Forum: OFFSHORE FORUM - Online Sportsbetting - Mentioned in NY TIMES, WSJ, USA TODAY, & DRF. The internet's most popular and busiest sports betting forum. The place to discuss all kinds of sports and gambling related subjects.

Thread: Federer the Best Ever? I Think Not - He's not Even the Best Player of This Era

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
  1. #51  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    If Federer loses this match, and Nadal goes on to win, Nadal will take over the #1 ranking...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Bye Bye Roger, and his streak of Grand Slam Semis has ended.

    Impressive streak...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Gambling Aficionado Wayne Betzky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    704
    Down goes Fed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    www.youtubecom/hubbardsmusic viking611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    11,676
    He gone
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser The Kinz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,124
    and I was just typing he has made the finals 18 of the last 19 slams ( ithink that was what I saw)..make that 18-20. LOL

    He is still the best. Nadal's knees will never allow him to have longivity to overtake Federer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    RX Senior red007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,615
    greatest streak in the history of sports has come to an end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    RX Senior red007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,615
    oh and brad gilbert said he thinks federer's streak that just was stopped was the greatest record in the history of sports.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    "Here we go again" Say Hey Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    4,507
    I can't think of a more impressive record myself in the modern era of sports. Up there with Dimaggio's hitting streak in terms of records that will never be broken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by red007 View Post
    oh and brad gilbert said he thinks federer's streak that just was stopped was the greatest record in the history of sports.
    If Brad Gilbert said it, it must be true.

    :hugesmile
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #60  
    www.youtubecom/hubbardsmusic viking611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    11,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Say Hey Kid View Post
    I can't think of a more impressive record myself in the modern era of sports. Up there with Dimaggio's hitting streak in terms of records that will never be broken.
    Iowa's wrestling team won 9 straight championships (1978 to 1986)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #61  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    Sampras, Borg and McEnroe have all claimed Federer is the best they have ever seen. Those three chaps know a thing of two about the game, (:

    Fed Vs Nadal record is slanted because more matches have been played on clay. Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever. He would have demolished Sampras on clay, in fact Sampras would never beat him on clay. Nadal, however, has issues with his game on other surfaces. See his record at the US open (never gotten past the qtrs!!!!!) and Aussie Open. If the powers that be didn't slow the grass at Wimbledon (to make the game more fan friendly) he would be a non-factor at Wimbledon

    however you cut it, Fed is top 3 on anyone's list, and best ever on most. Nadal is not. He's a clay court beast
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #62  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by red007 View Post
    oh and brad gilbert said he thinks federer's streak that just was stopped was the greatest record in the history of sports.
    One major reason why I think it's not:

    As the previous article I posted mentioned, Roger is playing in an era of weak competition.

    For example, when McEnroe vied for a Slam, he possibly had to go through multiple top ten players of all time ( as well as other multiple slam winners):

    Conners
    Borg
    Lendl
    Becker

    all top ten players of all time, though Becker was towards the end of McEnroe's career.

    The only possible top ten player of all time that Roger has had to fend off is Nadal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #63  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    Quote Originally Posted by festeringZit View Post
    Yet another (strong) reason why Federer is not the best ever, and why his Grand Slam
    totals are misleading -> He's playing in an era of very weak competition.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Roger Federer: The Best of an Era, but Not Better Than Pete Sampras

    by Amar Panchmatia
    Correspondent Written on July 06, 2009

    (Photo by AELTC/Pool/Getty Images)
    A befallen Andy Roddick gazed through teary eyes on Centre Court of Wimbledon on Sunday before looking up at the parade of past champions that had congregated on tennis' biggest stage. He looked at Pete Sampras, the last great American player, and pleaded, "Sorry Pete, I tried to hold him off."


    No worries, Andy. You had actually done just fine. Because although numbers will say one thing, Roddick's epic 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14 loss was the latest evidence to show the assembly of legends that Roger Federer may not be the best player of all time.


    Sure, there is the argument that Federer has won 15 Grand Slams, more than any man to walk the planet. But before Sampras broke the old mark in 2000, it was held by one Roy Emerson. While casual fans know the names Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver—and even Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi—Emerson never registered a blip on the radar of tennis greats.


    Until Sampras took the mark less than a decade ago, holding the Grand Slam record had never meant anything when it comes to deciding who is the best ever.


    While Laver, when asked that very question in the wake of Federer's record-setting victory, wanted to be reserved in his statements, even he suggested that you can only compare players to others in his era and not those before or after him.


    But we can certainly compare eras—and when compared to Sampras', Federer's era is far weaker.


