v2 G.O.A.T The Last 8 Group 1

First topic message reminder :

The last 16 was completed on Friday with the final two groups of the round, group three was dominated by Mohammed Ali who qualified for the next round with 27 votes. It was the battle for second that was the real story in this group with Jordan, Redgrave and Phelps all neck and neck well..neck for the majority of the day, it was Phelps however that eventually progressed by just one vote ahead of Steve Redgrave with 15 votes.

The final group of the last 16 was one of the closest votes of the entire competition with Sobers, Woods, Diego Maradonna and Owens all picking up votes throughout the day, it was Woods and Maradonna however that progressed as joint group winners with 20 votes each to Sobers 19 and Owens 12.

The last 8 (9) starts and ends today with two groups, one of four, one of five with the top two progressing from each group to make up the semi-finals.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

The first group pits tennis, golf, boxing and football against each other for your votes.

dummy_half wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Honestly, i think its a bit of both. Despite what you might think, i am a fan!

I think that's a reasonable assessment. Clearly Federer is exceptionally good, but he did come along at a time where there was a bit of a transition at the top of the game and his record has been enhanced partly by this and partly by the narrowing of playing conditions and styles (i.e. his aggressive baseline game made him the best on grass, indoors and on faster and slower hard courts while mostly the 2nd best on clay).

There are 2 main arguments against Federer's greatness, the supposedly low level of competition during his prime years and his record against Nadal.

I would be kidding myself if I could really say Safin, Roddick, Hewitt etc are just as good as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. The "weak era theory" certainly sparks strong opinions on the tennis boards and although perhaps we tend to look down on Federer's contemperoraries, stronger/weaker generations of players do exist, just as there is a worrying lack of outstanding players aged under 22 or 23 today.

Having said that, I would still feel fairly confident that Federer would have near enough 17 slams, perhaps more, had the other members of the Big 4 been born 5 years earlier, aged the same as Fed.
I think Nadal would still own Roland Garros, but when you consider a 31-year old Federer, a good 5 or 6 years past his prime, was world no.1 only a few months ago, it leaves you in awe wondering how frighteningly dominant 24-25 year-old Federer would still be in this current generation. What's more, with their physical style of play, Djokovic, Murray and particularly Nadal are more likely to succumb to wear and tear as their careers progress, which would leave the 29-30 year-old Federer without any major rival to pick up even more slams.

The H2H against Nadal is pretty embarrassing for a GOAT contender. 18-10, even worse 8-2 in slams.
However there are three major factors that have contributed to this, ignoring in the meantime that Nadal isn't too shabby a player himself.

1) The most obvious factor being that a total of 12 of their matches have been played on clay, Nadal winning 10 of them. Taking clay out of the equation and the H2H is level at 8-8. However, that is not a complete defence of Federer, as whilst the number of clay matches is clearly disproportionate, it is unfair to completely wipe them off the books.

2) It's been said time and again but it's true, Nadal could not be any tougher a match-up for Federer. He has to perform the art of the single-handed backhand at incredibly awkward heights, has to hit three winners to win one point and also has to physically last 5 sets, a department where Nadal is only second to Djokovic for me. These problems are exaggerated on clay and it can require "God-mode" Fed to defeat Rafa on the slower surfaces.

3) More often than not, their meetings have been between an aging Federer and a prime Nadal. This distorted the H2H in itself, but it also accumulated to a slight but significant mental block that has occasionally decided the match. Federer is no choker, but a small psychological edge can mean everything.

In terms of achievements, Federer is certainly the tennis GOAT, and in such a worldwide sport requiring athleticism, skill and mental strength, IMO he is as good a vote as any.

Hello



It is me, the emancipator, returning from some celestial travels in the far flung realms of space above and beyond.

Oh minions the end is nigh. The GOAT shall be revealed very shortly.

The only player to truly trouble Federer at his peak on the biggest stages was Nadal who has always enjoyed a tremendous matchup advantage.

Djokovic was 13-7 down to Federer in the H2H until the start of 2011. Murray had only managed one set in three slam finals until this year. Those guys are 5-6 years younger than Fed and are all great players - they should be beating him, yet Fed last year was 6-6 against the three of them combined. He was also the only guy who really threatened and beat Novak in the slams in 2011. He beat him at the French and held two match points at the USO. 2011 was the absolute best version of Djokovic and yet Federer pretty much held his own.

