Dubai 2012 - Final : Federer v Murray

First topic message reminder :

Under Jahu's orders here is the thread.

Much to discuss still on the semis's other thread but when we are ready to move...It will happen here.

Federer might be tired from that semi but if he can play like today.....he has a good chance.

Yes precisely by US 2007 the competition was slowly getting harder. Murray and Djokovic have improved since then.

amritia3ee wrote:Yes precisely by US 2007 the competition was slowly getting harder. Murray and Djokovic have improved since then.

Have they really? Here is Murray (and I like Murray - Craig and Calder)

Murray...

USO 2011 - S (lost to Nadal)
USO 2010 - R32 (lost to Wawrinka)
USO 2009 - R16 (lost to Cilic)
USO 2008 - Final
USO 2007 - R32 - lost to Hyung Taik-Lee

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=560#

Only now Murray (under Lendl) is really a threat to the other Top 3, recall AO 2012.

Djokovic

USO 2011 - W
USO 2010 - F ( lost to Nadal)
USO 2009 - SF (lost to Federer)
USO 2008 - SF (lost to Federer)
USO 2007 - F (lost to Federer)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Novak-Djokovic.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=560#

DelPo is not included here because of his injuries. Since you watch all of Nadal's matches, it is redundant information.

PS: Djokovic is consistent, but lost to a Wee Keira Federer, that too in a 'Golden Era'.

PPS: Murray has a much better record at AO.

Murray and Djokovic are both better players now.
And I didn't mention any weak era, don't put words in my mouth.

amritia3ee wrote:Murray and Djokovic are both better players now.

So were others in 2003-2007.

amritia3ee wrote:And I didn't mention any weak era, don't put words in my mouth.

Lets call it 2003-2007. A rose by any name is still a rose.

Amritia, I still don't know how you can think Fed is great - what's he actually done to achieve greatness in your view? Which of his slams is worthy of being called a great win - you have a reason why each one of them is an easy win against average players - you can't possibly think fed's weak era slams are great acheivements, because it's not logical to do so, given your arguments.

He has, in your opinion, beaten no-one of any consequence to win his slams and merely taken advantage of a weak era. How can that equate to greatness?

I suggest you either say Fed is great, even though you don't believe it, to avoid be labelled a 'hatah' or you bestow greatness upon Fed simply to boost your view of Rafa, despite not thinking of any of Fed's achievements are great.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suggest you either say Fed is great, even though you don't believe it, to avoid be labelled a 'hatah' or you bestow greatness upon Fed simply to boost your view of Rafa, despite not thinking of any of Fed's achievements are great.

Federer is great, but Nadal is greater because he is playing in the 'strong era', that started in 2008, after Nadal won Wimbledon 2008.

Julius... You are a certified Nadal 'hatah'. I am taking my 'ball' and going home. I no longer want to talk to you. Au Revoir!

Let me 'defend' Parera till cows come home and then some.

amritia3ee, why did you run away from your superstitious and routine argument? I didn't really believe, you being the biggest Nadal fan would leave that argument so quickly?

Amritia wrote: "Yes precisely by US 2007 the competition was slowly getting harder. Murray and Djokovic have improved since then.[/quote]"

You mean your post-2007 “harder” competition populated by players like Soderling, Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo, Murray et al are stronger than Roddick, Nalbadian, Hewitt etc of Roger's own generation? You wish! Yeah, I’m very curious. Can you enlighten us and tell us, if these post-2007 youngsters are so much “harder” for Roger, WHY have they been wilting, one by one, mind you, facing the "old" man across the net?

Of course Murray and Djoko have improved. Everyone knows that. But you’ve avoided considering the other side of the argument that at last FO, Roger beat Djoko. Wasn’t Novak #1 of your allegedly WOW! stronger current field, the hottest player on the tour? Now at Dubai, even Lendl’s lessons couldn’t save Murray from breaking down when facing Roger playing in his GOAT mode. Sure, Murray was strong enough to beat Djoko in the dubai semi, but he was still no competition for Roger as recently as last Sat, period. In fact I felt sorry for Murray bc Roger made him look incompetent. And this up-&-down Murray is one of your representative "harder" post-2007 player? LOL Who'd believe you? Who are you trying to deceive?

