View Single Post
Old 07-07-2009, 02:01 PM  
PornMD
Mainstream Businessman
 
PornMD's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico2009 View Post
Ok guys, some of you are going to hate me for this.
I have the utmost respect for Mr. Federer, but I have one question. How could he be the greatest player of all time if he cannot beat 2 of the tour's players on a consistent basis (Murray [2-6] and Nadal [7-13])? If he cannot beat these players of his own time, then how can he be the best player of all time?
That's like saying how could Greg Maddux be considered amongst the greatest pitchers of all-time when Tony Gwynn could wipe the fucking floor with him on a regular basis (lifetime .429 with NO strikeouts in over 100 ABs)? But Tony didn't have that kind of success vs. everyone - I'm sure some pitchers had his number. Same with Murray and Nadal - if they were better than Federer, one of them would have taken #1 from him much sooner than last year. Murray is still improving and may eclipse both of them just yet, but still...it's about overall and consistent dominance, and there's a couple facts that set Federer apart from just about everyone except maybe Rod Laver (who didn't have as long of a career as he could have):

-Federer won his first 12 grand slam finals outside of the French Open, by far a record. That should say SOMETHING...Nadal may have owned him on clay, but Federer has been owning just about everyone on the other surfaces - most importantly in the tournaments that count the most in the sport, in the matches that count the most (finals, semifinals). Murray having a winning record against him is great - but it needs to translate to big tournament success first.

- Along those same lines, his grand slam record since 2004? 143-9...143 and fuckin NINE. If you take out French Open, he'd be 111-4! The only reason his overall match record for his career is only around 80% win is because it includes the first 4-5 years of his career when he wasn't peaking. By the end of his career he'll probably end up around 90% win with the way he's going. Nadal in the same span is 87-13, and take out the French Open and he'd be 56-12...certainly good and worth of a world #1 ranking, but look - his French Open record is 31-1 - which %wise is only slightly more dominant than Federer is in the other 3 slams.
__________________
Want to crush it in mainstream with Facebook ads? Hit me up.
PornMD is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote