Roger Federer

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:37 am

French Open Champion.

Federer has now equalled Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam Titles.

Pistol Pete never won a French Open and was never even really close to making a serious run at it.
So by virtue of claiming this title and equalling the total "slam" number as Pete, most folks will regard Federer as the greater player.
There's no reason to think he won't easily surpass that 14 number, either.
If he remains healthy and hungry, it's conceivable that Federer could approach having 20 grand slam titles in the bag.

So "Roger Federer is the greatest player of all-time" will be a common take.

Is he?

For what it's worth to the discussion, "slams" was not really THE standard for greatness ... until really the last 20 years-or-so.

Even as recently as the McEnroe, Connors, etc. era, players were often skipping the Australian Open.
And some of them, the French Open, too.

Laver, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Don Budge, etc., didn't rack up slams because it just simply was not the standard of greatness that it has seemingly now become.

I'd place Federer easily in the top 5 of all-time ... right now.

Federer kicks Pete's ass all over the place on clay.
Pete prolly wins close on grass.
And on a hard court ... toss up, maybe a slight edge to Roger.

jmo

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:44 am

The fact he didn't have to get past Nadal taints this record. That match today wasn't even worth watching.

Regardless, he's still one of the best, if not the best, ever.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:50 am

War Wagon wrote:The fact he didn't have to get past Nadal taints this record.

No it doesn't. It's up to Nadal to make the finals, not up to Federer for Nadal to get there. Federer can only play the opponent who makes it through to the finals. Applying "sports logic," if Soderling beats Nadal, and Federer beats Soderling, then it's "logical" to assume Federer woulda beaten Nadal. Regardless of how specious that argument is, Federer's victory is in no way tainted.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:56 am

I agree, Smackie.

Federer did beat Nadal in this tournament.

"Taint" was a bit too strong of a term to be used for the point that Wagon wanted to make.

It would have made it very ... EPIC ... if Roger had beaten Rafa in the final, say.

Lick my taint, Wagon.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:00 am

poptart wrote:It would have made it very ... EPIC ... if Roger had beaten Rafa in the final, say.

Sure it woulda. Just like it woulda been very ... EPIC ... if the Cavs coulda been playing the Lakers in the Finals.

Guess if LA wins, their victory will be tainted. too.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:04 am

Sure it's tainted.

Nadal was and still is the 900 lb. gorilla on Federers' back at the French, and no, I'm not talking about Serena.

'tart, did you see the womens final? Svetlana Kutznekova (whatever her name is) punished Safina so bad, the worlds #1 ranked player was left sobbing on her knees after double faulting on match point. Just brutal.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:11 am

Smackie Chan wrote: Sure it woulda. Just like it woulda been very ... EPIC ... if the Cavs coulda been playing the Lakers in the Finals.

Guess if LA wins, their victory will be tainted. too.

Except that there's no comparison between a team sport and an individual sport. And the fact that Orlando is a much better team than Cleveland and beat them in the season series, while if Sodering played Nadal 100 times, Rafa would win 99 of those matches.

Other than that, smackie... just an excellent take.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:12 am

punished

was left sobbing on her knees

Just brutal

- Kid Nashville thread

I didn't see the ladies final, Wags.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:15 am

War Wagon wrote:Sure it's tainted.

OK, you're right. Put an asterisk next to it and give Rog 13.5 Slams. Better?

Nadal was and still is the 900 lb. gorilla on Federers' back

Maybe he was, but apparently he's lost weight.

Whether we're talking team sport or individual sport, you have to earn your way into a chance to win all the marbles. Nadal didn't earn it, and Federer did.

Other than that, Wags, just an excellent taint.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:22 am

Nadal being upset this year isn't Federer's fault. Are we just going to not recognize any of Federer's slam titles where Nadal was knocked out early? While we're at it, how about all Sampras' titles not against Agassi shouldn't count either...

Sorry Wags, I heard that argument right after Nadal lost and I didn't buy it then. Someone finally beat Nadal in the French and it happened to not be Federer...again, how is that his fault?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:26 am

Smackie Chan wrote:No it doesn't. It's up to Nadal to make the finals, not up to Federer for Nadal to get there. Federer can only play the opponent who makes it through to the finals. Applying "sports logic," if Soderling beats Nadal, and Federer beats Soderling, then it's "logical" to assume Federer woulda beaten Nadal. Regardless of how specious that argument is, Federer's victory is in no way tainted.

^^Gets it.

