Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
Jeff the Bear
Posts: 19127
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Jeff the Bear »

saffer13 wrote:What were those players ranked at the time?
Doesn't matter. If you are trying to rank the worthiness of a particular Grandslam win against another, the only thing that counts is the relative strengths of the field taking part.

There's no doubt he beat the best available at the time, but no one in their right mind is going to suggest that those players are in the same league as Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Wawrinka et al.

I know you are a major Federer fanboi, but I'm sure even you can recognise he won a good handful of his Grandslams in what was a fallow period after the Sampras/Agassi years, and before the 'Big 4' years.
User avatar
Brumby_in_Vic
Posts: 15878
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Brumby_in_Vic »

Winner 2003 Wimbledon (1) Mark Philippoussis
Winner 2004 Australian Open (1) Marat Safin
Winner 2004 Wimbledon (2) Andy Roddick
Winner 2004 US Open (1) Lleyton Hewitt
Winner 2005 Wimbledon (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2006 Australian Open (2) Marcos Baghdatis
Winner 2006 US Open (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2007 Australian Open (3) Fernando González
A veritable who's who of average players.

:lol: Safin and Hewitt won two majors each. Both got to number one, Hewitt was the youngest at the time to get the top ranking at 20. Roddick won the US Open and was runner up in three Wimbledon finals. Neither were average players.

In the early 2000s Federer got over his attitude problems and sloppy errors. He cut the mustard as a youngster against Rafter, Henman, Ivanesivec, Krajicek, Agassi, Sampras, Muster. The first six were strong grass court players and you had players like Kuerten, Haas and Rios to compete with.
User avatar
Jeff the Bear
Posts: 19127
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Jeff the Bear »

Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Winner 2003 Wimbledon (1) Mark Philippoussis
Winner 2004 Australian Open (1) Marat Safin
Winner 2004 Wimbledon (2) Andy Roddick
Winner 2004 US Open (1) Lleyton Hewitt
Winner 2005 Wimbledon (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2006 Australian Open (2) Marcos Baghdatis
Winner 2006 US Open (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2007 Australian Open (3) Fernando González
A veritable who's who of average players.

:lol: Safin and Hewitt won two majors each. Both got to number one, Hewitt was the youngest at the time to get the top ranking at 20. Roddick won the US Open and was runner up in three Wimbledon finals. Neither were average players.
As noted above, in the context of the next era (i.e. the 'Big 4' era) they were average, as in, those players wouldn't have got within a country mile of a Grandslam were they around 5 years ago say. I'm not saying they were shit, and during their era they were the best about, but they were below the level of the top players that came after them.
User avatar
Brumby_in_Vic
Posts: 15878
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Brumby_in_Vic »

How can a pub pundit decipher that? Safin, Hewitt and Roddick (he is a year younger than Federer) had their latter years ruined by injury. Del Potro is another player who is heading towards the same boat.

The big tournaments also changed balls and courts (particularly the Aus Open moving on from Rebound Ace) over that period of time which had an effect on how the players played the game.
User avatar
Jeff the Bear
Posts: 19127
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Jeff the Bear »

Brumby_in_Vic wrote:How can a pub pundit decipher that? Safin, Hewitt and Roddick (he is a year younger than Federer) had their latter years ruined by injury. Del Potro is another player who is heading towards the same boat.

The big tournaments also changed balls and courts (particularly the Aus Open moving on from Rebound Ace) over that period of time which had an effect on how the players played the game.
Oh, I was going to mention (and readily accept) that this is an armchair pundit argument, and you are well within your rights to disagree.

Anecdotal as it is, I feel confident that most people would agree that Nadal, Djoko and Federer are ATG's. The likes of Murray and Wawrinka were able, on their day, to go toe to toe with said ATG's and win, making them particularly good players themselves.

