If Federer has only one slam left in him, what would you want it to be
Raja, The Great
detractors that Federer is good on clay too. And that he is really the
best GOAT candidate out there.
No questions about fluking the FO win!
Ali Asoag
> I say undoubtedly FO.
Fully agree.
Beating Nadal in the final. That would prove all
> detractors that Federer is good on clay too.
Fed doesn't need to prove that he is also good on clay. He already
proved that. 4 FO finals in a row and one win *IS EXCELLENT*.
The only reason I would prefer FO rather than a 7th Wimby is that the
distribution would be more proportional. ;-)
> And that he is really the
> best GOAT candidate out there.
He is already. 16 Slams say it all.
> No questions about fluking the FO win!
Only insane Fedhaters think the FO win was fluke. Then all Nadal's wins
outside clay would be fluke, too. And Sampras' AO win was as well.
uly...@mscomm.com
the second best player on clay for the past 6 years.
And last time I checked, anyone who has won the FO has already laid to
rest any doubts about their ability to win on the dirt.
TennisGuy
+1
Paul
FEDDY BEATING NADAL IN A FO FINAL?
KEEP DREAMING........
Superdave
Nadal won't even make the final. He has a boo-boo ya know.
Iceberg
he's never won it.
Whisper
No question it's Wimbledon. Why would he let Sampras be sole king of
the only tournament that really matters on a global scale?
felangey
> only tournament that really matters on a global scale?<
Hey, maybe we should just shut the whole season down. The players can have
11 1/2 month off season to work and develop their game.....then kaBLOOEY,
Wimbledon...the only tournament that matters.
Whisper
Mock not lest ye be mocked.
That's the way most see it in a global sense.
Giovanna
Wimbledon, cause it's his fave tournament~~
Giovanna
> I say undoubtedly FO. Beating Nadal in the final.
well nadal/rafatars would say rafa was injured, tired, still2young,
so the win doesn't count, etc etc
Paul
HE HAS A BETTER CHANCE THAN FEDDY TRAIN.....
FEDDY IS DEAD!!!
AliAsoag
We are talking about Fed, not Sampras.
AliAsoag
And why do you say Nadal > Federer when Fed leads 2-1 there? Think
before you state something, that's my advise for you, little Whisperer.
ocean
Agreed. Fed wants to tie Pete's Wimbledon record the most, I bet. 7
Wimbledons.
Javier González
Mmmmm...
In order of preference:
1.- FO => multiple wins on all slams. This would be huge for his
legacy IMO.
2.- USO => most OE USOs record to himself passing Sampras and Connors,
cement HC GOAT claim
3.- W => tie Sampras at most Ws.
4.- AO => most OE AOs record passing Agassi, cement HC GOAT claim
Iceberg
if Djoker gets knocked out, Fed has prob more chance of winning USO -
would be a good last title taking his collection to *15!
Iceberg
does Agassi have the most AO's record?
Javier González
OE = Open Era. Just like Connors and Sampras don't have the USO all
time record but just the OE one.
Joe Ramirez
This is how I would rank the options as well. But really, Fed is the
enviable position in which any additional title would be a true
landmark.
Manco
Javier González
> On Feb 11, 12:56 pm, Javier González <jagon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 12:32 am, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I say undoubtedly FO. Beating Nadal in the final. That would prove all
> > > detractors that Federer is good on clay too. And that he is really the
> > > best GOAT candidate out there.
>
> > > No questions about fluking the FO win!
>
> > Mmmmm...
>
> > In order of preference:
> > 1.- FO => multiple wins on all slams. This would be huge for his
> > legacy IMO.
> > 2.- USO => most OE USOs record to himself passing Sampras and Connors,
> > cement HC GOAT claim
> > 3.- W => tie Sampras at most Ws.
> > 4.- AO => most OE AOs record passing Agassi, cement HC GOAT claim
>
> This is how I would rank the options as well.
