2009 French Open

[Doctor MJ]

Congrats to Roger. I now have absolutely zero qualms in saying: Federer is the GOAT. I'm very happy for the guy.

[panacea]

Congrats to Roger. I now have absolutely zero qualms in saying: Federer is the GOAT. I'm very happy for the guy.

Seriously? He wasn't the GOAT before, but now that he beat Robin Soderling in the FO final (not to mention Haas, Acasuso, and Del Potty along the way) he is? I don't see the logic. He played in an incredibly weak era (Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby, etc) and I don't see how winning this FO makes any difference in the grand scheme of things since he was going to win 2 more slams anyway. Is it because he finally won the FO? If that's the case, did he really show you something this year? IMO he's played better in Paris on 07 than he did this year.....

[Doctor MJ]

Seriously? He wasn't the GOAT before, but now that he beat Robin Soderling in the FO final (not to mention Haas, Acasuso, and Del Potty along the way) he is? I don't see the logic. He played in an incredibly weak era (Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby, etc) and I don't see how winning this FO makes any difference in the grand scheme of things since he was going to win 2 more slams anyway. Is it because he finally won the FO? If that's the case, did he really show you something this year? IMO he's played better in Paris on 07 than he did this year.....

Hehe, was wondering if I'd hear that comeback. Not unreasonable at all for you to object to Soderling playing a role in a GOAT conversation.

For some background, what I mean is that I see and use multiple means for determining which players are superior. Following this victory, I don't have a single method that puts anyone ahead of Federer.

Re: Incredibly weak era. I don't buy this. The ebb and flow of competition is such that the overall talent pool isn't going to fall of significantly without reason, so any falloff is about a select few players at the top (where sample size is small enough to permit variation). So short of their being a reason for across the board falloff (let me know if you have an explanation for that), that means two things: 1) If a guy in the current era consistently reaches the last stages of events, and a guy in the preceding era didn't, the current player is indisputably better. Ex: Federer is better than Sampras on clay. 2) If an era is chocked full of superstar talent, then we should see them consistently getting to the last stages, meet each other there frequently, and the total number of players reaching those stages should be small. Is that the case? Sampras played 12 guys in his 18 total finals, Agassi played 11 guys in his 15 total finishes. In other words, I see your Hewitt, and raise you Cedric Pioline. There was not a group of superstars that separated from the field and thus made it far more difficult to win majors in that era.

Now, I don't know you philosophy precisely. Maybe you think the preceding era was weak too, so you'll have to let me know about that. The reality is though, that at basically any point in the open era, if you grab the list of guys you'd consider superstars, you'd be amazed at how often they did NOT play each other for grand slam titles. So, unless you can come up with an explanation for an across the board talent pool shift, dominance is dominance, and Federer is clearly more dominant than anyone we've seen in the past quarter century.

[BlackMamba]

you have to agree: federer = goat.

i see him winning wimbeldon and us open.

[panacea]

you have to agree: federer = goat.

i see him winning wimbeldon and us open.

no, you really don't.

[panacea]

For some background, what I mean is that I see and use multiple means for determining which players are superior. Following this victory, I don't have a single method that puts anyone ahead of Federer.

This is where you lose me. First, I'd like to know what means you use to determine what players are superior (purely out of my own curiosity). I don't have any problems with the rest of your argument, in fact, you made some excellent points. However, why following "this victory"? What in particular did he show you in FO09 that now makes him the GOAT that he didn't show you in FO05-08? Because, as I said, I found Federer's play to be underwhelming (on the whole) throughout the tournament. He didn't do anything this year that he didn't do in previous years, the one exception being that he didn't have to play Nadal in the final.

[BlackMamba]

well, i think that reaching the final ONCE AGAIN is a pretty strong statement.

in the last 7 years a total of 26 grand slams have been played, federer has reached at least the semifinals 22 times!

i think this will boost his confidence and will try to brake the record in wimbeldon.