The likes of Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not ATG's, and tbf, are not even close. There may well be some quantitative metric that proves/disproves it, but from my perspective as said armchair pundit, and having watched tennis fairly regularly from the Sampras era on through, the levels of skill, endurance and ability appear to have been higher in recent years.

Simply put, the level of competition to win a Grandslam during the last several years is, in my opinion, significantly higher than the preceding period. If we are to then try and grade the difficulty of earning a Grandlsam from different era's, I think those early Fed ones were completed in a time where it was relatively easier.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8916
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by booji boy »

Federer no doubt the GOAT but who would win in a prime clash between Federer and Sampras at Wimbledon? I accept that Fed is the better all round player and would be favoured on hardcourt and a dead cert on clay but a prime clash on centre court at Wimbledon? It's a mouth watering prospect. Sampras serve was almost unplayable at his peak. Would Roger be able to find a way past it? It's be an epic match up either way.

Btw I'm a huge fan of both so just interested in the discussion/opinion of others.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8916
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by booji boy »

Jeff the Bear wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:How can a pub pundit decipher that? Safin, Hewitt and Roddick (he is a year younger than Federer) had their latter years ruined by injury. Del Potro is another player who is heading towards the same boat.

The big tournaments also changed balls and courts (particularly the Aus Open moving on from Rebound Ace) over that period of time which had an effect on how the players played the game.
Oh, I was going to mention (and readily accept) that this is an armchair pundit argument, and you are well within your rights to disagree.

Anecdotal as it is, I feel confident that most people would agree that Nadal, Djoko and Federer are ATG's. The likes of Murray and Wawrinka were able, on their day, to go toe to toe with said ATG's and win, making them particularly good players themselves.

The likes of Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not ATG's, and tbf, are not even close. There may well be some quantitative metric that proves/disproves it, but from my perspective as said armchair pundit, and having watched tennis fairly regularly from the Sampras era on through, the levels of skill, endurance and ability appear to have been higher in recent years.

Simply put, the level of competition to win a Grandslam during the last several years is, in my opinion, significantly higher than the preceding period. If we are to then try and grade the difficulty of earning a Grandlsam from different era's, I think those early Fed ones were completed in a time where it was relatively easier.
Safin and Hewitt took Sampras to the cleaners in the 2000 and 2001 US Open final respectively. Safin also beat Federer in the 2005 Australian Open in the semi final and went on to win the final. They are at least the equal of today's next tier guys like Wawrinka. Also Andre Agassi was still doing his thing 2003-06. I find the revisionism hilarious.
User avatar
Dumbledore
Posts: 11473
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Dumbledore »

Safin was an absolute monster at his peak, easily as good as some of the boys rolling around today.
jezzer
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by jezzer »


Tbf, if you are being super critical, a lot of Feds early Grandslams came against average players in an average era:

Winner 2003 Wimbledon (1) Mark Philippoussis
Winner 2004 Australian Open (1) Marat Safin
Winner 2004 Wimbledon (2) Andy Roddick
Winner 2004 US Open (1) Lleyton Hewitt
Winner 2005 Wimbledon (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2006 Australian Open (2) Marcos Baghdatis
Winner 2006 US Open (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2007 Australian Open (3) Fernando González

A veritable who's who of average players.
I think his subsequent domination of global tennis (and regular victories over some other candidates for Top 5/10 of All Time ) probably tells you he would still have won those titles if the opposition had been even harder.

Turns out he had a bit still in the locker.
Hawk97
Posts: 14171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Location: Westerlands

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Hawk97 »

Winnie wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Winnie wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:Castle is a dribbling moron
:lol:
I thought he'd never shut up.
He didn't half go on
He's a fücking plank. Watching him trying to dance was hilarious, as well
User avatar
mr bungle
Posts: 12721
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by mr bungle »

guy smiley wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Flametop wrote:Fantastic player, but Federer got lucky with the easiest draw since NZ drew Joubert in 2011
I wouldn't call having Djokovic in your half an easy draw. What made it easier was that none of the other rated players were up to it.
This. Stupid arguments these. The top 4 all made it through to the quarters and now he had an easy ride :lol:

