Topic: Why the "GOAT" thing doesn't really matter

[Babblelot]

I don't believe in this goat thing at all. yes, I'll give credit to Rog but I still think he was winning when the field was too weak. I mean, who were his competitors?

Exactly!


Weak Era

Period

For the tards, the only nuance to this discussion you've added is that Federer is past him prime (because 1 person on tour can beat him). 

Here, this is what I added to this stupid s**t topic in May 2010

When I put this together, I found it quite telling. Rankings reflect time lost due to injury. Including Federer, these are the 5 guys at the top when Rafa broke on the scene. Rafa had injury issues prior to Wimby 2009. His first RG was 2005. He missed 2004 due to injury. I didn't bother looking up Rafa at the time I put this together, but since he withdrew from Wimby, it would be a good idea to update my table.

Safin                  Hewitt                    Ferrero            Coria
2003 - #77            #17                #3                  #5
2004 - #4               #3                 #31                 #7
2005 - #12*              #4                 #17                 #8
2006 - #26              #20                   #23                #113   

*Safin won 2005 AO but did not finish in the Top 10 (that's near impossible to do!)

I had my suspicions since all my guys are chronically injured, but this presentation is pretty damn compelling!

[Babblelot]

Come on! We can do this for another entire year. We've got 5 years of posts to copy/paste and repost!

 

[Babblelot]

I am lovin' this. June 2011

With the exception of Federer and Roddick, all the players of TheLogo's Greatest Generation are physically or mentally injury prone.

Who competed with Federer when he stockpiled GS titles?

Hewitt? injured
Safin? injured
Coria? injured
Philippoissis? injured
Haas? injured
JC Ferrero? injured
Nalbandian? injured
J Johansson? injured
Nadal? injured
Djokovic? allergies
Del Potro? injured
Murray? craps himself 
Berdych? never learned how to win
Tsonga? injured/never learned how to win

What's Fish, 29? He loses 30 lbs and now he's top 10. These guys are tough!!! 

 

[swish]

It looks like the posters need some help.

Bring in the past greats, they should know better than us low level players. 

So many have agreed that Fed is just the best that ever played, they know about who he played but weren't so easily sidetracked by that. 

They looked at the game of Fed, that's were the answer lies. Not that he beat a #80 or so for a slam.

The answer is in the level of play, watch the game and find what so many past great champions are crowing about.

[falcon]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

[swish]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

Fed's ERA wasn't weak, the ERA between the time Sampras was about finished and Fed's starting is known to be weak.
 
All those players in Fed's ERA were outclassed by Fed so didn't win many titles.
Then Nadal came around and cleaned up the rest.
 
Between Fed and Nadal no one looked very good, only Nadal was beating Fed and hardly anyone else.
 
Now there's only Djokovic and Nadal cleaning up the titles for two years now.
 
The ERA looks strong because Fed's in there and winning now and then but has won no slams.
Murray has won no slams.
 
If it weren't for Fed's past record the ERA now would look to be a two man race and a very weak ERA.
 
No ones challenging the top two hardly, how is that a strong ERA?
 
 
 

[falcon]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

Fed's ERA wasn't weak, the ERA between the time Sampras was about finished and Fed's starting is known to be weak.
 
All those players in Fed's ERA were outclassed by Fed so didn't win many titles.
Then Nadal came around and cleaned up the rest.
 
Between Fed and Nadal no one looked very good, only Nadal was beating Fed and hardly anyone else.
 
Now there's only Djokovic and Nadal cleaning up the titles for two years now.
 
The ERA looks strong because Fed's in there and winning now and then but has won no slams.
Murray has won no slams.
 
If it weren't for Fed's past record the ERA now would look to be a two man race and a very weak ERA.
 
No ones challenging the top two hardly, how is that a strong ERA?

When I say Fed's era I talk about 2004-2007 when he was at the top of the rankings. His main opponents were Rafa (and rafa's best was yet to come then), Roddick, Nalby, Denko, Ljubicic, baby Nole etc. Anyway, lets cut that topic. This is just an endless one. Of course, regardless of the field, I think Fed is one of the greatest players the sport has ever seen.

[Babblelot]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

Waitaminute falcon! 

I'm supporting Alex, who was first to offer the "Weak Era Therory" counterargument to the "Federer is the GOAT" claim.

I simply forgot how much fun these threads are until I read Alex's post.

[Alex]

There was simply nobody to challenge Fed. Yes, Rafa showed up but still. This is why I like Novak so much. He had to fight Fed, Rafa, Murray...it's so much harder to win tournaments nowadays. I still think Rog had it too easy. I like competition. even as a Nole fan I don't think it would be too much fun without Murray, Rog and Nadal...

[Babblelot]

There was simply nobody to challenge Fed. Yes, Rafa showed up but still. This is why I like Novak so much. He had to fight Fed, Rafa, Murray...it's so much harder to win tournaments nowadays. I still think Rog had it too easy. I like competition. even as a Nole fan I don't think it would be too much fun without Murray, Rog and Nadal...

Yes, but you see Alex, fighting through #1 and #2 to get to #1 really isn't as impressive as you and I think.   

[FedFanForever]

Actually 2007 Hamburg was within Federer's prime. So Federer only has one post-prime win on clay vs Nadal(2009 Madrid against a severely depleted Nadal).

[Alex]

Actually 2007 Hamburg was within Federer's prime. So Federer only has one post-prime win on clay vs Nadal(2009 Madrid against a severely depleted Nadal).

disagree with you. Nadal was simply dead tired. Fed would have never won that match if it wasn't for Nadal being almost dead. I'm bored with Nadal vs. Rog. Nadal owns Rog... it's such a silly match up. Nadal hits every ball to Rog's BH, blah blah. it is so predictable...

[HarryWild]

All you posters are getting personal and calling names and such!  Keep it up!  Is this rassling here?

[FedFanForever]

All you posters are getting personal and calling names and such!  Keep it up!  Is this rassling here?

Ok I called Shankar a stupid git because he is.

[Babblelot]

Fed's ERA wasn't weak, the ERA between the time Sampras was about finished and Fed's starting is known to be weak.
 
All those players in Fed's ERA were outclassed by Fed so didn't win many titles.

Well, thank you. That's acceptable even if it's not correct to exclude Fed from the weak era because those dudes are Fed's age, and that's who was there when he was compiling 3 slams a year for three years. But if you want to say that Fed was merely  whipping up on tomato cans left over from the weak era, then so be it. Either way, it diminishes in no small way what Roger has accomplished. He compiled a lot of hardware before he was challenged on multiple surfaces. Good timing.

[Start da Game]

when will people learn that federer is better on slow courts? he himself came out 3 days ago and commented that without homogenization and slowing down of courts, he and nadal wouldn't have managed the career grandslam.......just check out his latest interview.......the only thing funny about that comment as usual is the timing of it i.e., when djokovic is dominating the tour, but what he says is true.......

fast courts and carpets gave him fits in several finals before 2006, part of the reason why he whined about carpets along with rafa and got them removed from the tour.......he was very inconsistent in the fast era, just check his numbers.......not that he couldn't win on fast courts but that s**t is simply overblown in every discussion thread.......

how many here know that a 17 year old nadal defeated peak mario ancic on grass in 2003 wimbledon? 

 

Shankar - you stupid git. Who has dominated the indoor season recently? 

this is a blatant proof of how much you actually know.......paris was slow as ass and world tour finals was slow as hell.......

All you posters are getting personal and calling names and such!  Keep it up!  Is this rassling here?

Ok I called Shankar a stupid git because he is.

you have been ousted from every other tennis forum.......this is your last resort, so better stop being a burro and make a real contribution for once.......

[Start da Game]

I don't believe in this goat thing at all. yes, I'll give credit to Rog but I still think he was winning when the field was too weak. I mean, who were his competitors?

Exactly!


Weak Era

Period

For the tards, the only nuance to this discussion you've added is that Federer is past him prime (because 1 person on tour can beat him). 

Here, this is what I added to this stupid s**t topic in May 2010

When I put this together, I found it quite telling. Rankings reflect time lost due to injury. Including Federer, these are the 5 guys at the top when Rafa broke on the scene. Rafa had injury issues prior to Wimby 2009. His first RG was 2005. He missed 2004 due to injury. I didn't bother looking up Rafa at the time I put this together, but since he withdrew from Wimby, it would be a good idea to update my table.

Safin                  Hewitt                    Ferrero            Coria
2003 - #77            #17                #3                  #5
2004 - #4               #3                 #31                 #7
2005 - #12*              #4                 #17                 #8
2006 - #26              #20                   #23                #113   

*Safin won 2005 AO but did not finish in the Top 10 (that's near impossible to do!)

