretend to think that Fed has supremacy over Rafa on clay has just lost touch with reality!

Solitudine, Roger was reaching the majority of finals only after he reached the age of 21/22. Rafa is 5 years younger than Roger, that's why he wasn't making as many finals earlier in his career on h/c because he was still working on his game. As I said, even Rafa's unpolished outdoor h/c game was good enogh to beat. Yes, I think that Rafa is a better tennis player than Roger because Rafa shows his craft better whilst Roger plays on instinct and he is becoming more and more exposed now that the weak era has passed. If Roger was naturally talented, it shouldn't have taken him till the age of 21 to make a break through. He was losing in the 1st round in slams up to then.

A 2:1 h2h on grass is hardly enough to say one is better than the other. Yes Roger has more titles now so let's wait and see what Rafa achieves by the age of 31.

Fedfans, what part of a 5>1 h2h on outdoor h/c to Rafa don't you understand? It's like Rafans arguing that Rafa is better than Roger on indoor h/c.

Nativenewyorker, you're using mine and someone else's arguments. What do you expect?! "You Fed fans need to get together and get your stories straight!"
I don't know if you and your fellow nadal fans do that. I speak for myself.

I never said "that Fed has supremacy over Rafa on clay" because that doesn't make sense. So don't try and mix things that someone said with what I said.


nadline,
"Yes, I think that Rafa is a better tennis player than Roger because Rafa shows his craft better whilst Roger plays on instinct and he is becoming more and more exposed"

No one plays tennis better than Roger Federer. Roger's shots are textbook. Roger is tecnically one of the most perfect players ever.

As for the weak era theory that some crazy nadal fan came up with, it has been totally and utterly refuted, destroyed and burnt down to pieces. If you choose to believe in that then go right ahead. Maybe it makes you sleep better.


"If Roger was naturally talented, it shouldn't have taken him till the age of 21 to make a break through."
nadline, you should know better by now. Quoting Roger, "I always knew I had it in the legs and in the hands the question was if I had it in the head" (something like that). Meaning Roger wasn't as mentally strong in the beginning of his career. But once he won his first slam he never looked back.

Roger is the most talented played ever.

"Fedfans, what part of a 5>1 h2h on outdoor h/c to Rafa don't you understand? It's like Rafans arguing that Rafa is better than Roger on indoor h/c."

Who said that Roger was better than nadal in outdoor h/c?! I certainly didn't. Why do you say "Fedfans"?! Did a lot of people say that or was it just one.

Why do you generalize? Do you want to start an argument between nadal fans and federer fans? Are you that bored?!

'Rafa being smoked by Tsonga in 2008 AO'. No doubt about that, but looked what he achieved later on during that year: won Canada, Olympics, reached the final of Miami, semi of USO, IW, Cincy and Madrid. In fact he had done better on the hard courts in 2008 with more ranking points than in his 2011.

Ranking points wise, Fed still holds the record in 2006; titles won, number of losses, Fed has better record in 2006 than Nole's 2011, so I don't see how Nole's is considered a better season than Fed's. IMO Nole's 2011 is better than Rafa's 2008 and 2010.

"As for the weak era theory that some crazy nadal fan came up with, it has been totally and utterly refuted, destroyed and burnt down to pieces. If you choose to believe in that then go right ahead. Maybe it makes you sleep better..."

Its not just `crazy nadal fans` that believe or have postulated this,
Everyone believes this.
Everyone that is bar some crazy Federer fans or in other ways compromised.
Or are you going to tell us that facing Bagdhatis, Gonzales, Roddick, Phillipoussis, old man Agassi etc in finals is comparable to facing one of the greats?
And in that I would include facing Roger.
Players whose first and last (bar Andre & Andy of-course) slam finals were against the chosen one.
But I would be interested in hearing how it has been refuted so completely.
Perhaps by Magic as logic and the facts certainly support it.
Im not saying Roger Federer is not a great player but the majority of his slams were won in a weak era & of that I am certain.

If you want to elaborate, please go ahead.

The arguments you used are very simply refutable.

"Bagdhatis, Gonzales, Roddick, Phillipoussis"
Puerta (in case someone doesn't know him, which is perfectly normal, he reached the RG final in 2005), Berdych, Soderling don't seem any better than baghdatis, Roddick, gonzalez and Phillipoussis.

"Its not just `crazy nadal fans` that believe or have postulated this,
Everyone believes this.
Everyone that is bar some crazy Federer fans or in other ways compromised."

In fact it is the totally opposite to this.

Only "crazy nadal fans` that believe" this.
No one else believes this.
No one "bar some crazy" nadal "fans or in other way compromised."

Twinge, whatever, just call be crazy and Lucky, you don't see how? That's ok, I'll explain myself again (crazy as I am you know).

Points don't tell the whole story here. Djokovic's amazing season in 2011 was done against Rafa, Nole, Murray, Tsonga and many other very strong players.

Who was so good in 2006 (other than Roger) and Rafa on clay (before he improved on other surfaces)? I'm not saying Roger was boring (who would?) but men's tennis was pretty one dimensional partially due to Roger but certainly partially due to the field.

Let's compare top 5 in 2011 and 2006 as of mid-year:

2011: Nole, Rafa, Fed Murray, Sod, Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils

2006: Fed, Rafa, Nalby, Ljubicic, Roddick, Davy, Blake, Robredo

C'mon really? I'm that crazy? Look in the mirror Twinge.

I cannot state it any differently so really, I'm done on this thread. Fire away! :)

er Conspirator I agree with you actually.
Or is your message aimed at Bleck who clearly needs to read it.

Sorry Twinge, oops, my bad. Sometimes I need to read more closely!

Yes, bleck, it is YOU (yes caps and all) who needs to check the mirror, not Twinge. Twinge is good, (again sorry Twinge). Us "crazy Nadal fans" must stick together! ;)

^^^ No Probs Consiprator.
"Berdych, Soderling don't seem any better than baghdatis, Roddick, gonzalez and Phillipoussis"

Oh you've just reminded me Roger also got one of slams against Soderling too!
Anyway the issue is with, what....10 or 11 of his slams?
That is ALL he had to face.
Slam after slam after slam.
Unlike Today and that dear Bleck, is why it is called a `weak era`.

OK, so, NOW I'm done on this thread, now that I've apologized to Twinge, a fine upstanding crazy person like myself, you can fire away (but don't believe me as I am quite obviously mad for questioning the state of men's tennis in 2006 with Ljubic at no. 4. Ljubicic, really, number 4 in the world, who made it to one GS SF in his whole career. Crazy as a fox, maybe.

I like the way some Fedfans make out that the GOAT debate is officially settled, that Federer's supremacy on clay next to Rafa is official and that the weak era 'has been totally and utterly refuted, destroyed and burnt down to pieces'.

This is all a figment of someone's imagination. The evidence is that Roger has not excelled on clay not even before the arrival of Rafa. Roger turned pro 3 years before Rafa and that was long enough for him to show his supremacy but he didn't. Of the 51 clay losses Roger has suffered, Rafa is only responsible for 12 so there are 39 losses to other players.

It is not a crime not to buy into the elevation of Roger as King of tennis because he has not dominated on all surfaces and has not dominated all the players in his era. Until they lay down a set of criteria by which these accolades are to be judged then all these theories will continue to be debated with only the blind not seeing the facts.

This was written only in July last year, so when exactly was the GOAT argument settled????



An excerpt from the Bleacher Report by
Vee Jay
(Analyst) on July 13, 2011

Roger Federer has 16 Grand Slam (GS) titles, which is the most anyone has won so far. He should be crowned the GOAT?

He has achieved the career slam, something which is missing from the CV of the great Pete Sampras, who has the second largest haul of GS titles, with 14.

But there are two factors which place a question mark over Federer's eligibility to be crowned the GOAT.

The first one is the most discussed one. His adverse head-to-head record against Rafael Nadal.

Nadal, then a mere 17-year-old, beat Federer in Miami at their very first meeting. Federer was then 22 and the World No. 1.

The young Spaniard proved it was no fluke, eventually taking away the great man's crown and beating him in the grand slam finals on three different surfaces. Nadal's head-to-head against Federer is 17-8, with 7-2 being the grand slam subset.

If a man cannot be the best in his era, how can he be the best of all time?

The second factor against his being crowned the GOAT is also often discussed but not nearly quite as often as the first.

It is the contention of many tennis observers that Federer played in a weak era between 2003 and 2007, which allowed him to pile up his huge haul of GS titles. I subscribe to this view.

To prove this hypothesis, I will set out some definitions and assumptions.

Weak era means there was only one great player in his prime playing during those years.

A player is in his prime from the calendar year in which he turns 22 to the calendar year in which he turns 29.

So Federer's prime is from 2003 to 2010, and Nadal's from 2008 to 2015.