The FO one is ridiculously unlikely, but that would be certainly
DAAAAAMN territory. "Oh, the slam I did worse at? Oh, won it twice
plus three other finals. Wait until I tell you about my GOOD slam".
> But really, Fed is the
> enviable position in which any additional title would be a true
> landmark.
Indeed. Winning one more slam, no matter which, would at least see him
tying an all-time record.
drew
FO or USO. He'd probably prefer another Wimbledon but I'm sure at
this
point in his career he'd be happy with any of them.
TT
> Fed doesn't need to "prove" to anyone he's "good" on clay. He's been
> the second best player on clay for the past 6 years.
>
Djoker has been perhaps better.
> And last time I checked, anyone who has won the FO has already laid to
> rest any doubts about their ability to win on the dirt.
Wuff!
TT
Nope, the true historical prestige lies in winning a Davis cup match.
Joe Ramirez
> 11.2.2011 6:04, ulys...@msomm.com kirjoitti:
>
> > Fed doesn't need to "prove" to anyone he's "good" on clay. He's been
> > the second best player on clay for the past 6 years.
>
> Djoker has been perhaps better.
Djokovic has 0 FO titles, 0 FO finals, a 3rd-round FO loss in 2009,
and just 1 clay Masters title. It doesn't matter how often he's run
into Nadal or how good his peak clay play has appeared when
subjectively evaluated -- he's not going to come in second with that
kind of resume.
TT
> On Feb 11, 12:32 am, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I say undoubtedly FO. Beating Nadal in the final. That would prove all
>> detractors that Federer is good on clay too. And that he is really the
>> best GOAT candidate out there.
>>
>> No questions about fluking the FO win!
> Mmmmm...
>
> In order of preference:
> 1.- FO => multiple wins on all slams. This would be huge for his
> legacy IMO.
Yes. And as some said winning it when beating Nadal would thousand times
as huge. But it's not going to happen.
> 2.- USO => most OE USOs record to himself passing Sampras and Connors,
> cement HC GOAT claim
That'd be just a nice to know stat. OE records are not a such a big deal
imo.
> 3.- W => tie Sampras at most Ws.
That's better than USO "OE record", it's sharing it but still having it.
Sampras, Renshaw have it. (although Renshaw and Johnston don't really
count).
At US you have to win 7 for the record, too. 8 would be nice, having the
record all to yourself.
> 4.- AO => most OE AOs record passing Agassi, cement HC GOAT claim
>
Rrright...
He's supposed to be a GOAT, right???
...Then why do you keep mentioning "OE records", shouldn't such a noble
animal be gunning for all time records?
TT
>
> Indeed. Winning one more slam, no matter which, would at least see him
> tying an all-time record.
And which record is that?
TT
Do you think he still has a one win over Djoker in him?
Vari L. Cinicke
His Roland Gallos career speaks for itself
2R QF SF SF 3R QF
and
Federer
SF F F F W QF
Djokovic has made 3 career clay Masters level finals winning 1. Federer
has reached 12 of the finals winning 5 titles.
Seems really hard to decide.
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
> On Feb 11, 4:31 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 11.2.2011 6:04, ulys...@msomm.com kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Fed doesn't need to "prove" to anyone he's "good" on clay. He's been
>>> the second best player on clay for the past 6 years.
>> Djoker has been perhaps better.
> Djokovic has 0 FO titles, 0 FO finals, a 3rd-round FO loss in 2009,
> and just 1 clay Masters title. It doesn't matter how often he's run
> into Nadal
Of course it does. And he's done that a lot, always in semis...
(Ok, 1 MC final too me thinks)
> or how good his peak clay play has appeared when
> subjectively evaluated -- he's not going to come in second with that
> kind of resume.
Not my point...and I did use "perhaps". Some years he has appeared the
better of the two, but didn't get to finals because of drawing rafa in
semis. And when he has faced Rafa he has done better than Federer at it.