    Some may attribute the fact that only one man, Rafael Nadal, has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam final as proof that Federer is the most dominating player in history. But over the course of six years, from 2003 to today, the fact that not one other player has been able to even sniff Federer on any surface is truly alarming and more of a testament to the state of men's tennis today.


    While Nadal has been glorified as the "kryptonite" to tennis' Superman from Switzerland, the Spaniard is simply the Agassi of this generation.


    Just as Agassi dominated the slower hardcourts of the Australian Open, Nadal has been a monster on the clay courts of Roland Garros. Both men have career Grand Slams, both are known for being flamboyant and marketable off the court, and both proved to be the biggest rivals for the best players of their respective generations.


    Except Sampras beat Agassi like a drum. Sampras burst onto the scene as a 19-year-old in 1990 by picking Agassi apart, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 at the US Open final, his first Slam. The man known as "Pistol Pete" was 6-3 against Agassi in Grand Slams, including 4-1 in finals.
    Instead of being the one being demoralized, Sampras was doing the demoralizing, as his win over Agassi in the 1995 US Open final sent the latter into a downward spiral that took him to 141st in the world and a free-fall into temporary oblivion.


    Federer, on the other hand, is 7-13 all-time against Nadal, including 2-6 in Grand Slams and 2-5 in Slam finals. That includes a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 demolition in the finals of the 2008 French Open finals that was hardly befitting of a player being dubbed "The Best Ever."
    How can Federer be the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet when he is not even the best player of this current decade? How can he think of being the best when he knows that there is another man alive right now that he just cannot beat?
    While Sampras had some cupcakes in his era, he had to get past some Grand Slam champions to accumulate his 14 Grand Slams. Other than Agassi, Sampras had to drop two-time US Open champion Patrick Rafter to win his record-setting seventh Wimbledon in 2000.


    When he first broke through in 1990, Sampras also had to beat Ivan Lendl—who had made eight consecutive US Open finals going into that tournament—in the quarterfinals.
    Two-time French Open champion Jim Courier also showed the strength of American tennis at the time, but Courier was a prop to Sampras whenever the two butted heads. Carlos Moya was a 1998 French Open champion, but he was assaulted by Sampras in the 1997 Australian Open finals.


    Even German legend Boris Becker—a six-time Grand Slam champion and three-time Wimbledon champion—was mowed down in four sets at the lawn of the All England Club in 1995.


    Federer, on the other hand, has had a blast beating the likes of Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Robin Soderling, and a washed-up Mark Philippoussis in Slam finals. The best American player of his generation—Andy Roddick—would be well behind Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and even Michael Chang in the American pecking order if he was born 10 years earlier.


    Yet here was Roddick, giving Federer the match of his life, a struggle that Sampras never encountered as he rolled to seven All England Club titles. Outside of one hiccup at the quarterfinals of the 1996 Wimbledon against Dutchman Richard Krajicek, Sampras was 53-1 at Wimbledon over an eight-year span and never lost a final there, a distinction Federer failed to earn after losing to Nadal at the All England Club a year ago.


    So celebrate Roger Federer if you must, especially in a sports world that has become so dominated by numbers. Fifteen may be larger than 14, but it's also easy to stockpile Grand Slams when only one man in the world has the tools to even compete with you.
    The numbers may say that Roger Federer is the best of all time, but after looking at who he has had to beat, he is simply the best of a poor and washed-up generation.
    And if Nadal has even one more say in the US Open this September, Federer may not even be the best of this generation either.

    haha!!!!!

    Sampras never won Roland Garros---and he didnt have Nadal around

    who did Sampras beat on? Agassi?? (: gimme a break.....good grief
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #64  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricboff View Post
    Sampras, Borg and McEnroe have all claimed Federer is the best they have ever seen. Those three chaps know a thing of two about the game, (:

    Fed Vs Nadal record is slanted because more matches have been played on clay. Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever. He would have demolished Sampras on clay, in fact Sampras would never beat him on clay. Nadal, however, has issues with his game on other surfaces. See his record at the US open (never gotten past the qtrs!!!!!) and Aussie Open. If the powers that be didn't slow the grass at Wimbledon (to make the game more fan friendly) he would be a non-factor at Wimbledon

    however you cut it, Fed is top 3 on anyone's list, and best ever on most. Nadal is not. He's a clay court beast
    Nadal has progressed far from the "one surface wonder" as you paint him. If he has issues with the Aussie Open, I'd like to have those issues, as I mentioned earlier in this thread:

    He's played the Aussie 6 times and made the qtrs 4 times, and won it once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #65  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    Quote Originally Posted by festeringZit View Post
    One major reason why I think it's not:

    As the previous article I posted mentioned, Roger is playing in an era of weak competition.