[Slava]

I think the determining factor in the GOAT discussion right now is consistency and like its already been pointed out, Federer has made the finals in 90 % of the grand slams in this era and won 14 or got beaten by the eventual winner on many other occasions. He demonstrated a consistency on clay that Pete Sampras hadn't shown in his career and Pete actually gave up on the french in the later stages of his career, his best showing being a semis loss to Jim Courier IIRC.

Federer on the other hand has been in knocking distance to winning the French and had it not been for Nadal, he'd have won it a year ago. Actually I have seen more clay court specialists since Sampras retired than during the late 90s, which was arguably his peak. Guys like Gustavo Kuerten, Ferrero and Nadal have dominated the clay since then and so staying consistent in the French open is a tremendous achievement for a player who's not familiar with the surface.

You can make the argument about competition but still Federer has beaten the likes of Roddick, Hewitt (who was highly rated by Sampras himself when he got beaten in the US open final) and others really good athletes like Nalbandian, Davydenko consistently during his career and the fact that he still has 3 more years and a legit shot at 12 more grand slams is a scary thought and if he keeps up his success rate, he could walk home with 18 - 20 slams for his career.

[Marmoset]

First, congratulations to Federer - the best ever!

I agree with the Doctor in that I've never bought the idea that one era in a sport is significantly weaker or stronger than another. Overall, the talent is about the same, although there are some small peaks and valleys. But even if we suppose for the sake of argument that the current era IS weaker, how do you truly measure it? How can you tell if Federer (and Nadal) are winning so much because everyone else is at a lower level, or if all those other guys aren't winning because these two players are simply that good? You really can't, and that's why I think you can only look at what a player has done against the competition he has to face. And by this latter criteria, it is extremely difficult to argue that Federer is not the greatest.

To disprove another point, the idea he didn't beat Nadal is meaningless. As examples, Andre Agassi beat a guy in a similar mold to Soderling in Andrei Medvedev to win his Roland Garros title. Sampras, of course, never even got to a final. Federer has been to FOUR finals at RG. The player can't control his opponent - all he can do is beat him. This year, Nadal was not good enough to make it to the final. Federer was, and he beat his opponent.

Which leads to my final point: there is also the argument that Federer is not the greatest because he has a notable losing record against his biggest rival, Nadal. But this argument is also flawed. Nadal leads 13-7 in their career head-to-head. Nadal leads 9-2 on clay; Federer leads 5-4 on other surfaces. But there is a reason the majority of their meetings have come on clay. Nadal is without doubt the best on clay, while Federer has generally been second best. Therefore, they have met frequently on clay. But on other surfaces, especially hard-court and indoors, Nadal has not been the second best (until perhaps the last year), which means that most of the time Nadal never makes it to a hard-court final where he would have a much higher likelihood of losing to Federer compared to clay.

I am perfectly open to change my opinion of Federer as the best ever if I see a convincing argument, but I haven't seen one yet! Most of the arguments either use the 'weaker era' argument, or the Nadal domination argument, which as you can tell by my post I don't agree with.

By the way, although I'm a big Federer fan, I sincerely hope that Nadal is able to play Wimbledon and compete at a high level.

[Mike Hunt]

I agree with the sentiment that eras are invariably closer in talent than people believe which is why I am of the belief that Roger Federer is the GOAT.

I think one thing that can be granted to the other side of the argument is that different types of play, can be more predominant in certain eras. Federer's era is loaded with excellent baseliners with decent serves (even modern "little guys" hit 115-125MPH serves). Other eras (ie, Sampras') seemed to have more variety as far as types of players faced. The 90's had a lot of serve and volley-ers, some baseliners, some guys who threw a bunch of junk balls all over the court.

While I might concede that playing players with such variety might well have proven to be a greater challenge to a great player like Federer (he seemed to handle the few he encountered pretty well, I can't help but wonder if the reason there are so many pure baseliners today is that it's been proven to be the most consistent of playing styles. If the latter is the case, then I don't see how Federer's dominance is not as impressive or even more impressive than that of past greats.

