Top 5 Reasons Why Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT

[Kirijax]

Found an article playing devil's advocate and trying to find reasons why Federer is not the GOAT. Fun to read but agree?

Top 5 Reasons Why Roger Federer is NOT the greatest male tennis player ever

1. He’s been dominated by Rafael Nadal
2. His backhand is too inconsistent
3. Too much of his success was achieved against weaker opposition
4. He has struggled against all of the other members of the current Big Four
5. There are other players of the present and past who were simply better than him

I have a sneaky suspicion that the write of this article is a Nadal fan. :snicker

 

[Federberg]

:laydownlaughing

Oh Kiri, how could you! This could start another war! :snicker For what it's worth I don't believe in the concept of GOAT. The era issue is too problematical. He's definitely a good shout for most successful ever, but that's about as far as one should go in my opinion. As for for all of the points raised they're rather trollish and not particularly relevant as far as I can tell, all that matters is winning titles, and he's done that with aplomb.

I recall bumping into Pat Cash in about 2007 or 8, can't remember, at a rugby match and striking up a conversation with him. I asked him what he thought about Federer and he was convinced that there would be a title drought once the next generation matured. Here we are 7 or 8 years later and he's the number 2 ranked player in the world. All I can say is... wow!

 

[Kirijax]

:laydownlaughing

Oh Kiri, how could you! This could start another war! :snicker For what it's worth I don't believe in the concept of GOAT. The era issue is too problematical. He's definitely a good shout for most successful ever, but that's about as far as one should go in my opinion. As for for all of the points raised they're rather trollish and not particularly relevant as far as I can tell, all that matters is winning titles, and he's done that with aplomb.

I recall bumping into Pat Cash in about 2007 or 8, can't remember, at a rugby match and striking up a conversation with him. I asked him what he thought about Federer and he was convinced that there would be a title drought once the next generation matured. Here we are 7 or 8 years later and he's the number 2 ranked player in the world. All I can say is... wow!

I couldn't resist! That article so is full of holes and obviously Rafa-fan based so I thought Fed fans would get a kick out of it. Only Federer gets these kind of articles written up about him. :snicker

 

[Federberg]

^Very true. If he can't be caught, perhaps if he's maligned enough it might create doubt! :snicker

 

[Puppet Master]

The GOAT debate is going to reach its peak soon now that none of them are winning an x number of titles per season anymore. What opportunistic, biased and pathetic writing. Next thing you know Djoko and his fanatics (note that I am referring only to some specific people) are giving us any possible stat in this world that would give him an edge over the two. His backhand is too inconsistent?
I am sick to my stomach reading this stuff. Of course he can't compete with them now that he is 33.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

6- His nose is too big
7- Arrogant
8-He is from Switzerland
9-He once used I AFTER E and it was not even after C.
10-He leaves the toilet seat up
11-He's got weird sperm...I mean, TWO sets of twins? Give me a break!
12-Dominated by Kyrgios
13-Just got lucky, period

 

[Federberg]

It's such a poor article I couldn't even work up the energy to get emotional about it. It's the sort of nonsense some of the most trollish participants of this forum might have put together, but I think that most reasonable folks will just shake their heads at it

 

[El Dude]

One reason why he might be a GOAT:

*Articles like this get written about him.

 

[Puppet Master]

At one point in this vile crap it said:
But is he really head and shoulders above the field?
I would legitimately claim that he is an alien or something if he could dominate all the other members of the big 4. That would really make it a joke of a sport.

 

[El Dude]

Roger was completely dominant of his actual peer group - the players within a few years of his age. Isn't that "the field?" The fact that he is #2 when most of his contemporaries have retired, and the next generation is starting to show signs of decline (at least Rafa), is pretty remarkable indeed. The situation is not unlike Rod Laver in the early 70s. Laver didn't win any Slams past 1969 when he was 30-31, but he remained a top 10 player until 1975, when he turned 37.

 

[Federberg]

^Furthermore, he had the sort of dominant that starved any contemporaries of the opportunity to become even greats.

 

[El Dude]

Right. Imagine the careers of Andy Roddick or David Nalbandian, and others besides, if Roger had decided to become a banker.

Andy Roddick in particular is a somewhat underrated player, in my opinion. I think he's one of the best players in the Open Era to win only a single Slam, along with Chang, Ivanisevic, and Gerulaitis, maybe one or two others.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Reason 2 (the backhand) is absurd. In his prime his backhand was pretty solid against everyone except for one player who's tailor made to take it apart. Also, GOAT goes by accomplishments, not the quality of a carefully selected ground stroke.

As far as reason 3 goes, I wonder what the author thinks about Rod Laver's competition.

Reason 4 is absolute nonsense. Federer led Djokovic quite comfortably until the latter hit his peak and more importantly, Federer was removed from his. He also dominated Murray when it counts. These guys are all significantly younger than him too.

Reason 5: Name one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Right. Imagine the careers of Andy Roddick or David Nalbandian, and others besides, if Roger had decided to become a banker.

Andy Roddick in particular is a somewhat underrated player, in my opinion. I think he's one of the best players in the Open Era to win only a single Slam, along with Chang, Ivanisevic, and Gerulaitis, maybe one or two others.

Nalbandian's career wouldn't be too different, but I agree about Roddick. Hewitt is another good example of the Federer effect.

 

[El Dude]

Hewitt and Roddick looked poised to co-dominate until Federer came along, but didn't Hewitt decline mainly due to injury?

As for Nalbandian, you're probably right - and I hesitated as I typed his name in. But he was probably the third most talented member of that generation, after Roger and Safin, and "should have" won a Slam or two. I'm just thinking that if Fed hadn't been in the picture he would have managed to win one, and if he won one, why not two or three?

 

[Kirijax]

I remember back in 2003 when Hewitt was king, and Federer, Ferrero and Roddick were getting ready to win their first slams. I thought at the time that these four, along with Safin, were going to rule the tennis scene for a while and boy did it look interesting. No one expected Federer to just take off like that and the other four to end up like they did. I hear the words "weak competition" and I think someone wasn't paying attention. The 00s had some very good players but Federer was just that much better.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

yeah..lol, lets all trash mr Federer because he had the temerity to win a lot rather than if he'd lost a few more times to make bozo's think it was strong competition and not federer's level of play..

if we go along with that sh1te then......oh look, nadal only won the French open loads to times because of the weak clay era and weakest surface of djoko/murray/Federer. why couldn't nadal have lowered his level and been a bit crapppier on clay and lost more to make it look like a strong clay era.

#therewillbew@ankers.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

and federers world ranking is what just now at nearly 34yrs old ?....umm no2 isn't it ?, oh yes, I think it is.

damn this weak era, if only nadal and murray were stronger(era) they could be ranked above the 33yr old Federer. and make it a strong era. or at least Federer could lose more often and drop his rank so he falls behind those two to once again make it look like a strong era.

 

[britbox]

You can find 5 reasons against Federer, but likely more reasons for anyone else in the conversation.

 

[nehmeth]

Outside of the fact that there is no such thing as a "G.O.A.T.", since "all time" incorporates the future... I don't understand how someone could disqualify any player because one of his shots was not up to their subjective level of measurement. Just dumb.