If Nadal can't beat Soderling this year, there's no reason to believe he's going to beat Federer this year.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:27 am

Shoalzie wrote:Nadal being upset this year isn't Federer's fault. Are we just going to not recognize any of Federer's slam titles where Nadal was knocked out early? While we're at it, how about all Sampras' titles not against Agassi shouldn't count either...

Sorry Wags, I heard that argument right after Nadal lost and I didn't buy it then. Someone finally beat Nadal in the French and it happened to not be Federer...again, how is that his fault?

The right thing to have done woulda been to just give Nadal the trophy two weeks ago. No sense in actually playing the games since we all know who's best.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:30 am

I agree that it would've been better for Federer's psyche to beat Nadal straight up on his way to his first French title, but the fact remains that it was only a couple weeks ago that Federer did beat Nadal on clay. Then, in this tournament, he smoked the guy who booted Nadal.

Like Smackie said, it's not Federer's responsibility to choose his opponents. It's their job to test him.

Is Federer the best ever? Well, Pete was 31 when he won his fourteenth Slam, and Federer's only 27. Pete played in all the Slams, every year, so pop's point about the reduced importance of Slams in other eras doesn't apply to Pete.

Federer's also won a career Slam, which Pete never managed. Federer is the second best clay court player on the planet, and he has been for a long time. Federer has four Finals appearances plus another appearance in the Semis, and now he has a title, compared to Pete never even getting a sniff in Paris.

So, on that score, forget about it. Federer will definitely go down as being #1, at least compared to Pete.

The flip side though is that Federer spent a lot of his career having no real competition, and certainly no real rival. Even now, Nadal is his sole rival. Pete played in a much more competitive era, and people like Connors, McEnroe and Laver also played in much more competitive eras.

It goes back to the Marciano/Larry Holmes/Mike Tyson/Lennox Lewis argument, where many people feel their reigns and their legacies were diminished by the lack of competition they faced, relative to other, more competitve eras.

I think it's safe to say though that by the time Federer is done, yep, his numbers will be so far ahead of everybody else's that he'll go down as the greatest ever. If Nadal doesn't jump up and stop him, once and for all, Federer will end up with just obscene career numbers. There will be no room for debate.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:47 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: If Nadal can't beat Soderling this year, there's no reason to believe he's going to beat Federer this year.

Maybe.

And maybe Nadal was so accustomed to simply cruising thru the French Open draw until he met up with Federer in the final that he underestimated and overlooked Soderling. It's been known to happen.

That said, I'm taking nothing away from 'Roger the Great'. He did what he had to do and he now owns 14 Grand Slams. But until he beats Nadal at the French open, there will always be that monkey on his back.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:52 am

To a degree, true. That degree has now been reduced, though.

Yer a Fuckin Jerkoff · Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:02 pm

Great discussion thus far but no pics of Federer's girlfriend?

I practically bust a nut every time they show her in the stands.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:36 pm

I guess we can just leave it at "two really, really good tennis players, one of which hasn't figured out how to slide properly".

If we are gonna ask greatest, evah, I still gotta go with Bjorn who racked up some pretty serious hardware before retiring wayyyyyyyyy too early. I'm still pissed off at that fukker for depriving us of more Borg/Mac wars.

Most everyone in sports hangs around too long. The only guy I can think of who can match Bjorn for walking away much too soon is Jim Brown. I guess Barry Sanders gets an honorable mention, maybe.

L45B · Post by **L45B** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:49 pm

...did you see the womens final? Svetlana Kutznekova (whatever her name is) punished Safina so bad, the worlds #1 ranked player was left sobbing on her knees after double faulting on match point. Just brutal.

Brutal is an understatement. For a second, I thought I was watching the men's final. Almost as bad as watching Amelie Macheezmo versus that dude Martin. Please, pleeease can we get a final between Ana Ivanovic and Anastasia Myskina soon?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:01 pm

War Wagon wrote:But until he beats Nadal at the French open, there will always be that monkey on his back.

I nominate this as one of the worst takes of all-time.

General Peters · Post by **General Peters** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:29 pm

L45B wrote:Please, pleeease can we get a final between Ana Ivanovic and Anastasia Myskina soon?

We SHOULD. Saturday's final was lackluster, but I was able to knock out an "appreciation jerk" to Slevkava whatever her name is just because she beat that fukken heinous beast-'groid that some of you think is sooooo good-looking.

I'll take Saturday's final any day of the week over any match involving one of those hideous apes.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:31 pm

smackaholic wrote:Bjorn

Brilliant player and one of the greatest athletes tennis has ever seen.