Now consider that court conditions have been slowing down over the last decade and that makes Fed's achievements against these younger rivals even more amazing. He is the one that is most stunted by slower courts and larger balls. He's the natural attacker, who likes to shorten points, use his variety and come to the net. The other three are happy to spend all day at the back of the court slugging out 30 shot rallies until the opponent drops dead from exhaustion. It hurts Federer against these guys when the courts are so slow that more defensive players can retrieve everything. As Murray said last year, 'if there were a few more faster courts he'd probably still be the number player in the world'. And just to emphasise that point Federer won in Cincinatti (probably the fastest court on tour) without dropping his serve the entire tournament. No has ever done that before. He dished out a bagel (6-0) set to Djokovic in the final.

Wrt his earlier rivals, I think they get a rough deal. Safin on his day could beat anyone. He thrashed Sampras in his first slam final at the USO. He beat peak Federer in Australia in 2005 and he beat Djokovic in straight sets at W in 2008, despite being far past his best. Roddick finished his career with a positive H2H against Djokovic (5-4). His credentials on grass were fantastic - only Federer stopped him from being a multiple W champion. Hewitt beat Sampras at the USO in straight sets for his first slam title and in the early part of his career was dominating Federer. Later on injuries caught up with him but even then he managed to win a set off Djokovic at the 2012 AUS open (despite multiple surgeries on his hips and feet).

Finally wrt how good Federer is I'll just mention a few performances. The guy beat Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 at the 2004 USO final. He won the World Tour Finals in 2010 beating Soderling, Ferrer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal, losing just one set in the process. When he plays his best he tends to blow people off court; he blitzes them. None of the grinding, grunting, attritional wars that his current rivals are invariably a part of.



emancipator

Great post theslosty.

Just a minor correction. It's actually 12-2 to Nadal on clay and 8-6 to Federer off clay.

Otherwise I agree, particularly with the notion of how many slams Fed would have won if he had been the same age as his current rivals. I too think the total tally would be about the same. He may not have dominated as much in his early years but he undoubtedly would have picked up more slams in his later years as his game is just more conducive to longevity.

In fact a quarter of the top 100 today is 30+ years old. That's Fed's generation still in the mix.

To be honest I don't think Nadal being around during Federers period of dominance would have made an ounce of difference, he is simply a better grass and hard court player. As well as Djokovic has done I don't really see him in the same category, he has rather harshly benefited from Federer losing his consistency and Nadal being riddled with injuries, he stands very little chance of beating the Federer of around 2006.

That said i've gone for Ali, there are those i'd have above him but they've all bitten the dust or are in the other group (Pele).

I voted for Ali:

Ali has been on the cover of Time magazine three times (once as Cassius Clay)..........




Federer never. He has no history.

In thirty years time everyone will be say Roger who?

Laver who?
Borg who?
Mcenroe who?

All I know is that Fed will outlast Time magazine

Just looked it up Mystir, its been going 90 years.

Ok!

Ali for me too.

Greatest boxer of all time and involved is some of the greatest fights of all time.

Whilst I respect Federer, tennis is a far easier sport than boxing and this should count against him when being compared to Ali.

Lumbering_Jack wrote: tennis is a far easier sport than boxing and this should count against him

i suppose boxing becomes more difficult over time, as one's braincells rapidly decrease with every pounding...

barragan wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote: tennis is a far easier sport than boxing and this should count against him

i suppose boxing becomes more difficult over time, as one's braincells rapidly decrease with every pounding...

Barragen

Boxing is difficult whether you've lost any brain cells or not. the sport where a knock out competition can mean exactly that.

Doesn't make it far harder though does it just because you might end up on your ass.

Who's this Mohammed Ali anyway? I remember a boxer called Muhammed Ali.....

mtotheC must be George Foreman..

so Ali vs Bradman and Federer vs Pele are our semi-finals. Can't argue too much with that top 4 really

I would have liked one of the golfers in there but ultimately I am happy with that top 4..