Another GS for the GOAT. :thumbup:
It looks like it was just another cry over the ABs from an Irish poster on a completely unrelated thread. The tears must blind him to the surrounds when the urge overtakes.
It's only been 6 years, ffs. Let the boy grieve.
User avatar
zt1903
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by zt1903 »

booji boy wrote:Federer no doubt the GOAT but who would win in a prime clash between Federer and Sampras at Wimbledon? I accept that Fed is the better all round player and would be favoured on hardcourt and a dead cert on clay but a prime clash on centre court at Wimbledon? It's a mouth watering prospect. Sampras serve was almost unplayable at his peak. Would Roger be able to find a way past it? It's be an epic match up either way.

Btw I'm a huge fan of both so just interested in the discussion/opinion of others.
Peak Fed v Peak Pete on grass would have been a sight to behold.

I think a slight edge to Sampras.
User avatar
Gazzamonster
Posts: 6958
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Gazzamonster »

zt1903 wrote:
booji boy wrote:Federer no doubt the GOAT but who would win in a prime clash between Federer and Sampras at Wimbledon? I accept that Fed is the better all round player and would be favoured on hardcourt and a dead cert on clay but a prime clash on centre court at Wimbledon? It's a mouth watering prospect. Sampras serve was almost unplayable at his peak. Would Roger be able to find a way past it? It's be an epic match up either way.

Btw I'm a huge fan of both so just interested in the discussion/opinion of others.
Peak Fed v Peak Pete on grass would have been a sight to behold.

I think a slight edge to Sampras.
I think Federer would have managed to get the serves back and his ability to pass would have evened things up - I'm not sure you could split them on grass - Fed and Murray have an almost supernatural ability to return serves.

Sampras and Federer at Wimbledon would be amazing - as would Agassi v Federer at the Australian or US Open.
User avatar
Fangle
Posts: 3143
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Fangle »

Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:If anyone even tries to claim that Federer isn't the greatest of all time then they're clearly a moron.
It all depends on the quality of the opposition during each GOATs term though, doesn't it?

Interesting debate that one.
I heard Boris Becker saying that Laver should also be considered because of the number of years that he wasn't allowed to play the slam events because he had turned professional. He also said that Federer thought the same.

As it happens, Federer and Laver are my two all time favourite players to watch followed by Sampras.
Going on with the conversation Sampras was fantastic but never won at Roland Garros. I would place Nadal ahead of him and he has won all four majors and is one ahead of Sampras.
I actually far prefer watching Sampras to watching Nadal.
User avatar
Gazzamonster
Posts: 6958
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Gazzamonster »

Fangle wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:If anyone even tries to claim that Federer isn't the greatest of all time then they're clearly a moron.
It all depends on the quality of the opposition during each GOATs term though, doesn't it?

Interesting debate that one.
I heard Boris Becker saying that Laver should also be considered because of the number of years that he wasn't allowed to play the slam events because he had turned professional. He also said that Federer thought the same.

As it happens, Federer and Laver are my two all time favourite players to watch followed by Sampras.
Going on with the conversation Sampras was fantastic but never won at Roland Garros. I would place Nadal ahead of him and he has won all four majors and is one ahead of Sampras.
I actually far prefer watching Sampras to watching Nadal.
I hate watching Nadal play - no doubt he is very good....but the amount of faffing around he goes through destroys me. Seriously dude - you're a multimillionaire - surely you can afford a pair of pants that don't suck up into your a**e every single service point.

Nice big discussion yesterday with mates about what is better - 10 French Open wins v 8 Wimbledon wins. For me - 8 Wimbledon wins far outranks 10 French Open wins. The grass court is far less specialized than the clay - bigger pool of potential winners on grass.
brat
Posts: 4546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by brat »

Jeff the Bear wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:If anyone even tries to claim that Federer isn't the greatest of all time then they're clearly a moron.
It all depends on the quality of the opposition during each GOATs term though, doesn't it?