Retired so young (age 26) but remember that he started so young -- age 15.

Had a higher career winning pct than Federer -- 82.6% for Borg to 80.7% for Roger.

Borg won 11 grand slam titles but could have easily had more if he had not routinely skipped the Aussie Open.

Again, slams were not considered THE measuring stick when Borg was playing.

The monkey on Borg's back, of course, is that he never got over the hump at the U.S. Open.

If Borg were matched v. Federer here's what I see.

Clay - Borg wins fairly comfortably -- greatest dirt player evar
Grass - Coin flip -- maybe the slightest of edges to Bjorn
Hard - Federer wins

pron · Post by **pron** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:44 pm

Yer a Fuckin Jerkoff wrote:Great discussion thus far but no pics of Federer's girlfriend?

Youhavegottobeshittingme, WTF is an elite world class athlete doing with a hog like that??

Damnit, that is just wrong. :x

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:44 pm

War Wagon wrote:But until he beats Nadal at the French open, there will always be that monkey on his back.

Your argument has morphed from "Federer's victory is tainted" to "Federer has to beat Nadal in the French Open to get the monkey off his back." These are two separate and distinct arguments with little to no relation to each other. Granted, they're both idiotic (that's expected), but the second one at least merits some discussion.

First, let's establish that Federer isn't going to EVER lose any sleep if he never beats Nadal in the French Open finals. His place in tennis history is already secured. Second, the real issue here is can Federer go down in history as the best player of his era on all surfaces. Even if Nadal had made the finals and Federer would've beaten him, Nadal would still be considered a better clay court player during their respective careers. For that to change, Federer will have to consistently beat Nadal a few times to wrest that distinction away from Nadal. Finally, the more appropriate cliche that would describe a Federer French Open finals victory over Nadal would be "icing on the cake" rather than "getting the monkey off his back." No such monkey exists, and the only way Federer's victory yesterday could even be remotely considered to be tainted would be if Nadal was eliminated by poor officiating or some other injustice. But that's not what happened.

It's quite simple, really. The French Open was played, Nadal lost fair and square to a player who most everyone would consider to be inferior, and Federer won by beating the inferior opponent, which is what champions do. Case closed.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:35 pm

pop, Borg is my all time favorite, and he played against some hellacious competition. His era was like the 70's era for heavyweight boxing.

Hard to compare eras, though, at least in one respect: equipment. I just can't see Borg and his wooden racket and his lack of power being able to stand up to Federer's more modern game. We saw the beginnings of this issue with Agassi being unable to hold off Sampras, especially towards the end.

Borg's stoic baseline athleticism would not have been enough to keep Federer's power from running him off the court.

Now, let them play in the same era, with the same equipment? Little bit different. I don't think the final result changes though, not unless Borg's game also changes. He would've needed to be more aggressive, offensively. Relying on Federer to make the first mistake isn't going to work, not when Federer's already won the point with some forehand blast down the line.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:07 pm

mvscal, like I said, it's difficult to compare eras.

Even with modern equipment, Borg still would've needed a more aggressive offensive game. Sitting back there on the baseline and wearing down your opponent by being a machine who never makes the first mistake is just not going to be enough to get it done against Federer. Federer simply isn't going to get involved in marathon points, not on any consistent basis. If Borg doesn't find a way to press the issue, well, Federer's power would be too much.

We saw it with Evert getting eclipsed by Navratilova and Agassi getting swamped by Sampras.

Borg's lack of a dominant serve was okay against the likes of Connors and McEnroe, but it would've been too much of a liability against Federer's precise power. Borg would've had a tough time breaking Federer's serve, and his own lack of a dominant serve would've allowed Federer to break him all too often.

Who knows, though? Maybe in this era his game translates into Nadal's game?

I don't know. Nobody knows. I only know that his game would've needed to be very different, in order to successfully compete with Federer.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:44 pm

It's nearly impossible to make any meaningful comparisons between athletes of different eras in any sport, though it doesn't keep everyone from trying. Different equipment, different physical characteristics of the players, different training regimens, different steroid potencies, etc, render it an exercise in futility.

Would Borg be using a wooden racket today? Of course not. Would his training be different than it was back then? Most certainly. Given all the "what ifs," the best we can do is say he would be competitive in today's era, but there's no way to tell if he could beat Federer or Nadal or Roddick any of the top-ranked players.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:00 pm

Thank you Marcus Allen.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:02 pm

mvscal wrote: Harajuku must be a Japanese buffet.

