Quote:
Originally Posted by The Demon
And Federer needed Nadal to be injured and out of the way to win. Great
And yet again, Sampras faced much better competition in a better era.
What do you mean wouldn't have been dominant without those skills? That's like me saying Federer wouldn't be dominant without his forehand or backhand. This is their skills and this is the different eras they played in.
Unfortunately, "taking things away" is not how this discussion works. By your logic, if you take away grass and hard court, Federer has NEVER beaten him. See how that works? At the same time, Nadal beat Federer at Federer's own game...Twice....Federer has yet to do the same to Nadal.
Other than Nadal and Del Potro, the other players you have listed don't have the mental toughness to compete with these 3. I don't see Federer and Nadal being broken up by anyone other than Del Potro.
Laver won a grand slam in one year. Bjorn Borg won 11 damn grand slams by 25. Pete Sampras played in what was arguably the best era in tennis and won 14. Federer is unable to dominate Nadal.. There's very many arguments against Federer being the greatest.
|
I read that and all I see is
yeah but
yeah but
yeah but
yeah but
Why is it that the people who don't think Federer is the GOAT have to be so argumentative? It's all opinion, it's FINE if you think Sampras is the best. Nobody can answer who's the best until everyone in contention is retired, but then there'll be another phenom tearing the court up at that time and it'll make it impossible to answer.
Opinion, opinion, opinion. And by the way, you should not kick Andy Murray out of the mix. Boy can play some ball, and when he figures out how to get out of his own way, he's a serious contender.