Roger Federer: The definitive GOAT

Back to No. 1, breaking yet more records - oldest no.1 (surprisingly he was one of the oldest no.1's the last time he was at the top), biggest gap between stints at no. 1, longest gap from first becoming no.1. Think it settles the debate.

It wasn't boring Bruce, you're way oversimplifying it, though right to an extent. Longer points sometimes, not always, makes for more entertaining tennis for fans. The players were becoming too good, so surfaces have definitely slowed some overall to even this out. But, even on the fastest surfaces today, there's usually good tennis to be seen. Agassi did well in the 1990s, too, without a power game.

This is true. in the mid and late 90s there was a lot of concern about how boring men's tennis had become due to the dominant serving. Big serve - unreturnable, ace, ace, error and the game is over. Rule changes were considered (only 1 serve). Men's tennis was becoming quite boring....until Federer came along.

Federer is the GOAT. He has 20 slams, 96 tournaments, 302 weeks at number 1, and 6 ATP tour finals wins. He has been in 30 slam finals (that is almost 8 years of reaching all four). At one stage he was in 18 out of 19 slams. Federer has beaten a 29 year old Sampras at Wimbledon, he has beaten Agassi in the US open final (when Agassi was as efficient at winning as Fed is now, in fact Fed has copied a lot from Agassi), he beat Safin, who used to demolish Sampras (even a peak Sampras), and he beat a peak Hewitt (who also beat a peak Sampras in the US open final), He reached 5 French Open finals, 11 Wimbledon finals, 7 US open finals, and 7 Australian open finals. Only Nadal has won more matches at Rolland Garros, and Federer has not played there the last 2 years. Federer is pushing on 100 wins in all the non clay slam tournaments. Federer has won close to 1,200 matches. Federer has been in 43 slam semis and 52 quarters (equivalent of 13 years of reaching all four slam quarters). Federer tends NOT get knocked out other players who are playing sensational, unlike Novak and Nadal. Federer has and has always had tremendous enthusiasms and joy playing tennis. He exudes and communicates joy, and shrugs off disappointment very quickly, and looks forward. His style of play is Federeresque (enough said). Federer is highly motivated to demolish records in 2018, and beyond. Tokyo Olympics are within his compass. Federer may very well finish as the oldest ATP world number one in 2018. Federer has a real chance of exceeding Connor's modern day record 109 tournament wins. In fact, Federer owns over 80% of all ATP open era records. And this will increase. Novak will not win 20 slams, in fact Novak will end up winning less than 18. Rafa, as great a player as he is, only has about 3 slams left in him. Losing slam matches as a 33 and 34 year old may be very though for him to take. I expect he will retire before 35. So his opportunities to catch Roger will be limited. And there is zero chance that Rafa will come close to Roger's other records. People may look back and think, was the post 2008 period weak? The argument being that a 35/36/37 year old Federer has been so rampant almost 10 years later. Australia is now playing faster than what it was, in fast slightly quicker than the relatively slow Wimbledon. Roger has played through the very slow era where 35 shots were common in every game, and 5 and 6 hour matches not uncommon. Given his strength is in fast surfaces. that has been difficult. Now, the average surface is getting slightly quicker. If this continues, Roger may dominate for years. And had the courts not been slowed down so much, we could be talking about Roger with over 30 slams, more like 35. The persistence and resilience of Federer has paid off. The Ultra slow courts may go some way in explaining why this might be perceived as a weak era, with a relative dearth of skills. Yes, Roger is the GOAT, not just for all he has achieved, but also for his role modelling abilities, and for his rescuing of tennis from the drudgery of 6 hour matches where the player who makes the least errors wins. Here is to the GOAT!!!!

I think Borg would have something to say about best player pre-1980. Laver was also 5-8, which is one inch taller than Schwartzman. I'm sorry, but nobody that short is competing for anything substantial against today's top players. The game has changed a lot today, hindering the power players more and bringing the weaker counterpunchers more into the mix. But, Fed remains the best overall at playing on any surface.

My favourite stat is that Federer has now won 10% of the Slams that have ever been played!

So 3 of the 4 was played on grass then. Tam's point not have been 100% factually accurate, but the fact is that Tam is right in saying that Laver won most of his slams (Aus, Wimbledon and US) on the same surface as opposed to the different surfaces today. The fact is that from about 2001 surfaces were slow down to create longer rallies, advantaging guys like Djokovic and Nadal and disadvantaging guys like Federer, Hewitt or even Murray. The Wimbledon of the 1990s was much faster than today.