Wrong again. Do you EVER get tired of being wrong?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:02 pm

You're welcome, Jon Lovitz.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:08 pm

I get it. He's 5 10. Good one.

Do they continue you on to 6th grade if you keep posting such killer shit?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:15 pm

Smackie wrote:It's nearly impossible to make any meaningful comparisons between athletes of different eras in any sport, though it doesn't keep everyone from trying.

Completely agree, and yes, it is fun to at least try. If you're old enough, which you are, and I am, your natural inclination is to try to compare what you saw with what you're seeing now.

Obviously, Jim Brown wouldn't be nearly as special in today's NFL, not if he remained the Jim Brown of the 60's. George Mikan, or Bill Russell, same deal.

Joe Louis or Marciano would've struggled, big time, against latter era foes.

In these instances, it's difficult to cross eras. They would've needed to change with the era.

Two areas where I don't see this being nearly as true would be certain aspects of baseball and basketball. Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson would still be dominant today, even with their 60's era stuff. Bob Cousy and Oscar Robertson would still be dominant today, just as Chris Paul is, and Jason Kidd and John Stockton recently were.

Also, Sugar Ray Robinson would've been Sugar Ray Robinson in any era. The dominant middleweights, and pretty much anything below the heavyweights, they would've fared well in any era.

Tennis? Nope. Can't cross eras. Old time players, their games would not have translated to today's game. They would've had to be different players to make it in today's much faster and more powerful game.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:16 pm

Moving Sale wrote:I get it.

No, you don't, and likely never will.

He's 5 10.

I wouldn't know. Never been close enough to him to tell.

Good one.

As if you'd ever be able to judge.

Do they continue you on to 6th grade if you keep posting such killer shit?

Killer shit like endlessly repeating 5th grade and vapid? That wouldn't get me out of pre-school.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:17 pm

Van wrote: If you're old enough, which you are, and I am, your natural inclination is to try to compare what you saw with what you're seeing now.

Is there another way?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:19 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:No, you don't, and likely never will.

Guess it wasn't a very good joke then. Try again later.

Killer shit like endlessly repeating 5th grade and vapid? That wouldn't get me out of pre-school.

Oh I get it. People dump 5th grade smack on me but it's my fault for calling them out. Got it.
As for 'vapid' ... if the shoe fits.

Fucking dolt.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:20 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Van wrote: If you're old enough, which you are, and I am, your natural inclination is to try to compare what you saw with what you're seeing now.
Is there another way?

Yes, there is. If you're not very old you won't have anything to compare. All you really know is what you're seeing now.

A kid in college doesn't have nearly the frame of reference for making era comparisons that you do, or I do, or Smackie does.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:26 pm

Van wrote:A kid in college doesn't have nearly the frame of reference for making era comparisons that you do, or I do, or Smackie does.

How do you know? You just dropped Mr. Basketball name. Were you really following BB in the early '40's? Man you ARE an old fuck.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:27 pm

Brownie wrote:I highly doubt that. He was 6'2" 230 with both speed and power. There is no reason to believe that he would be anything other than completely dominant in any era.

And he is black so he is GPD2V so he has that going for him huh Brownie?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:32 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Obviously, Jim Brown wouldn't be nearly as special in today's NFL,
I highly doubt that. He was 6'2" 230 with both speed and power. There is no reason to believe that he would be anything other than completely dominant in any era.

6'2", 230 lbs with speed makes him a dime-a-dozen in today's NFL. Back then, competing against mostly slow, small, white guys? He stood out like, well, Marion Motley.

Today? There are safeties who are bigger and faster. Hell, there are wide outs who are that big.

That's not to say he wouldn't have still been dominant, by being even bigger, stronger and faster now, because of modern training methods. Leave him as the player he was in the '60s, nope, he doesn't dominate now. He could still be good now, and maybe even great, but he wouldn't be the physically dominating freak he was in his own era.

Sandy Koufax would still dominate now, with his 60s era stuff. His stuff would cross eras. Jim Brown's physical dominance would no longer exist, not if he took his '60s era game to today's era.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:33 pm

mvscal wrote:Well he certainly does have a very long and extensive record of violent behavior.

Draw your own conclusions.

I have and I would suspect you have too. He is black and you are a racist after all.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:37 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:No, you don't, and likely never will.
Guess it wasn't a very good joke then.

No, it just means you're not real sharp, as if that needed reinforcement.

Oh I get it.

Quit lying. (Use this as a hint for what you fail to get.)

Fucking dolt.

Breaking out your killer material, I see.