TT
> On 2/11/2011 4:41 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 4:31 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>> 11.2.2011 6:04, ulys...@msomm.com kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>> Fed doesn't need to "prove" to anyone he's "good" on clay. He's been
>>>> the second best player on clay for the past 6 years.
>>>
>>> Djoker has been perhaps better.
>>
>> Djokovic has 0 FO titles, 0 FO finals, a 3rd-round FO loss in 2009,
>> and just 1 clay Masters title. It doesn't matter how often he's run
>> into Nadal or how good his peak clay play has appeared when
>> subjectively evaluated -- he's not going to come in second with that
>> kind of resume.
>
> His Roland Gallos career speaks for itself
>
>
> and
>
> Federer
>
> SF F F F W QF
>
Fixed it for you. That's how it looks like if he had not faced Nadal.
> Djokovic has made 3 career clay Masters level finals winning 1.
> Federer has reached 12 of the finals winning 5 titles.
>
Always the crappy masters though.
> Seems really hard to decide.
>
It's not like you even tried.
CloudsRest
He's talking about Murray, the Chicago Cubs of tennis. Scumberg can
enjoy another 75 years w/o victory.
bob
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I say undoubtedly FO. Beating Nadal in the final.
3-4% chance of this happening.
> That would prove all
>detractors that Federer is good on clay too. And that he is really the
>best GOAT candidate out there.
>No questions about fluking the FO win!
yes, as now there certainly there are questions of fluke.
bob
bob
<giova...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>
>Wimbledon, cause it's his fave tournament~~
Wimbledon because he needs #7 to not be considered #2 at Wimbledon.
bob
Javier González
I like my amateur and open eras separate. Insert a OE qualifier in my
discussions unless explicitly stated hat amateur era is being
considered.
Raja, The Great
Why? Did they change the rules in 1968?
Javier González
Maybe it wasn't clear, but any slam won by fed would gve him another
record apart from boosting the slam total. Fo means only OE champ with
multiples on all slams, USO or AO would mean the OE record for
himself, W matching the Sampras record.
Ali Asoag
Sampras stopped playing in 2002, dumbo.
Patrick Kehoe
Ya, IF I HAD TO BET... Fed would say that 7th Wimbledon because he
thinks/believes he could get to 8... I'm just saying... as Javier
stated so well: FO would make 2 cycles of the majors: cool... another
USO would be OE record: awesome... hard to pick really... a second FO
I think...
P
Whisper
In that context FO is the least meaningful for him - the others are all
matching/setting open era records.
Whisper
Still stick with Wimbledon. It's the biggest tournament, & he will be
matching an all time record (not just open era).
Whisper
I think there's no question Fed wants more Wimbledons over anything
else. He'd hate to be retired & constantly hear about Sampras being
Wimbledon king. Pete of course would like that very much.
CloudsRest
You must feel a tiny bit sad for Sampras. Not in the running for the
top prize or honor. Left with fighting for the consolation ones.
Bummer.
bob
maybe, but not beign #1 at Wimbledon will irk fed. you have to feel
for him also.
bob
kaennorsing
Really, did Djoker beat Rafa three or more times on clay? Must have
missed something.
Your fantasy of Djoker having been better than Fed is completely
detached from reality - because in reality Fed has a higher win%,
accumulated more titles and ATP points, beaten Rafa on clay twice,
reached more FO finals, won FO and leads the clay h2h with Djoker as
well...
Meaning Djoker doesn't have a single lead in any clay category vs
Federer, so stop spouting nonsense.
Raja, The Great
Yeah TT is really losing it here. Fed is undoubtedly the second best
on clay. Djoker is pretty worthless there. Has he even made one FO
final yet. FO needs stamina and the Djoke is a joke when it comes to
stamina.
Javier González
> matching/setting open era records.
"Only Guy with multiple wins at *all* slams in OE" is pretty damn
impressive.