Conclusive proof: Federer is not the GOAT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18766965

nope he is- it doesnt matter what he thinks or more to the point says- he is

hmmm that response reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW8fDw8VzKI

lol.

his record is the best - thats it- fact

shame he only has one french though- i mean nadal has at least 2 in all. and obviously has a great chance in supasing feds record. so the goat could well be nadal some enough. however at the moment - we cant argue with feds record.

edited lol cause it was wrong nads only has 1 in two

I think there is more to it than just counting slams personally - there's style of play and variety of technique to consider.

I always wonder why people are so keen to label others as "the best ever". Federer makes a good point in that 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago the pros werent chasing records as they seem to today. They werent even entering all the slams routinely...and that includes up to Sampras and Agassi. Borg didnt even bother entering the AO unless he had won the USO...Laver couldnt play the proper slams for years.
To compare the greats is nigh on impossible. So yes Federer is the most successful player ever by slams and #1 weeks (likely)...but we cannot say he is the best ever because we can never truly know. And as I say Federer makes that point himself.

i think we have only consider players that have won all of them(best way to use style and tecnique is with win variety)- feds only mark against him is only 1 french.., but samp behind has never even won the french and the few players that have won at least 2 in all are 6plus majors behind fed. so fed is well up there as the GOAT.

laver and emerson the two players with at least 2- so need to be up there.

nadal could very well become the greatest ever mind..

lydian its out there for discussion- But its all statistical for me- And we can only base it on success.

however we have to realise that tennis is a growing sport- so in this envioroment it gets harder to dominate later on in the time lines..

we allways have the tiger v jack debate on golf- However it really is possibly the only sport that has two very clear GOATS.. no other sport comes close to that

Stats only paint part of the picture.

mystiroakey wrote:i think we have only consider players that have won all of them(best way to use style and tecnique is with win variety)- feds only mark against him is only 1 french.., but samp behind has never even won the french and the few players that have won at least 2 in all are 6plus majors behind fed. so fed is well up there as the GOAT.

laver and emerson the two players with at least 2- so need to be up there.

nadal could very well become the greatest ever mind..

Lukas Rosol having beaten the moonballing Spaniard could well claim that he is also a GOAT and one that is better than Nadal.

mystiroakey wrote:lydian its out there for discussion- But its all statistical for me- And we can only base it on success.

however we have to realise that tennis is a growing sport- so in this envioroment it gets harder to dominate later on in the time lines..

we allways have the tiger v jack debate on golf- However it really is possibly the only sport that has two very clear GOATS.. no other sport comes close to that

Donald Bradman, Michael Jordan, Jahangir Khan?

Well he is just generous not to take the title , it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to him.

May be in the future Nadal could beat that and prove he is the greatest, but till then the title will remain with him.

lydian wrote:Stats only paint part of the picture.

i dont thin k anyone is disputing that, but talking about the greatest ever its best to use statsitcal solid evidence- its all about success, ability is a different argument

reckoner wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:lydian its out there for discussion- But its all statistical for me- And we can only base it on success.

however we have to realise that tennis is a growing sport- so in this envioroment it gets harder to dominate later on in the time lines..

we allways have the tiger v jack debate on golf- However it really is possibly the only sport that has two very clear GOATS.. no other sport comes close to that

Donald Bradman, Michael Jordan, Jahangir Khan?

I could argue bradman- but i probally wouldnt, dont know enough about squash or basketball to argue them. But all the same you have only mentioned one are one- the two GOATS is the talking point anyway- one of the other- a clear deabting point..

gboycottnut wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i think we have only consider players that have won all of them(best way to use style and tecnique is with win variety)- feds only mark against him is only 1 french.., but samp behind has never even won the french and the few players that have won at least 2 in all are 6plus majors behind fed. so fed is well up there as the GOAT.

laver and emerson the two players with at least 2- so need to be up there.

nadal could very well become the greatest ever mind..

Lukas Rosol having beaten the moonballing Spaniard could well claim that he is also a GOAT and one that is better than Nadal.

gb are you for real, lol- every top player has lost to a lower ranked player at some point in there lifes

The fact he doesn't consider himself the GOAT just shows his modesty and respect for other greats.

One thing you can say about Fed, you can't ever accuse him of much arrogance! It's probably been said so many times by so many but gosh, he's such a classy guy!

I think Roger doesn't get enough credit for such modesty and humility. The fact that he doesn't for a split second sit there and think to himself "you know what, I am a bit special"

I think if Roger had a high opinion of himself, that it would affect his performances on court and preparation he puts into tournaments.

Modest guy, the jackets were just a bit silly.

Nice for him to show such respect towards Laver, Borg, Sampras etc. but they know who the boss is.

Well he is known for his indulgence and passion for fashion. I mean hey if I was that good at tennis and successful, why not.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well he is known for his indulgence and passion for fashion. I mean hey if I was that good at tennis and successful, why not.

With a friend like Ann Wintour, it's not that surprising!

I didn't know Fed was indulgent, what does he indulge in? It wouldn't surprise me if he was though, you always get millionaires who are that little bit indulgent, it's normally old money that isn't particularly indulgent and he isn't that.

I think Wintour is Mirka's fashion buddy, along for the ride.

It's not for him to decide !