Conclusion: I'd say thank you Roger, you've made wishful weak era proponents sound completely irrelevant and off-base, bc when you’re in your GOAT mode, there’s no such thing as a strong or weak ear, you can beat them all, anywhere from 2001 to 2012 (except rafa, for now, only for now).

PS:
Hold it. And don’t even try to diminish the Dubai win bc it’s not a slam. Often, the role of these smaller victories is to boost confidence for winning the Big One. In Roger’s case they are virtually prerequisite wins for the ranking points and his declining confidence with age. I noticed you’ve not answered many questions re why Roger is great. Let me give you a hand, if I may. It’s not SIMPLY about the slams. Roger’s greatness is often ALSO attributed to his numerous other UNPRECEDENTED records, such as:

--------how many weeks at #1?
--------how many consecutive slam semis?
--------how many consecutive slam QF?

PPS: Never mind his 16 slams that not one current player even comes close to achieving, he is great and probably the GOAT bc, OVERALL, he has the the most consistent and best records so far. Is this too much to grasp? Cheers!

CS: Welcome back Federer IS a great player CS. You have however failed to mention Nadal has now improved on all surfaces, while Djokovic and Murray have improved a lot, and it these 3 that are challenging federer far better than the likes of roddick and Ljubicic. Meanwhile the likes of roddick and Ljubicic are also very poor defensively.

Raiders: Hello there I can't remember running away from anything. Nadal is very superstitious, it's a fact. The bottles, the routine, and also off-court many things too. You should read his autobiography.

Laver/julius: Do you bother to read my posts? I have explained why he is great on the bottom of page 5, and used the Klit brothers as an example.

amritia3ee wrote:
Raiders: Hello there I can't remember running away from anything. Nadal is very superstitious, it's a fact. The bottles, the routine, and also off-court many things too. You should read his autobiography.

Is that what was being discussed? Whether Nadal is superstitious or not??? You are again running away, changing goal posts like you always do. You wanted to give Nadal's 'routine' and 'superstitious' as not deliberate and hence an excuse for his time wasting. When this claim got tossed up, you find your refuge in changing the topic itself.

Now what you'll do next? Change quotes and post them to suite your argument?? Oh well you have been doing that already in past.


And I have no interest in reading his autobiography, Thank you.

amritia3ee wrote:Laver/julius: Do you bother to read my posts? I have explained why he is great on the bottom of page 5, and used the Klit brothers as an example.

But you've basically said the Klit (be careful how you say it) brothers are great because they're great - same as Fed. That's no argument at all.
I'd like to know why you think Fed is great. What do you think he's done that is worthy of greatness? Because all you've done, in many posts, is make arguments against his greatness. You haven't made a single argument for Fed's greatness. Saying "he's great" is not an argument, it's cop-out.

[quote="amritia3ee"]CS: Welcome back Federer IS a great player CS. You have however failed to mention Nadal has now improved on all surfaces, while Djokovic and Murray have improved a lot, and it these 3 that are challenging federer far better than the likes of roddick and Ljubicic. Meanwhile the likes of roddick and Ljubicic are also very poor defensively.

Yeah, you're right. Glad you've reminded me about 1 factor I failed to mention. The king of clay won most of his slams on clay, beating nobody. He beat Roger who's a lesser (clay) player than him and no way a worthy opponent anyway bc you yourself claim Nadal is superior. So according to your weak era theory, all his clay slams should be discounted bc he won them facing zero competition, what a shame.

No need to push a non-issue: WTF cares who's improving? Did all these surface mprovements help Nadal win anything in the last 10 month? NO!! How about focusing on the real issue for once? Who has established the best records so far in the history books? In fact, if we go by ranking points gained post-USO 11, Roger is #1 now, he's won the most. Now don't tell me you're going to change your mind and say Roger plays in a current weak field now, even weaker than roddick and Ljubicic

I see you've failed to answer a specific question in my previous post. Here it is again: Can you enlighten us and tell us, if these post-2007 youngsters are so
much “harder” for Roger like you claim, WHY have they been wilting, one by one, mind
you, facing the "old" man across the net? A tough one. I can understand you need to take your time.