Interesting debate that one.
No one can doubt the quality of Feds opposition.

Delighted he won.
Tbf, if you are being super critical, a lot of Feds early Grandslams came against average players in an average era:

Winner 2003 Wimbledon (1) Mark Philippoussis
Winner 2004 Australian Open (1) Marat Safin
Winner 2004 Wimbledon (2) Andy Roddick
Winner 2004 US Open (1) Lleyton Hewitt
Winner 2005 Wimbledon (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2006 Australian Open (2) Marcos Baghdatis
Winner 2006 US Open (3) Andy Roddick
Winner 2007 Australian Open (3) Fernando González

A veritable who's who of average players.
Balanced out by having to play and losing to the worlds greatest ever clay court player in 4 French open finals
User avatar
handyman
Posts: 14167
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by handyman »

What makes Fed's career much better are the amount of times he has reached the finals. Staggering.
User avatar
saffer13
Posts: 25660
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by saffer13 »

Jeff the Bear wrote:
saffer13 wrote:What were those players ranked at the time?
Doesn't matter. If you are trying to rank the worthiness of a particular Grandslam win against another, the only thing that counts is the relative strengths of the field taking part.

There's no doubt he beat the best available at the time, but no one in their right mind is going to suggest that those players are in the same league as Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Wawrinka et al.

I know you are a major Federer fanboi, but I'm sure even you can recognise he won a good handful of his Grandslams in what was a fallow period after the Sampras/Agassi years, and before the 'Big 4' years.
If i guy is dominant for so long it's bound to be through a few lean tennis years as well. I have no problem with that.
User avatar
P in VG
Posts: 2713
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:22 pm
Location: Gogledd Cymru

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by P in VG »

Gazzamonster wrote:
I hate watching Nadal play - no doubt he is very good....but the amount of faffing around he goes through destroys me. Seriously dude - you're a multimillionaire - surely you can afford a pair of pants that don't suck up into your a**e every single service point.

Nice big discussion yesterday with mates about what is better - 10 French Open wins v 8 Wimbledon wins. For me - 8 Wimbledon wins far outranks 10 French Open wins. The grass court is far less specialized than the clay - bigger pool of potential winners on grass.
Nadal beat Fed at his peak in 08 and 09 Wimbledon finals (probably the best matches ever played) - Fed has never come close to peak Rafa on clay....
User avatar
tiddle
Posts: 3827
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Location: look behind you

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by tiddle »

P in VG wrote:
Gazzamonster wrote:
I hate watching Nadal play - no doubt he is very good....but the amount of faffing around he goes through destroys me. Seriously dude - you're a multimillionaire - surely you can afford a pair of pants that don't suck up into your a**e every single service point.

Nice big discussion yesterday with mates about what is better - 10 French Open wins v 8 Wimbledon wins. For me - 8 Wimbledon wins far outranks 10 French Open wins. The grass court is far less specialized than the clay - bigger pool of potential winners on grass.
Nadal beat Fed at his peak in 08 and 09 Wimbledon finals (probably the best matches ever played) - Fed has never come close to peak Rafa on clay....
Only beat him in 09 final iirc, lost the 08 one. Beat him later in 11?

edit: you're right, just looked it up
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 22858
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by danthefan »

P in VG wrote:
Gazzamonster wrote:
I hate watching Nadal play - no doubt he is very good....but the amount of faffing around he goes through destroys me. Seriously dude - you're a multimillionaire - surely you can afford a pair of pants that don't suck up into your a**e every single service point.