The prime years assumption is roughly based on the age-performance of elite tennis players, as per studies done by Schulz and Curnow, as well as by me.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/765685-roger-federer-can-he- be-considered-the-greatest-of-all-time

I didn't even bother reading the artcile when I saw the name of the author "VEE JAY". lol

Everything that person says should not be taken seriously when it comes to tennis.

bleck, even you must agreethat these two arguments shoots down the GOAT accolade for Roger:

His adverse head-to-head record against Rafael Nadal.

Nadal, then a mere 17-year-old, beat Federer in Miami at their very first meeting. Federer was then 22 and the World No. 1.

The young Spaniard proved it was no fluke, eventually taking away the great man's crown and beating him in the grand slam finals on three different surfaces. Nadal's head-to-head against Federer is 18-9, with 8-2 being the grand slam subset.

If a man cannot be the best in his era, how can he be the best of all time?

The second factor against his being crowned the GOAT is also often discussed but not nearly quite as often as the first.

It is the contention of many tennis observers that Federer played in a weak era between 2003 and 2007, which allowed him to pile up his huge haul of GS titles. I subscribe to this view.

Corr

Even you must agree that these two arguments shoot.........

@nadline , 2/23/12 4:36 PM

Quoting from Vee Jay's article.

^^^^^ ?!?

Are you referring article written by the biggest nadtard "The great VeeJay" of bleacher report ..lol.

look at the article written by him in past and the 1st thing you will notice that he is hardcore nadtard even bigger than you.

Whole bleacher report thing is crap every player hardcore fans(Fedtard, nadtard etc.) comes there and reveal their utter frustration by their fabulous writing skills.

Nartard or not, you cannot argue with the logic.

VeeJay never present logic tards never do.

"bleck, even you must agreethat these two arguments shoots down the GOAT accolade for Roger:

His adverse head-to-head record against Rafael Nadal.

If a man cannot be the best in his era, how can he be the best of all time?",
nadline

I don't agree with you for the simple reason that we disagree on the definition of success.
Before evaluating a player's career we must first DEFINE what makes a great career.

You say that the H2H record against nadal makes Roger not worthy of GOAT status.
I say that H2H's don't have that much importance when talking about a player's career.
For me the success of a tennis player is basically measured by titles, by number and importance, # weeks number 1, consecutive and total. Of course winning streaks, slam finals lost, or winning all slams in a year or a slam 5 consecutive times also add to a player's CV.

If we go by that Roger has:
- 16 slam titles (more than anyone else)
- 6 YEC (more than anyone else)
- 237 consecutive weeks at #1 (more than anyone else)
- 285 weeks at #1 (1 short of sampras)
- 5 consecutive titles at 2 different slams
.
.
.

So judging by that Roger is a GOAT candidate.

^^^Shouldn't a weak era count?

Ljubicic number 4? .... really?

At the beginning of 2005, Nadal was ranked 51, he was No 2 at the end of it with about 5 years between him and the rest of the top 10 then and has stayed in the top 2 ever since. Even though all the players in the top 10 in 2005 are still playing or have recently retired Rafa has been able to stay in the top 2 going on 7 years. The other 2 of the big four, Murray and Djokovic were ranked 64 and 78 respectively in 2005, but have hugged the top 4 spot for close on 5 years with nearly all of the class of 2005 still active.

This is more than enough proof that until Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came along, Federer had no real opposition.

No Opposition?
Well Nadline,
What are former world number ones Andy Roddick & Juan Carlos Ferrero.....
Chopped Liver?
Oh, wait a minute...

@Twinge , 2/24/12 5:33 PM

You said it.

With a h2h of 21>2 against Roddick, you can hardly call that any kind of opposition to Federer. From 2003, Ferrero has beaten Federer once in 10 meetings. The mere fact that the 2 players you mention normally lose to the current top 4 is testimony that the current crop of top players are far better than those that Federer had to cope with back then.

Ever since the break through of the younger players, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, none of the crop of Federer's vintage, (in age) have been able to occupy the 4 top spot4 in the rankings. It is glaringly obvious that back then, in the country of the blind, the one eyed man was king.

If Rafa and Nole had decided to take up football and skiing respectively, Federer would now have 31 slams and counting.

And the extreme Fed fans would be preparing for the `end of days`.
The rest of us will have stopped watching Tennis a long time ago.

All tennis fans, sponsors etc. should be grateful to Rafa for saving tennis from the jaws of extinction, because without him, Roger would have continued to win everything under the sun and stopped tennis being taken as a serious sport.