I think you are all wasting your breath a little. Amrit really wants to create a fan page for Nadal - that's fair enough, but this probably isn't a forum that is the best at accomodating this exclusive hero worship which generally means a thread/any thread will be interrupted with the same four assertions ad nauseum.

Yes I am surprised by the attention Amri gets here.

Me too - I think the day Nadal retires, or a new charismatic star appears on amrit's screen there will be a new poster on the wall and it may have nothing to do with tennis at all.

That is why it is pointless to try and debate tennis. Certain statistics have been absorbed only because of interest in the well stacked one.

Probably better to just leave him/her to it - it's a harmless enough pastime.

Yeah, surprised how people easy take the bait form amri and go on with it.

Tenez, time please & Jahu

You guys are absolutely right. That's my last. Let amritia have a monologue by himself/herself. Logic is better saved for an open mind.

I broke my racket yesterday (a framed forehand and it split apart - well, it was old). So perhaps I was re-directing my frustrating against the absence of logic.

I don't mind people having a point of view or arguments I disagree with - that's bound to happen and is all part of the fun of the forum. But logically inconsistent arguments get my goat (hey, see what I did there.)

Tenez wrote:Yes I am surprised by the attention Amri gets here.

Yes right. I should start using the ignore user feature of 606v2.

I agree it can be amusing to have a little exchange with him/her....but trying to convince him tennis started before Nadal is a tall order!

So are you guys gonna continue bitching about me when I'm not online or actually debate my point.
TP of course Fed is doing well in this era too, he's a great player. He has won Basel, Paris, Dubai, Rotterdam, WTF all in recent times, he is a great player.

Repeat after me...

Davydenko is a great player...
Roddick is a great player...
Ljubicic is a great player
Blake is a great player
Nadal is a great player (that is obvious )
Federer is a great player
Murray is a great player...
Djokovic is a great player....

The is no such thing as Wee Keira...
The is no such thing as Wee Keira...
The is no such thing as Wee Keira...
The is no such thing as Wee Keira...
The is no such thing as Wee Keira...
The is no such thing as Wee Keira...
.....

amritia3ee wrote:So are you guys gonna continue bitching about me when I'm not online or actually debate my point.
TP of course Fed is doing well in this era too, he's a great player. He has won Basel, Paris, Dubai, Rotterdam, WTF all in recent times, he is a great player.

Amrit - I am sure you are a very nice person, but your second sentence is one of the reasons that I won't be responding to you in the future, not because it is offensive or rude in any way, but because it is just too silly for words in its attempts to patronise.

You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone on here has a similar type of hero-worship on the players they like to watch most as you do on your favourite – I don’t think that is so for the majority at all.
Therefore I don’t really feel on the same wavelength conversing with you at all – it feels a bit surreal.

There are many fan forums out there that might provide what you are looking for – namely consensus that Nadal is the greatest player ever, the most wonderful human being etc etc but you are unlikely to be able to turn 606v2 that way.

time please

Thats a bit mean. You don't have to respond to an individual poster but why should you tell anyone they have no place here? Are we all not equal on 606v2? Should we all have to take a tennis fan test before posting?

hawkeye wrote:

Thats a bit mean. You don't have to respond to an individual poster but why should you tell anyone they have no place here? Are we all not equal on 606v2? Should we all have to take a tennis fan test before posting?

The goal is to have a reasonable conversation without repeating the same rhetoric ad infinitum ad nauseam. The conversation being limited to h2h, Miami 2004, etc. does not bring any new insight.

Do you see a difference between how you post and how someone else does? Nadal does not need a 'defender of faith'. A 'defender of faith' implies that the 'faith' itself is weak and cannot stand the scrutiny of reason and logic outside of a specific perspective. That is what TP is alluding to, imvho.

