Comments on: Roger Federer’s Window Closing?

By: Murali Vemula

Murali Vemula — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:53:36 +0000

Mr. Anthony Zilis,
You dont like Federer, which is very evident and understandable.
If Federer has been winning everything and seems impossible to beat you would be the first one to say this is a very weak era that is why he is winning all so he can not be called one of the greatest let alone GOAT.

By: Murali Vemula

Murali Vemula — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:42:51 +0000

I dont why Nadal keeps on playing when he is not healthy. When he wins he does not say anything but when he looses he will immediately come up with health issues.

By: Donna Banks

Donna Banks — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:41:27 +0000

Today the King of Tennis was Crowned

By: Eelco

Eelco — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:06:36 +0000

First of all, GOAT discussions are bullshit. NO ONE is invisible. You cannot compare eras, etc., etc.

Secondly, if for some strange reasons you do want to appoint a GOAT I find it rather odd to invent all kinds of silly arguments which almost no one cares about and sometimes can be explained to diminish a guy’s effort. Many people already have noticed this:

Suppose Federer would have lost all the matches prior to reaching the (semi)finals in which he lost to Nadal? Objectively you have to admit that in that case he would have a 2-0 advantage over Nadal. Objectively you would also have to admit that in that case Federer would have done worse.

Nadal does not alway reach finals of GS-tournaments Federer wins. Federer on the other hand ALWAYS reaches the finals of GS-tournamenst Nadals wins.

In the end it will simply be a footnote in tennishistory. Federer will at least win 15, maybe even 18 GS-titles and for the foreseeable future be the most succesfull (and to a lot of people the greatest) player. I do think he is the most succefull right now. I don’t think he is the GOAT. No one is. And my personal favourite is and will remain for some time to come Miloslav Mecir. He really was a unique talent.

By: Donna Banks

Donna Banks — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:58:35 +0000

You do know that Rod Laver won theGrand Slam , all four in the same year , twice . and that Federer has been in 21 consecutive semi final grand slams. the closest anyone is to that record is Lendl with 10 consective semi finals. Its much too, too early to talk about Nadal being bigger than they. He has alot of records to break and until he starts getting close to breaking these records enthusiam for him should be tempered. Yes, he’s done great at 23 but he has a long road to go.

By: adzilis

adzilis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:39:21 +0000

1. I believe I said that Nadal beating Federer and winning 3 out of 4 made him the greatest player in the game, meaning the greatest at the time, not ever. He still has a ways to go for that but could definitely get there.
2. I always thought Federer spoke with a bit of deserved arrogance when he won.
3. The US Open and Australian Open are both played on hardcourt synthetic surfaces.

I don’t believe I said Nadal could yet be held in that group. But I think he has an opportunity to be even bigger than those three. But the guy’s only 23 and he’s shown how great he can be.

By: Ziech1

Ziech1 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:28:42 +0000

Sampras only made it to the French open once, and lost there, while Federer has won a few times..

By: Donna Banks

Donna Banks — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:42:04 +0000

I should have said he’s won only 6 majors.

By: Donna Banks

Donna Banks — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:09 +0000

You made 3 mistakes 1. Nadal the”greatest player” when he’s won only three majors. 2. using the word for arrogance with Federer when year after year the players vote him the sportsmanship’s award. 3. won on all surfaces when Nadal has never even reached the U.S. Open final. Until Nadal can reach even 10 Grand Slam titles he shouldnt be mentioned with the likes of Sampas, Laver, or Federer.

By: adzilis

adzilis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:49:23 +0000

Like I said, I think Federer needs to beat a healthy Nadal consistently to gain back what he had. If Nadal never plays another game, it hurts Federer’s legacy in my mind.

Also, considering Sampras won his second-to-last just after he turned 29, I don’t know how much longer Federer will maintain this. He may, he seems to have broken every other convention, but like I said, all that is important with him being one of the great “champions” is for him to beat Nadal more than once in a Grand Slam final.