Who's the GOAT?: Federer the greatest

Eurosport - Thu, 20 May 08:05:00 2010

Roger Federer would overcome Pete Sampras if the two men met at the peak of their powers in a Greatest Of All Time final.

Comment 32 - 51 of 51

1 2 3 Next »

Sort comments by: Most recent | Most rated

And i wanted to add that the point of the 2001 match was when pete hit a fantastic angled half volley from a defensive position that would have been a clear winner against almost anyone but roger hit a casual backhand flick winner down the line as he has so many times over the years and that shot was impossible...i cannot think of anyone who could have hit a winner from that position. In fact no could believe what they were seeing, but there it was.
From Anindita, on Sat 24 Dec 5:16
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
When i saw Federer play against Sampras in 2001 At Wimbledon it was apparent that he was no ordinary player. His movement (one word etheral) in that match made Sampras look slow.(Granted Sampras was 29 or 30, but earlier on in his career people said he moved like oil as he was like a panther on the court). Federer's use of spins, speed (huge power or @#$%) and angles made Sampras look ordinary at times. Federer's return of serve was clearly better than Sampras and his explosiveness on the return reminded me of Becker or Agassi. The only reason Sampras remained in the match was because of his power on the serve and occasionally on his groundies. On that day Federer reminded me of Becker, Edberg and Agassi rolled into one and i thought i have never seen a 19 year old with such a complete game. Sure both Becker and Agassi were phenoms at that age, but neither had such a complete game at that age(Becker's did not have the angles on his strokes or touch, Agassi the serve and mental make up) and i thought he could win on any surface. He showed a champoins game and mind on that day and though it took a little longer we were privileged to see the emergence of an icon on that day. If Nadal had not arrived on the scene on 2005 Federer could have won the grand slam twice, but how fortunate we are to have both of these all time greats play at the same time!
From Anindita, on Sat 24 Dec 2:39
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
FEDERER is GOAT....! There is doubt..! Dont just consider how many meetings he won against Nadal or how many Grand slams he has..........Go and watch his game...you will just enjoy it ..! He Plays so beautifully !!!! According to me this is what makes him GREATEST...! ROGER FEDERER IS THE BEST..!
From Madhura, on Wed 9 Mar 6:53
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
Lovin' the draw LOL!
Although Pete's volleys are impressive, you really see the mechanics, mental & tactical talent Federer has in finding every angle possible in the rallies & limiting his opponents shot options, which I find far more impressive.
His mechanics, footwork and ease of movement is just other world. He finds seemingly impossible angles in mid air, when his feet aren't even on the ground. He's a wonder to watch, to the point where you feel like you need to record every match he plays because his talent doesn't come around twice.
Pete's style reminds me a bit too much of ping pong, quick points aren't every entertaining...Federer ALL DAY!
They both get points for class on and off the court.
Someone needs to release all Grand Slam final wins for Federer (16) and Sampras (13), you'd think it would be a given, everything else is on DVD.
I'd buy all 16 Federer GS final if it was out tomorrow. I already have 3 & the 4th round match against Sampras
From RFederer-N-Pats*Fan*Grl, on Fri 4 Mar 20:23
- 1
- 0
- Report abuse
Federer is one of the two GOATS. Whether we like it or not it's all about grand slams. Federer is the grand slam leader with 16 but when it comes to pure grand slam meeting s between the two, Nadal leads Federer 6-2 which makes Nadal one of the two GOATS. May be only one will stood later as the lone GOAT if Federer can beat Nadal in more grand slam meetings OR Nadal can break that 16 GS Fed record. Both are difficult to do but one could happen. Good luck to both.
From EDDIE, on Fri 4 Mar 16:39
- 1
- 0
- Report abuse
Undoubtedly to this point Roger Federer is the GOAT. He has won the most grand slams than any other player and hes still 29yrs old. He was also never vulnerable on clay, Nadal was just too good. If it wasnt for Nadal getting in his way, he probably would have had won 3 or 4 French Open titles, which is completely contrary to Sampras, who only managed to reach a SF. One must also look at efficiency, Federer has outstanding statistics, winning 81.4% of all his matches, Sampras 77.3%.
At peak form, Federer would have beaten Sampras like he did in 2001. OK, Sampras wasnt at his peak then, but neither was Federer. But Federer also beat Agassi, Sampra's main rival, relatively easily on a number of occasions, when Agassi was at his peak.
With regards to the scientific model showing Jimmy Connors as the best player, the explanation is simple. Jimmy Connors had a very prolonged career, winning over 1000 matches. Federer still has 757 wins. Assuming he keeps playing for another 3 or 4 years and reaches 900-1000 wins, even this flawed model will likely prove Federer the best player of all times! END OF STORY
From stavrinidesg, on Fri 4 Mar 16:25
- 0
- 1
- Report abuse
I certainly don't agree that Jimmy Connors is the greatest even if scientific trials say he is. He was a 'street fighter' of a player, but hadn't got much finesse. He was all at sea when he played Arthur Ashe in the Wimbledon final. Ashe simply did his homework and played the match accordingly and most beautifully. I think that Federer would have lost the first set, but then would have got to work and that would have been that. Roger Federer, when he was younger, had the whole range of shots that he could play from anywhere on the court. Many of his opponents just didn't know where the next shot was going. The spin and slice and different pace of the ball played was amazing to see. He is still a great although he is now in the autum of his career. I do hope that when he reaches 35 he will play in the vets - it will be a pleasure to watch him. In my mind, as well as thousands of others, he is the greatest of all time - this from a real Rod Laver fan!