PS: We all start as equals, but the sum of our perspectives and opinions tends to establish how one is 'viewed' in the community.

laverfan

I thought I was defending another poster. I didn't think I was the accused?!

PM for time please.
LF, I can send you a copy if you'd like.

time please : I really do like what you say here. For me (and I sense for many others here) it puts things into perspective in a very balanced, calm, succinct, and - above all - perfectly courteous way.

(I can remember my own big crush in younger days was Olivia Newton John but even then I could never imagine myself referring to her as my 'heroine' .... )

It would be good if Amrit could see the underlying sense of your remarks because if so it would in turn lead to more constructive debate in general.

Your point re 'consensus' is well made. Simple Analyst aka UE (I'm all for differing views but I do hope he's moved on for good ....) followed the childish and totally doomed philosophy of criticising and ridiculing certain players on a daily basis, in the bizarre belief that somehow we would all suddenly conclude that yes, we understand now, you're right, all the players you like are perfection personified and all the ones you don't like are of course rubbish ..........

Veejay wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You have no idea how passionate he is for Nole, or how desperate he was when Fed handed put his foot down.

look forward to the new Fognini thread, it'll be a treat.

That was a huge blow for the weak era theorists,how weak era Roger was the one who ended Djokovics winning streak,the players from the stronger era had several failed attempts yet the old man from the weak era was the one who made Djokovic look completely one diminutional in that match
This is why I sympathise with Socals fogninni excuse,Djokovic had the easiest possible route to the finals since the Monday,was gifted a walk over by Fogninni and then the cup cake semi final with weak era Federer,taking all that into consideration how else would you explain such a loss and defend your weak era theory
But I think the real essence of the hostility towards Fogninni is because I think Socals believes that if Fogninni didn't withdraw Djokovic would have won a calendar slam last season

First off, Roger is not a weak era player, he should be creditted for lifting the bar and more than anyone else getting us out of the doldrums of the early 2000s. You see both me and amiritia qualify our arguments and it seems that the critics on this site fail to acknowledge those qualifications.

When I make a "weaker argument" these are my qualifications which I have restated 100 times and always get ignored:

1. It does not simply reflect on Roger, Agassi and Samrpras to a large extent also benefitted when players like Edberg, Becker went away and weren't replaced by the same type of consistent slam performers.

2. It is never easy in any era to dominate the top of tour

3. All you can ask of any champion is to beat the competition and conditions they are given

As to you Fogi reference, how is 16 time slam winner beating Novak when he is playing great tennis an indicator that this era is not as strong? Would you say the same thing for Andre Agassi reaching number #1 in the world at nearly 33 years old in 2003, or Pete Sampras winning a slam at 31. So you see Veejay I think you assume too much from that one match, Roger is the GOAT, so at 30 he should not be able to compete at all?

socal1976 wrote:Roger is the GOAT

Why? What would you say he's done that deserves that statement? Beaten Roddick, Gonzo, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi and a bunch of other has-been's and never-were's in a weak era? Surely that just makes him good, not great?
All your repeated arguments work against Fed being the GOAT; I've yet to see you state anything he's done to make you think he's the GOAT, yet you say he is.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Roger is the GOAT

Why? What would you say he's done that deserves that statement? Beaten Roddick, Gonzo, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi and a bunch of other has-been's and never-were's in a weak era? Surely that just makes him good, not great?
All your repeated arguments work against Fed being the GOAT; I've yet to see you state anything he's done to make you think he's the GOAT, yet you say he is.

Julius, Roger would be great in any era, but you aren't going to trick me into talking up Roger. He has enough fanboys on this site. I don't know it is like you have difficulty in having a discussion where we are talking about small differences. I will concede the level is always very high on the ATP tour. While the level in difference is somewhat small it is definetly pertinent to discussion and makes a big difference at the very top of the tour. Its effect at the top is magnified. Roger is obviously regardless of discussions about differences in top level competition still superlative.