I'm well aware of the pitfalls of H2H stats as I mentioned; otherwise, why I would bring up Courier's H2H advantage over Agassi, etc? And why I questioned those who think Nadal is superior to Fed based on H2H, which I don't and not that close even, yet at least. But, then I doubt they would say Djoker is superior to Nadal, or Djoker is superior to both of them since he owns the H2H advantage against both currently. It's different times nowadays, and some older players are doing better. But, Nadal/Djoker both have now just reached their 30s. Djoker looks like a trainwreck. Nadal is getting injured a lot. I seriously doubt Nadal is winning 5 more FOs, but with many of the top player hurt and Fed probably not playing any clay this season, it looks a lot more likely for Nadal winning the FO this year. Almost never do we see players winning GS titles in their 30s, and about 90% of those players are doing it at 30-31, almost nothing at age 32+. Nadal/Djoker have it a lot easier now since younger players aren't anywhere near as good as they were, and Fed is an old man in tennis years at 36, so yes, they could win more. You were primarily talking about saying we can't declare a current GOAT, which is wrong, if someone wants to debate this. Fed is clearly the GOAT currently, not much debate(at least good debate), but while highly unlikely, that could potentially change when Fed/Nadal/Djoker all hang up their racquets.

There are so many factors and many have changed over time. From the changing surfaces in more modern times, compared to the three grass surfaces 50 years ago, to the great players on the pro circuit in the late 40's through to the start of the Open era, unable to compete for major championship titles. Even the absence of many great players from the Australian Open when it was scheduled at the end of the year (Borg only played in one Australian Open, Connors only two). There will never be a truly equal playing field to compare from one era to another. Major titles are the measure used but that really does little justice to the likes of Pancho Gonzalez and Ken Rosewall, who were on the Pro tour for much of their prime tennis years.

Please share when the French open was played on grass...

Laver's career is an am amazing one, but we need to remember that some of the professional players, who couldn't play in the late 50's and early 60's dominated Laver for much of their career. For example, in 1963, Laver, on the back of his first Grand Slam, was beaten by Rosewall 11 of 13 matches on the Australasian tour of the pro circuit. Gonzales played for 18 years on the Pro tour, having a very good record over Laver, even though he was 10 years older than Rod. I wont ever discount what Rod Laver achieved, but I will acknowledge that major titles alone don't tell the whole story. Their major titles tally may not compare with Federer, Nadal, Emerson, Laver and the Joker, but don't discount either Rosewall or Gonzalez from the best of all time discussions.

Any Laver fans who discount Federer from being the GOAT because of his well-known struggles against Nadal, should do some research about Laver's troubles with Pancho Gonzalez and at times, Ken Rosewall. Both Laver and Federer are real contenders for the GOAT, but we should remember that Gonzales played on the Pro tour from the age of 21 until the Open era commenced when he was 39. Major championship victory totals only reveal part of the story. Do we remember that in 1963, the year after Laver won his first Grand Slam, Rosewall won 11 of 13 matches against Laver, played on grass courts during the pro circuit's Australasian tour?

Also by saying Djoker's slams are worth more because it was in the Federer/Nadal era, is sort of acknowledging that Federer and Nadal are the great players of the generation. Novak won a number of those slams while Federer battled back injuries and Nadal struggled with multiple injuries.

Federer is the GOAT of the GOAT era - 3 of the top 5 players of all time including the greatest clay court player. To reach 20 GS titles is amazing, but to win 3 out of the 4 he last played over the age of 35 is unbelievable. Even during his fallow years his record was such that most players would be ecstatic with it. It's hard to judge eras, but the modern game encompasses many more countries that it did, on different surfaces and with a strong AO - many players wouldn't even bother to come out here years ago.

Also to be factored in is that that half the players weren't present when Laver won his first slam - guys like Rosewall, who had a good record against Laver and Gonzales.

fed between 2011 and 2016 made 5 slam finals and won 1 title. he also won 1 W.F title and was a finalist 3 times. he also won 7 masters titles. in total he won 22 atp titles and he was no 1 for 17 weeks but mostly he was in top 3 excluding 2013 and 2016. AND THOSE NUMBERS WERE ACHIEVED IN HIS........"decline"

And Laver playing all those slams on grass. If Feds were playing 4 slams on grass 2003-2007, he would have won 16 slams straight. Laver is nowhere near GOAT. Bringing him into this conversation is just a joke.

I don't think you can compare the modern era with the old era. The games are so different now. I think it's fair to say that Laver was the greatest of about the pre-1980s era and Federer is the greatest of the modern era.

We're still comparing Federer to Nadal in the G.O.A.T discussion? Come back to me when either of them have actually done the Grand Slam. Laver did it as an Amatuer, then again 7 years later when the Amatuers unified with the Professional circuit. Beat all comers twice. Laver