Nice big discussion yesterday with mates about what is better - 10 French Open wins v 8 Wimbledon wins. For me - 8 Wimbledon wins far outranks 10 French Open wins. The grass court is far less specialized than the clay - bigger pool of potential winners on grass.
Nadal beat Fed at his peak in 08 and 09 Wimbledon finals (probably the best matches ever played) - Fed has never come close to peak Rafa on clay....
Federer won Wimbledon in 09.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8916
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by booji boy »

danthefan wrote:
P in VG wrote:
Gazzamonster wrote:
I hate watching Nadal play - no doubt he is very good....but the amount of faffing around he goes through destroys me. Seriously dude - you're a multimillionaire - surely you can afford a pair of pants that don't suck up into your a**e every single service point.

Nice big discussion yesterday with mates about what is better - 10 French Open wins v 8 Wimbledon wins. For me - 8 Wimbledon wins far outranks 10 French Open wins. The grass court is far less specialized than the clay - bigger pool of potential winners on grass.
Nadal beat Fed at his peak in 08 and 09 Wimbledon finals (probably the best matches ever played) - Fed has never come close to peak Rafa on clay....
Federer won Wimbledon in 09.
Yeah 09 was the year he broke Petes record winning his 15th slam at Wimbledon. Pete flew over specially to watch. He also won the French Open in 09 completing the career Grand Slam.
User avatar
P in VG
Posts: 2713
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:22 pm
Location: Gogledd Cymru

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by P in VG »

booji boy wrote:
danthefan wrote:
P in VG wrote:
Gazzamonster wrote:
I hate watching Nadal play - no doubt he is very good....but the amount of faffing around he goes through destroys me. Seriously dude - you're a multimillionaire - surely you can afford a pair of pants that don't suck up into your a**e every single service point.

Nice big discussion yesterday with mates about what is better - 10 French Open wins v 8 Wimbledon wins. For me - 8 Wimbledon wins far outranks 10 French Open wins. The grass court is far less specialized than the clay - bigger pool of potential winners on grass.
Nadal beat Fed at his peak in 08 and 09 Wimbledon finals (probably the best matches ever played) - Fed has never come close to peak Rafa on clay....
Federer won Wimbledon in 09.
Yeah 09 was the year he broke Petes record winning his 15th slam at Wimbledon. Pete flew over specially to watch. He also won the French Open in 09 completing the career Grand Slam.
You're right - maybe I was thinking 09 Aus open?

The point remains though - Nadal was able to beat Fed in his prime on grass - but Fed couldn't get close to Rafa on clay (was only able to sneak the French because Soderling beat Rafa)
User avatar
tiddle
Posts: 3827
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Location: look behind you

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by tiddle »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E ... al_rivalry

Nadal leads their thirteen-year-old rivalry with an overall record of 23–14

...


Of their 37 matches, 19 have been on hard court, 15 have been on clay, and three have been on grass. The results of their matches are somewhat polarized by playing surface. Federer has a winning record on hard courts (10–9) and grass (2–1), while Nadal leads on clay (13–2). Nadal also leads the head-to-head of their 12 Grand Slam matches (9–3), with five of these wins on the clay courts of Roland Garros, and two of the losses on grass at Wimbledon.
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 30856
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Floppykid »

Nadal's body seems to be held together with tape at this stage though.
He'd certainly be in the convo for GOAT if it wasn't breaking down on him, as much as I find his style of play ugly.
flite
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by flite »

Take away Nadal's 10 clay court slams and he is left with 5 other ... take away RF's 8 grass court slams, he still has 11 other .... end of discussion..... if I have it right, RF played in 5 French Open finals, of which he lost 4 to Nadal and won one

Nadal was in 5 Wimbledon finals and won two ... only one against RF ..

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_h ... er_Federer ... it is staggering ...
User avatar
P in VG
Posts: 2713
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:22 pm
Location: Gogledd Cymru

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by P in VG »

flite wrote:Take away Nadal's 10 clay court slams and he is left with 5 other ... take away RF's 8 grass court slams, he still has 11 other .... end of discussion..... if I have it right, RF played in 5 French Open finals, of which he lost 4 to Nadal and won one

Nadal was in 5 Wimbledon finals and won two ... only one against RF ..