I just think it's odd that you proclaim him the GOAT (which is talking him up) despite offering no argument as to why, but plenty of arguments as to why not.
It's not a trick. If you're going to say someone is the GOAT, it's reasonable to say why.
I'm not entirely convinced you genuinely think he's the GOAT. It's more likely that by following up your 'Fed had it easy' arguments with 'Oh but he's the GOAT' you hope to come across as more objective/balanced. That's just my theory.

hawkeye wrote:time please

Thats a bit mean. You don't have to respond to an individual poster but why should you tell anyone they have no place here? Are we all not equal on 606v2? Should we all have to take a tennis fan test before posting?

I didn't say that at all hawkeye - I am just making a point that the majority of us don't want every single thread hijacked the same way with the same repetitive post, some of which are a little 'passive aggressive' imvho.

I am pointing out that I understand fandom - and there are forums that really scratch that itch - perhaps amrit needs to understand other viewpoints on a forum that caters for a lot of different opinions and post accordingly with respect for that if he/she is to get a good response on here?. It is not his/her opinions I mind, it is other posters being jeered at for theirs in the same way, thread after thread and on and on and on.

So Time Please, so you want me to leave so due to my comments which upset Federer fans. I didn't even criticise Federer. What I said, I admit, can be seen as indirectly affecting Federer. So i should leave for saying something which could perhaps indirectly mean negative implications for Roger Federer.
Interesting, 'perhaps amrit needs to understand...' interesting but slightly patronising.

Meanwhile after I leave for saying something which indirectly could affect Roger Federer all the Nadal haters can constantly continuously bash him without reply. You think my comments are irritating for Federer fans?, what about the constant 'nadal is the death of tennis' brigade. And I'm not allowed to respond or i will get criticised by Laverfan for 'defending nadal.'
You call me 'passive aggressive' for suggesting Federer's competition has got harder with the introduction of Nadal and Djokovic, but should we celebrate the posters who post 'Nadal is the death of tennis' one every two lines. Is that nor aggressive in your book?
I don't want this to turn into any sort of Nadal fan site forum, but it would be good to have balance. Currently there are 2 regular Nadal fans who use the site, and after i leave it will be down to 1 by my count. Many Nadal fans who left told me that they left due to the relentlessness of the hate. I am 100% sure you will come on and say completely hypocritically how we 'should accept others views.' ...And then go on to say i should leave the site for suggesting Nadal and Djokovic has made the competition harder for Federer. Completely hypocritical.

time please wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:So are you guys gonna continue bitching about me when I'm not online or actually debate my point.
TP of course Fed is doing well in this era too, he's a great player. He has won Basel, Paris, Dubai, Rotterdam, WTF all in recent times, he is a great player.

Amrit - I am sure you are a very nice person, but your second sentence is one of the reasons that I won't be responding to you in the future, not because it is offensive or rude in any way, but because it is just too silly for words in its attempts to patronise.

You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone on here has a similar type of hero-worship on the players they like to watch most as you do on your favourite – I don’t think that is so for the majority at all.
Therefore I don’t really feel on the same wavelength conversing with you at all – it feels a bit surreal.

There are many fan forums out there that might provide what you are looking for – namely consensus that Nadal is the greatest player ever, the most wonderful human being etc etc but you are unlikely to be able to turn 606v2 that way.

I'm sorry, but I think that this goes too far - if you feel you can't engage with amrit don't respond to his posts and leave it to others.

amritia, TP did not say that he wanted you to leave. He suggested that if you are not happy on this forum, you might be happier on a different forum. That's not the same thing.

At no point did he suggest you not respond to other posters comments.

Aggression towards other posters is, of course, against site rules. Aggressive, or negative, comments about a player less so.

barrystar wrote:

time please wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:So are you guys gonna continue bitching about me when I'm not online or actually debate my point.
TP of course Fed is doing well in this era too, he's a great player. He has won Basel, Paris, Dubai, Rotterdam, WTF all in recent times, he is a great player.

Amrit - I am sure you are a very nice person, but your second sentence is one of the reasons that I won't be responding to you in the future, not because it is offensive or rude in any way, but because it is just too silly for words in its attempts to patronise.