Without Rafa, Nole would be the one stopping Fed, but only from 2008 onwards, that means Fed would have a few more slams under his belt. Rafa's ten slams would most likely be shared between the two of them, maybe Berdych or Murray may get a Wimbledon title too (in 2010) and Sod a FO title (in 2010). Maybe Verdasco could win one AO title too, in 2009, judging by how red-hot he was then, and I'm not sure Fed could beat him in the final. We may then have a Fed winning 20 slams, Nole 8 slams, Murray or Berdych, Sod and Verdasco each having one slam.

Well, I think there are a lot of things said against me, just because I protested against some distasteful comments that I came across in this thread against Roger Federer. I was even amused to read that some of the fans here finds Roger's game boring! So, needless to say, I came up with my logic which brought up so much confusion. I was also not in the opinion of people downing Roger in a thread which has nothing to do with Nadal, yet they did it and protesting against it invited all their anger! So, let me put it straight, specially if someone thinks I am against Nadal or his fans, they are completely wrong because certainly I am not. And I am not so regular many of the times mostly because I don't get time to read it when I travel due to work. But, in no way do I come here to foulmouth the Nadal fans at all. What prompted me to post my previous comments in this thread was some of the illogical statements that I came across and I will put my observation here, please have a look at it if you have a few minutes to spare.

Firstly, I never said Federer is a better player on clay against Nadal. Please don't get me wrong! Going back to some of the reasons stated by some of the fans here to say Nadal is better than Federer anytime anywhere, it seems that they do it solely on the basis of their H2H stats. But, I don't think like that is the only one standard of comparison to measure their supremacy on the tennis court. It's true that Nadal is way ahead of Federer on Clay courts result, and just a bit ahead on H2H counts in outdoor hard courts, but what I wanted to point them out is, if we compare their overall records keeping aside the clay court stats. we will see that Nadal is perhaps marginally ahead of Federer in all surfaces except clay H2H. Now focus on to each of the players career achievements in all forms of surfaces until today except clay, and you will clearly find that Nadal is way behind Federer in that department. Just an example is, Nadal has 4 GS apart from clay and Federer has 15. Keeping that in mind, we really can't say that Nadal is much better than Federer anytime any day if we talk about the surfaces besides clay, rather the opposite despite what the H2H suggests! What does that points to then? Nadals rules over Federer on clay courts and Federer is the supreme authority on any surface beside the clay courts, just because he had been so dominating on those surfaces for so long. Isn't it?

Furthermore, It's only the clay court stats that makes Nadal look way ahead of Federer in their overall H2H count. And another reason why Nadal fans consider H2H stat with Federer so important because, Nadal rose to stardom at a time when it was evident that Federer was almost unbeatable in tennis by anyone at that time on almost any surface for a considerable period of time, not just a season or two -which is something even the mighty Samprass couldn't do! So, getting the better of Federer was almost looking like conquering the whole world! That was the sheer dominance which Federer showed over a span of almost 10 years that made the equation look like that, even on clay courts which was never his strongest surfaces! True that Nadal showed pieces of such brilliance for maybe one and half season as of now, but that is still way behind Roger. Winning two different slams consecutively 5 times should be rated ahead of winning one particular slam 10 times, if at all! Very few players in the Tennis world has own 3 different slams almost 5 times each [Fed is 1 short of 5 for AO]. Now, that is what genius is! Nadal can hardly be said as dominant in as many surfaces for that much time except of his best, clay courts. He is primarily still way stronger on clay than any other surfaces!

And another thing one has to remember is, had Roger not been so serious in clay courts which in turn means, had Roger-Rafa hadn't meet so many times on clay courts, what would you say about the two then? Remember Samprass was never to be seen anywhere in FO or most of the clay tournaments, but still he enjoys such high reputation even upto this day! Going by Roger's titles and supremacy on other surfaces, had his H2H not been so heavily lowered down by the clay results, could you Nadal fans still would have down Federer so easily? I don't think so. And trust me, had Roger not played so many Clay finals or matches against Nadal on clay, his reputation would still had been what it is now today, it would not have waned a bit. So, in that case, Roger would have appeared more invincible rather even for Nadal had his H2H not showed so many number of losses in his least favorite surfaces! You people completely ignore the fact that during this peak period of Nadal-Federer, the only player who ever came close to Nadal on clay was Federer and not some Spanish clay court specialist, and that despite Roger having won the world many times over with this No.1 position, WTF & 15 GS on other surfaces! So, doesn't that still makes him one of the greatest to have played tennis ever, just in case we try to find the best of the best for the maximum period on all surfaces since not too many did it on all surfaces with the same intensity?? At least, I can't think of another player who was that successful on surfaces which was not his major strength, fighting one of the all time greatest to have played on that least favorite surface and at the same time winning dominantly on his favorite surfaces at ease! Do you people get my point?