S
From Alan, on Fri 4 Mar 11:29
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
And Federer had beaten Nadal on grass, hard and clay.
From Teodora, on Tue 25 May 10:09
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
Some of these comments are ridiculous. Nadal has beaten Federer on 3 of the 4 surfaces, with only the US Open eluding him. How dumb are some of you writing that he can only beat Fed on clay? He's beaten him in the Aussie Final, Wimbledon Final, and French Open Final. Get your facts straights.
From DaveK, on Mon 24 May 14:41
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
EDDIE - how can you call Nadal "the true number 1"? Surely the true number one is the guy who has won 3 of the last 4 slams and reached the final of the other, not the guy who only has a few clay court masters, an appalling record against top 10 players, and who lost all three matches at the Tour Finals in straight sets?
To say Nadal is a greater, or even better, player than Federer based on a head-to-head is ludicrous. I don't hear people claiming that Krajicek is a better player than Sampras. The truth is, the Nadal-Federer H2H is due to a freak match-up issue. Nothing more, nothing less. If Rafa were right-handed - or if Roger used a two-handed backhand - it would be a lot more even. Rafa's game seems almost scientifically designed to cause Roger problems, but Rafa's record against the rest of the field simply does not match up to Roger's. At the end of their careers, the H2H will be little more than a footnote.
Also, if Rafa actually achieved anything during the post-Wimbledon season, they'd have met each other more times on fast hard-courts, where the advantage is Roger's. It isn't Roger's fault that, while Rafa is the only player who can stop Roger on the clay, Rafa has at least 5 players who can stop him on hard courts - and they usually do so before he reaches the final. If Rafa's knees hold up and Del Potro struggles with injury, he might make it to 10 or 11 slams if he's lucky, but I can't see him getting any more, or ever winning the US Open.
The figures just speak to themselves. 16 slams, career slam across 3 surfaces, 4 WTFs, on the verge of breaking the record for weeks at number 1. But more than that, watch the guy play - he brings an effortless elegance to the sport which few have even come close to.
From Mark, on Sun 23 May 15:00
- 1
- 0
- Report abuse
Now you guy's will say second goat is murray and might be there is some other player's out there who had better h2h with federer . And is that mean federer was goat at 20 when he beat sampras .
From captain america, on Sat 22 May 2:15
- 1
- 0
- Report abuse
In last 5 year in roland garros nadal had 4 finals and 1 fourth round on the other hand federer had 4 finals and 1 semi finals . Rest is up for you think and pay some respect to federer.
From captain america, on Sat 22 May 2:06
- 0
- 0
- Report abuse
To reach Federer's level, first of all, Nadal has to come to the GS finals.
Eventhough the clay is Nadal's best surface he could not make it five times in a row, on the other hand, the master Federer made it five times in a row in two different grand slams and on two different surfaces.
How dare you people even compare Federer with Nadal. Who is doing this argument is just a nationalist who speaks Spanish, but noone else.
FEDERER WILL BE ALL AROUND BUT YOU WILL ONLY BE AROUND THE BASELINE. Dont forget that
From Emre BÜYÜKAKINCAK, on Sat 22 May 1:34
- 1
- 1
- Report abuse
:D Yah, we'll see how well the GOAT holds up against Mr. Nadal in Wimbledon 2010, unless the "at the peak of their powers" clause means "only when they are actually winning the matches"!!
From martin, on Sat 22 May 0:55
- 0
- 1
- Report abuse
the GOAT would be defeated by Nadal. hehe...
From marxman, on Sat 22 May 0:14
- 1
- 1
- Report abuse
It is ok to say Federer is the GOAT if you don't consider his nemesis, the Mr. Nice Guy of Tennis, better known as the King of Clay. It is undisputable to call Federer the 16 Grand Slam Winner but not the GOAT.
From EDDIE, on Fri 21 May 18:43
- 2
- 3
- Report abuse
fedexpress is the greatest ever someone join me in appreciation for such a fine talent, i hope he wins wimbledon, i know it will be tuff but he can do it
From Daniel, on Fri 21 May 11:55
- 4
- 3
- Report abuse
Ups, dandelionmancipar and Jón. You are so wright and according to mathematicians Fed is far away more successful than Nadal when compared to each other.
From volarch, on Fri 21 May 10:10
- 6
- 1
- Report abuse
Let me explain something to you all.
Nadal-Federer is 14-7. But why?
Because,
Federer has always been there in the finals, While Nadal only on clay and when on his best (just a few times ) on the other surfaces.
All the other times he gave no opportunity to Fed, cause he never even make it to the semis or quarters.
Its just as simple as that.
From volarch, on Fri 21 May 10:04
- 6
- 4
- Report abuse
#18, "Why does everyone say Nadal has beaten Federer in all his Finals? What about Mariano Puerta 2005?!" I for one mentioned that Nadal beat Federer 'on his way' to his first win at RG in 2005.
Right now I consider Rod Laver as the greatest in the 20th century and Federer as the greatest in the 21st century. However, Nadal could catch up to Federer if he takes care of himself and doesn't have too serious knee injuries. In fact, Nadal might repeat his 2008 record of winning RG and Wimbledon in succession. The US Open is a different story, but then he did win Australia in 2009 so he might be able to do that one. If there is any player out there capable of keeping Federer's GS tally at 16 or not much higher, it is Rafa Nadal, who will be looked back upon as Federer's Nemesis at the very least. Someone said it was 3-3 for them on hard court and 2-1 for Federer on grass. Those figures can be improved if Nadal stays fit for a few more years (but that's a big 'if'). Time will put everybody in their place.
From mangstadt, on Fri 21 May 9:50
- 1
- 1
- Report abuse