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_h ... er_Federer ... it is staggering ...
But Roger is 5+ years older & won a lot of those slams against lesser players before Nadal / Djokovic / Murray came along:

In Slam finals he's beaten - Philipoussis, Hewitt, Roddick (x4), Gonzales (who?), Baghdatis, Cilic & won 7 of his slams before Rafa / Djokovic / Murray arrived on the scene.

Don't know why people are so desperate to proclaim him GOAT when it's so difficult to compare between eras anyway. Borg, for example, retired when he was 26 on 11 slams....
User avatar
Calculus
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Calculus »

Federer is less than 5 years older than Nadal and Federer won 4 of his 19 grand slams before Nadal won his first grand slam, the 2005 French open. Nadal actually beat Federer in straight sets in their first meeting in March 2004. At that time Federer would have been on 2 Grand Slams.
User avatar
saffer13
Posts: 25660
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by saffer13 »

P in VG wrote:
flite wrote:Take away Nadal's 10 clay court slams and he is left with 5 other ... take away RF's 8 grass court slams, he still has 11 other .... end of discussion..... if I have it right, RF played in 5 French Open finals, of which he lost 4 to Nadal and won one

Nadal was in 5 Wimbledon finals and won two ... only one against RF ..

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_h ... er_Federer ... it is staggering ...
But Roger is 5+ years older & won a lot of those slams against lesser players before Nadal / Djokovic / Murray came along:

In Slam finals he's beaten - Philipoussis, Hewitt, Roddick (x4), Gonzales (who?), Baghdatis, Cilic & won 7 of his slams before Rafa / Djokovic / Murray arrived on the scene.

Don't know why people are so desperate to proclaim him GOAT when it's so difficult to compare between eras anyway. Borg, for example, retired when he was 26 on 11 slams....
There is no debate. He is the GOAT, it's silly to justify otherwise.
User avatar
P in VG
Posts: 2713
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:22 pm
Location: Gogledd Cymru

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by P in VG »

Calculus wrote:Federer is less than 5 years older than Nadal and Federer won 4 of his 19 grand slams before Nadal won his first grand slam, the 2005 French open. Nadal actually beat Federer in straight sets in their first meeting in March 2004. At that time Federer would have been on 2 Grand Slams.

Not really.

Nadal was 19 in 2005. It wasn't until 2007 - 2008 that he had adapted his game and became a major threat on other surfaces.

From 07-08 onwards - the standard of the mens game went up a notch (with the emergence of Djokovic also)

By that point (pre 2008) Federer had won 12 of his 19 slams....
User avatar
Calculus
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Wimbledon - Official 2017 Tournament Thread

Post by Calculus »

P in VG wrote:
Calculus wrote:Federer is less than 5 years older than Nadal and Federer won 4 of his 19 grand slams before Nadal won his first grand slam, the 2005 French open. Nadal actually beat Federer in straight sets in their first meeting in March 2004. At that time Federer would have been on 2 Grand Slams.

Not really.

Not really what?

P in VG wrote:But Roger is 5+ years older than Nadal
You are factually wrong on the age difference.
P in VG wrote:In Slam finals he's won 7 of his slams before Rafa on the scene.
The phrase “arrived on the scene” is clearly subjective but if you seriously think that a player (Nadal) who at the time had won two Grand Slams and beaten Federer numerous times, including on hard court(s) and in two Grand Slams has not “arrived on the scene" you are being very silly.

P in VG wrote:Nadal was 19 in 2005.
So what, Nadal was beating Federer since the age of 17 on hard courts.
P in VG wrote:It wasn't until 2007 - 2008 that he had adapted his game and became a major threat on other surfaces.
:roll: It’s widely known in tennis that it’s much easier to adapt your play from clay to hard courts than vice versa.
Post Reply