And going by Nadal's achievement on these slowed down courts of today's, I very much remember some of the old day players who were as promising as Nadal but couldn't go that far. One of them had been Sergei Brugera, others were Gustavo Kuerten, Ferrero, Albert Costa! Each of these players were great on clay, but never perhaps won a GS anywhere. And I believe, they would have had successes had they got to play on the slowed down courts of modern day. And in the same breath, it makes you think whether Nadal would have won anywhere else beside FO had he been playing in those days when the courts were not as slow as they made it today, considering each of their respective peak forms! This thought gets fuel when you see him falter so badly in the WTF despite winning so much early in the year. I know there are many arguments and reasons that Nadal fans will come up with including fitness to account for this, but still it leaves a whole lot of doubt in an inquisitive mind, which follows tennis eagerly and likes to put across players of different times against each other! But, at the same time, with such flawless artisitic style of play, Federer convinces one, he would have meet with similar or even some more success had he played during those days when the players I mentioned above played their tennis!

So, that is all my observation/opinion/speculation and don't think I have an association with some "Fedfans" in this site to attack you "Rafans". I don't consider myself one such "fedfans", neither do I have anything against any "Rafans"; I just like some intelligent, informative and logical posts which I might praise and at the same time point out the illogical posts or comments which were made on purpose, but that's not to make an association here against anyone, that's all.

It's true that Nadal is way ahead of Federer on Clay courts result, and just a bit ahead on H2H counts in outdoor hard courts,
solitudine , 2/26/12 10:49 PM

Just a bit ahead on outdoor h/cs? solitudine, do you actually check the records before you post?

Nadal is 5>1 up on outdoor h/c against Federer.

We are never going to agree on this subject simply because you will not accept that Federer played for a while with no real opposition until Rafa came along, now Nole and Murray. Without the weak competition, Federer would not have won anything close to 16 GS. He was lucky to have had a free ride because there are 5 to 6 years between him Rafa, Nole and Murray.

None of Roger's age group have been in the top 4 for 5-6 years, those places have been occupied by players much younger than him which proves that he achieved a lot in a weak era.

How has Rafa faltered so badly at the WTF? He's made the final two years running. Anyway I don't buy all this talk of hard and slow courts not suiting Rafa. He won the olympic old on a fast h/c as well as the USO, and has made the final twice in NY.

To me Rafa is a better player than Roger, on any surface except the benign indoor courts.

Fed was complaining that the courts were slowed down these days, was that the reason he couldn't win slams anymore?? See, it worked both ways, don't always rinse and repeat the same old story, that Rafa can't win on fast surface. Didn't Rafa beat none other than the fast court king, Fed, at fast hard court Dubai one year, yes it's 2006, Fed's best year when Fed was
at his peak and Rafa was just back from his foot injury? Rafa also had won at Madrid when it was played on indoor hardcourts in 2005. Winning at Montreal in 2005, Toronto in 2008 and the USO in 2010 & final in 2011 are all prove enough that Rafa can play and win on fast courts. Yep, he also won the Tokyo Open in 2010 and reached the final in 2011 and Tokyo is one of the fastest outdoor hard courts around.

Great players will always adapt their game to suit the various surfaces. If Rafa was playing during the 1990s, he would most probably grown up playing tennis on fast courts and most probably adopt the S&V styles like the other players did. Given Rafa's adaptablity and his good volleying skills, it's not difficult for objective tennis fans to see that he can play well anywhere. Indoor hard court? Why not, where he had already reached the finals at Rotterdam, Paris and WTF? Look for him to win either Paris or WTF this year, the key is to conserve his energy to last the full season!

Homer called. He wants The Odyssey back.

Subtract clay and indoors and Rafa is still 6-3 vs the Swiss Maestro. Hasn't beaten Rafa outdoors since 2009 almost three years ago and that was on clay. Let's not be so quick to discount their clay encounters because then we'd have to go all the way back to 2007 for an outdoor win against Rafa.

Last time

"Last time" was a typo. :)

Also Rafa has the only winning record against the other Top 4. People will say that Nole is closing the gap but careers are judged by more than 1 or 2 years.

Vamos Rafa. Vamos Milos!