    For example, when McEnroe vied for a Slam, he possibly had to go through multiple top ten players of all time ( as well as other multiple slam winners):

    Conners
    Borg
    Lendl
    Becker

    all top ten players of all time, though Becker was towards the end of McEnroe's career.

    The only possible top ten player of all time that Roger has had to fend off is Nadal.
    weaker? says who?

    nowadays there are clay court specialists. Not existant in those days, the game has grown

    the techolongy has aided in the speed of the game, nowadays their are many bombers. Before just a handfull

    for Fed to dominate int todays age, is well, extraordinary. And the alltime greats echo this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #66  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    exactly he has won it ONCE

    US Open-- ZIPPO

    Wimbledon - ONCE

    wont to compare with Fed's? (:

    how about Sampras career winnign % as comapered to Fed? (:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #67  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricboff View Post
    haha!!!!!

    Sampras never won Roland Garros---and he didnt have Nadal around

    who did Sampras beat on? Agassi?? (: gimme a break.....good grief
    Agassi has 8 slams of his own, and considered by most to be top 10 all time, and he won on all 4 slam surfaces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #68  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricboff View Post
    weaker? says who?

    nowadays there are clay court specialists. Not existant in those days, the game has grown

    the techolongy has aided in the speed of the game, nowadays their are many bombers. Before just a handfull

    for Fed to dominate int todays age, is well, extraordinary. And the alltime greats echo this
    My point was very clear. How many top 10 players has Federer had to fight off to win his slams? Maybe 1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #69  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    Quote Originally Posted by festeringZit View Post
    Agassi has 8 slams of his own, and considered by most to be top 10 all time, and he won on all 4 slam surfaces.
    yes, exactly. Nadal and Fed would crush the little man, and you say Fed's era is 'weaker'. Fed owned Andre--thankfully for the robotic Agassi he didnt play during Fed's hay day or that 8 may be say, 1? (:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #70  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    Quote Originally Posted by festeringZit View Post
    My point was very clear. How many top 10 players has Federer had to fight off to win his slams? Maybe 1.
    sorry but Borg isnt around for him to play......(:

    old man Agassi he dominated......next
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #71  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricboff View Post
    yes, exactly. Nadal and Fed would crush the little man, and you say Fed's era is 'weaker'. Fed owned Andre--thankfully for the robotic Agassi he didnt play during Fed's hay day or that 8 may be say, 1? (:
    Fed owned Andre... wow... could it have been because he's 11+ years younger? Do you think that could have been a factor?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #72  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    took the ball so early did Agassi, he blossomed late in his career. His better days were as he aged, unlike most in this sport.

    give it up, sport. Your complaining he hasnt beaten 'top 10 players' yet he owned Agassi and now that somehow doesnt fit your agenda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #73  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricboff View Post
    took the ball so early did Agassi, he blossomed late in his career. His better days were as he aged, unlike most in this sport.

    give it up, sport. Your complaining he hasnt beaten 'top 10 players' yet he owned Agassi and now that somehow doesnt fit your agenda
    If you think you have a valid point comparing players 11+ years apart in men's tennis, than you are an idiot. If you would read my very clear point,
    I'm saying that I don't believe that Federer's record of consecutive Grand Slam Semis is even close to the greatest sports records of all time, for one
    reason because he's playing in an era with weak competition - i.e. maybe one other player even close to being in the top ten all time.

    Oh, and by the way, I should add Wilander (7 time slam winner, made it to 11 slam finals) as another elite opponent McEnroe had to go through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #74  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    no it is you that is the fool. You claim there is 'weaker' competition--this is clear evidence you know little about this game.

    you over emphasizing his record Vs Nadal is futher evidence--ie., the majoirty of those mathces are on CLAY, and Nadal is the best ever to play on that surface. He would beat McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Wilander, Sampras etc etc on clay-- capiche??

    and when Borg, McEnroe, AND SAMPRAS say that Fed is the best they have ever seen,, well, ya know what--i'll take their word over yours,.....call me crazy. Hey, you have ANY IDEA why that trio speak so highly of Fed? (:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #75  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ---------
    Posts
    5,406
    Sampras career winning- 77%
    Fed -- 80%

    Sampras career titles-- 65
    Fed-- 62 ....and counting (:

    oh wait........he has no competition, yeah I forgot. And beating up on Agassi doesnt count as Andre was much older, (:. Follow Agassi's career much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •