if at all this wimbledon proved anything, it's simply these two things:
1. to all those excuse makers bulls**tting the prime, non prime garbage, this win is like a backfire at their absolutely pathetic excuse making and discrediting nadal and djokovic pointing at federer's age everytime he crapped his pants and lost to nadal and djokovic in the recent times.......
we have heard enough of that 30 years song for so long now........30 means jacks**t when you train yourself like a teen and still move like a 25 year old........so you guys stop blowing that trumpet.......
2. federer's career has been a perfect reflection of his latest slam win.........he never had a rival until 5 years ago and when he had one finally, he started losing and winning whatever that rival has allowed him to take.........
i will still give a big credit to him for manning up and beating djokovic, murray because he took what was there to be taken, but it's ridiculous to blow this GOAT nonsense based on a bunch of weak era slams and nadal-leftover-slams........
Sorry, you may be a little tired and emotional, but i need to correct you about a few things.
Age IS an issue for tennis players just like it is for any other sportsman, to suggest it isnít is simple ignorant
It isnít merely that movement suddenly becomes sluggish or that mobility is compromised to the point of making playing at a high level unsustainable. Rather that some small injuries tend to endure or that large new ones can emerge impinge or end an athletes career. There is some slowing down, though this is negligable-at least until a player reaches his 30's.
But even more significantly psychology plays a huge part in the later careers of players-especially those sports where nerve is involved-like tennis.
Every retired tennis player iíve ever heard who commented on the subject reports that nerves increase with age, not the converse. Even Nadal recently commented on how nervous he was going into the French open final.
Most grandslame winners win their first slam before the age of 25, those who donít are in a minority, and the optimum age for winning slams in men is between 20-26.
Of course players win slams older than this, but if you check out the stats over the last 20 years, once you hit 30 that likelihood diminishes drastically in statistical terms.
The concept of the GOAT will inexorably be determined by simply counting up the number of slams a player has won. There are no other satisfactory criteria which could possibly establish such an idea, which is why Federer is considered the greatest. Some may doubt this, but overwhelmingly amongst players, commentators, and fans of the game his is the best and for one good reason-heís won more slams than any other guy.
The logical upshot of not using a slam count as decisive is that i can put forward any player i think of regardless of the number of slams heís won and claim heís the GOAT by virtue of any criteria i care to think of-weeks at no1, head to heads, overall ATP titles, the era he played in, the surfaces he won on ect.
History almost unanimously judges slams as the criteria by which we judge the greatest, and all your post Wimbledon sobbing and angst will not change that one jot.