You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone on here has a similar type of hero-worship on the players they like to watch most as you do on your favourite – I don’t think that is so for the majority at all.
Therefore I don’t really feel on the same wavelength conversing with you at all – it feels a bit surreal.

There are many fan forums out there that might provide what you are looking for – namely consensus that Nadal is the greatest player ever, the most wonderful human being etc etc but you are unlikely to be able to turn 606v2 that way.

I'm sorry, but I think that this goes too far - if you feel you can't engage with amrit don't respond to his posts and leave it to others.

Okay barry - you have a perfect right to feel that I was out of order and comment on it. I take your point and I am sorry if I have offended anybody by speaking my mind.

I would just like to clarify one point. I did not suggest amrit should leave, and I think that anybody reading that into my post should read again carefully.

the point I made was that it is irritating on a forum that in the main has a wide range of opinions and tolerance of to have posters aggressively hijacking every thread with the same post.

I do, however, understand that some are real fans of one character but maybe that excessively pro one player and his h2h etc etc is better kept for a fan forum and posts here are just adapted a little bit to fit into a general conversation and encourage debate rather than suffocate it.

I understood you very well TP!

time please wrote:I would just like to clarify one point. I did not suggest amrit should leave, and I think that anybody reading that into my post should read again carefully.

the point I made was that it is irritating on a forum that in the main has a wide range of opinions and tolerance of to have posters aggressively hijacking every thread with the same post.

I do, however, understand that some are real fans of one character but maybe that excessively pro one player and his h2h etc etc is better kept for a fan forum and posts here are just adapted a little bit to fit into a general conversation and encourage debate rather than suffocate it.

Loved your choice of word "suffocate" here TP

OK TP, I see. But do you not think that the repetitive 'i hate nadal' bashing is great?
Or will you say 'everyone has different opinions which can be expressed' but then not mention how this rule applies to some posters but not others. You've told me to 'adapt' my comments (i didn't even seen them as anti-Fed at all, i said he was a great player), but never mentioned it to any of the anti-Nadal posters.

NITB your 'Nadal is the death of tennis' comment suffocates me. And I've seen you post that more than once.
But of course i forgot some rules only apply to some posters.

amritia3ee wrote:I don't want this to turn into any sort of Nadal fan site forum, but it would be good to have balance.

Does your next statement 'indicate' balance?

amritia3ee wrote:Currently there are 2 regular Nadal fans who use the site, and after i leave it will be down to 1 by my count.

This is strange. HE, Lydian, Amritia3ee, LK (who just wrote an article on Nadal). I am not a Hottentot (or KhoiKhoi), but that is four. I consider myself a fan of Tennis, not a specific player, which includes Nadal, so that makes it five.

By counting the way you do and portraying yourself as a minority, who needs consideration outside the community, it does not seem appropriate.

By your method of counting, there are two Djokovic fans, SoCal and NiTB, they discuss and hang out. They have differing opinions of Federer, Nadal and Murray and other players, which they have a right to.

amritia3ee wrote:Many Nadal fans who left told me that they left due to the relentlessness of the hate.

Every poster makes individual choices, like you do.

amritia3ee wrote: I am 100% sure you will come on and say completely hypocritically how we 'should accept others views.' ...And then go on to say i should leave the site for suggesting Nadal and Djokovic has made the competition harder for Federer. Completely hypocritical.

There are many Murray fans. Murray gets blasted here on a regular basis, but some of his fans are still here. Craig, Calder, LK and a lot of others who like his game (including myself).

JuliusHMarx wrote:I just think it's odd that you proclaim him the GOAT (which is talking him up) despite offering no argument as to why, but plenty of arguments as to why not.
It's not a trick. If you're going to say someone is the GOAT, it's reasonable to say why.
I'm not entirely convinced you genuinely think he's the GOAT. It's more likely that by following up your 'Fed had it easy' arguments with 'Oh but he's the GOAT' you hope to come across as more objective/balanced. That's just my theory.

Well if you believe your read on my intentions is more accurate than what I say is my objective then there really isn't anything I can say to convince you.