I had my suspicions since all my guys are chronically injured, but this presentation is pretty damn compelling!

i remember that particular post, it just goes to show how shallow it was at the top.......the simple truth that if not for nadal and djokovic, the last four out of five slams would be fed's is sufficient to show how overblown this peak garbage is.......federer maybe a bit slower but he is a better tennis player these days, even wilander said so just last week.......in 2006, wilander was one of the earliest ones to point out fed's mental fragility when it comes to nadal and everybody ridiculed him and his statements and laughed at him.......look what happens, fed goes onto become nadal's pigeon.......now they are making fun of him again for his observation of fed's game these days........

 
 

[Start da Game]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

Fed's ERA wasn't weak, the ERA between the time Sampras was about finished and Fed's starting is known to be weak.
 
All those players in Fed's ERA were outclassed by Fed so didn't win many titles.
Then Nadal came around and cleaned up the rest.
 
Between Fed and Nadal no one looked very good, only Nadal was beating Fed and hardly anyone else.
 
Now there's only Djokovic and Nadal cleaning up the titles for two years now.
 
The ERA looks strong because Fed's in there and winning now and then but has won no slams.
Murray has won no slams.
 
If it weren't for Fed's past record the ERA now would look to be a two man race and a very weak ERA.
 
No ones challenging the top two hardly, how is that a strong ERA?

your man del potro ripped nadal and fed back to back to win a slam........which of the 2003-2006 spartans achieved such a feat? you fedfans are just funny........

the era looks strong not just because fed's in there, but because two of fed's colleagues can match him anywhere and are being deemed as all time greats along with him.......

one can always play the oldness card but the facts remain that fed is still bringing his best tennis to slams, dispatching away opponents as casually as he did in his so called prime but is not able to add to his tally only because of nadal and djokovic........

[falcon]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

Fed's ERA wasn't weak, the ERA between the time Sampras was about finished and Fed's starting is known to be weak.
 
All those players in Fed's ERA were outclassed by Fed so didn't win many titles.
Then Nadal came around and cleaned up the rest.
 
Between Fed and Nadal no one looked very good, only Nadal was beating Fed and hardly anyone else.
 
Now there's only Djokovic and Nadal cleaning up the titles for two years now.
 
The ERA looks strong because Fed's in there and winning now and then but has won no slams.
Murray has won no slams.
 
If it weren't for Fed's past record the ERA now would look to be a two man race and a very weak ERA.
 
No ones challenging the top two hardly, how is that a strong ERA?

your man del potro ripped nadal and fed back to back to win a slam........which of the 2003-2006 spartans achieved such a feat? you fedfans are just funny........

the era looks strong not just because fed's in there, but because two of fed's colleagues can match him anywhere and are being deemed as all time greats along with him.......

one can always play the oldness card but the facts remain that fed is still bringing his best tennis to slams, dispatching away opponents as casually as he did in his so called prime but is not able to add to his tally only because of nadal and djokovic........

 

[swish]

Is anyone here arguing that Fed's era was not weak??? Babb, don't change the line of discussion 

Fed's ERA wasn't weak, the ERA between the time Sampras was about finished and Fed's starting is known to be weak.
 
All those players in Fed's ERA were outclassed by Fed so didn't win many titles.
Then Nadal came around and cleaned up the rest.
 
Between Fed and Nadal no one looked very good, only Nadal was beating Fed and hardly anyone else.
 
Now there's only Djokovic and Nadal cleaning up the titles for two years now.
 
The ERA looks strong because Fed's in there and winning now and then but has won no slams.
Murray has won no slams.
 
If it weren't for Fed's past record the ERA now would look to be a two man race and a very weak ERA.
 
No ones challenging the top two hardly, how is that a strong ERA?

your man del potro ripped nadal and fed back to back to win a slam........which of the 2003-2006 spartans achieved such a feat? you fedfans are just funny........

the era looks strong not just because fed's in there, but because two of fed's colleagues can match him anywhere and are being deemed as all time greats along with him.......

one can always play the oldness card but the facts remain that fed is still bringing his best tennis to slams, dispatching away opponents as casually as he did in his so called prime but is not able to add to his tally only because of nadal and djokovic........

DelPo is a strange animal no doubt.
And Fed's still Fed, he has so many weapons that are fine tuned with endurance to go the distance.
 
But not only has he lost some speed, concentration through the match, forehand isn't as reliable, serve goes off at times to name a few things.
 
Easy to forget those things, there were times the crowd would gasp when he started missing some relatively easy forehands, don't you remember that?
 
What that means is his game dropped, what was a sure winner isn't anymore.
 
Many say Fed is still so good, he is but not like before when a match was filled with OMG shots.
 
When was the last time you saw a video of great Fed shots? Think about it Shanks.