I have done numerous lists of the greatest and have always from old 606 till present listed Fed at the top. I have even done threads on this very site praising Roger and his activities on and off the court. If I was on a site that was filled with posters like Lion who claim that Roger would win zero slams in the Pete and Andre era and that he is a swiss shanker you would see me defend Fed as voiciferously as I qualify Roger on this site. On this site Fed as great as he is gets way too much pumping up, and way too much knocking of his contemporaries, so I don't have the incentive to talk up Roger.

socal1976 wrote:Well if you believe your read on my intentions is more accurate than what I say is my objective then there really isn't anything I can say to convince you.

Just 3 reasons? Go on, humour an old man (well, middle-aged).
Pretend I'm Simple_Analyst, grudgingly putting Fed around number 10 of the all-time greats, if I'm feeling generous, and pointing out that all his slams were against weak era clowns (S_A was great user of the word 'clown'). You'd say, no Fed is the GOAT because...
1.
2.
3.

It's not a trick, a con or a hustle, I'd just like to understand.

1. consistent level of success (both before and after the arrival of the new generation)

2. 16 slams, speaks for themselves

3. And his completeness as an athlete and tennis player. A player that when he is on can do it all. Attack and defend, and in this way he is actually the most proficient disciple of the modern game that I trumpet. Very fast, very fit, good hands, good volleys, and probably most lethal forehand in the history of the game. Serve and return. In all areas he is pretty much good to great, and his weaknesses are relative weaknesses. Ie he is not as good a returner as the best in the game, but he is still pretty good. Or backhand wise.

I too have said Roger Federer is the GOAT many times here. Why? Well he has won a record sixteen slams (and a slam is a slam in any era), coupled with his other achievements which accumulate to the GOAT in my eyes. Now if I come across as one pointing to his era as weak I would honestly say it is only done so as so many Fed fans are intent on painting the current era as weak or slating Nadal and Djokovic's achievements which I find is so unsporting and downright bitter. I can handle it if they don't like the brand of tennis they play but it goes far deeper than that as can be read in the posts. The obsession with weak era/strong era really is all pointless as you are never going to get people to agree on that front but we still carry on going around in circles.

Craig, hits the nail on the head. I wouldn't feel the need to have these debates if the fed fans weren't so intent on knocking down the accomplishments of the great players of today. The argument, and we have seen this from the extreme fed fans on this site goes like this. Novak, Nadal, and Murray win because their opponents just get tired, and their opponent gets tired because the conditions are unfairly slow. Ergo Novak, Nadal, and Murray only win because of unfairly slowed conditions and are not really that great for winning on green clay as the expression goes.

Thanks, I promise I won't hold it against you

I've never differentiated between a few top players myself - it's just too hard to compare e.g. Laver and Fed, or even Sampras and Fed. I tend to put them all as equal. There's no definitive, set criteria to make the assessment.

I will say that I think more people are intent on portraying other eras as weak, than they are the current one.

TP, I understand your frustration. I think amrit’s behaviour reflects a general anguish amongst Nadal fans these days. I say this bc I’ve noticed in the other forum where I’ve posted regularly for over a year that, when Nadal was doing well, his fans are more tolerant of Fed and will even acknowledge that Roger is GOAT. But when things start to look a bit cloudy for Nadal, and it has been cloudy for a LONG time since FO 11, his fans’ mood started to change and their comments got cloudy too. They seem to turn bitter and disoriented, saying silly things they never did when Rafa was #1. For some, it’s almost as though if they repeat the weak era BS enough, they can actually start to believe in nadal’s ability to win again or feel less horrified by Fed’s victories.

There’s at least one Amrit in every forum. I don’t think they consciously mean to do anyone any harm. Fans are fans. Weird things happen to us. There is a co-relationship between rafa’s losses and the appearances of posts denigrating Fed. The more rafa loses, the more insecure his fans become and the more Roger gets bashed. Ouch! Yes, Amrit stifles conversation for lack of depth. But I’ve noticed most people don’t take him seriously. Maybe you’re giving him more credit than he deserves? He can cry all he wants but doesn’t really have the slightest power to change anything at 606, imvhp. So I won’t worry about it.