[Doctor MJ]

This is where you lose me. First, I'd like to know what means you use to determine what players are superior (purely out of my own curiosity). I don't have any problems with the rest of your argument, in fact, you made some excellent points. However, why following "this victory"? What in particular did he show you in FO09 that now makes him the GOAT that he didn't show you in FO05-08? Because, as I said, I found Federer's play to be underwhelming (on the whole) throughout the tournament. He didn't do anything this year that he didn't do in previous years, the one exception being that he didn't have to play Nadal in the final.

I think I can sum it up most succinctly like this: When evaluating a player you don't just go by peak, you have to include longevity. Obviously this match, tournament, year aren't affecting the peak debate, but they are adding to his longevity. Now, what makes this victory special in that regard? Federer just went through his first major slump, and he has no responded by winning two of the next 3 majors, the latter of which on his weakest surface. That ability to perservere combined with the fact that he now has enough titles, finals, and semis in majors to hold water against anybody in the open era, gives him an argument that has no real weakness.

[Doctor MJ]

Which leads to my final point: there is also the argument that Federer is not the greatest because he has a notable losing record against his biggest rival, Nadal. But this argument is also flawed. Nadal leads 13-7 in their career head-to-head. Nadal leads 9-2 on clay; Federer leads 5-4 on other surfaces. But there is a reason the majority of their meetings have come on clay. Nadal is without doubt the best on clay, while Federer has generally been second best. Therefore, they have met frequently on clay. But on other surfaces, especially hard-court and indoors, Nadal has not been the second best (until perhaps the last year), which means that most of the time Nadal never makes it to a hard-court final where he would have a much higher likelihood of losing to Federer compared to clay.

Good post in general, particularly like this point. It's amazing how people continually miss this.

I agree with the Doctor in that I've never bought the idea that one era in a sport is significantly weaker or stronger than another. Overall, the talent is about the same, although there are some small peaks and valleys. But even if we suppose for the sake of argument that the current era IS weaker, how do you truly measure it? How can you tell if Federer (and Nadal) are winning so much because everyone else is at a lower level, or if all those other guys aren't winning because these two players are simply that good? You really can't, and that's why I think you can only look at what a player has done against the competition he has to face. And by this latter criteria, it is extremely difficult to argue that Federer is not the greatest.

Now that I've made my point and gotten intelligent posters to agree with me, I'll go back on it a bit. I said I don't believe talent level changes without reason, but there are reasons, there just isn't one that I'm aware of for a significant decrease at any time since the end of World War II. The most glaring increase comes from the start of the open era. One can make a solid case for guys like Gonzales, Laver, and Rosewall being right up there with the best of any era, but very clearly, the field they played against was far worse than what we have today.

My general philosophy is that talent curves tend to be S shaped, where most of the time there is a very slight increasing level, with occasional accelerations due to things outside of the court itself. The current issue I'm trying to work through: What does it mean that serving appears to be less important now than it was 15 years ago despite the fact that the fastest serves are 25 mph faster now?

[BlackMamba]

also, don't forget that a few weeks ago federer defeated nadal in the madrid tournament.

[GQStylin]

Well, here's what I'll say. Serena is the Player of the Decade, and she is this despite her inconsistency because when she's at her peak, she's the best of this generation without question. So, it is literally true (with a caveat about surface I'll get to in a minute) that other players only win because Serena isn't playing her best.

My problem with your statement though is that it implies that it was unlikely that Serena wouldn't be playing her best. You said about this tournament, "Serena played well below her norm". Fact is, most of the time, Serena doesn't play like the Serena you're talking about. At a certain point, it becomes absurd to talk about a player as being X good, when most of the time they're not. Nobody talked about men's tennis saying that Sampras only won 7 Wimbledon's because he didn't have to go up against peak Krajicek each year, because it was understood that although Krajicek in that one year was a force of nature, what Krajicek was over his career was not in that league. Plot a scale between Federer-level consistency of peak play at the top, and Krajcek-level at the bottom, and you'll find Serena no closer to Federer than she is to Krajicek. (She's reached 6 grand slam finals in the last 5 years, Federer's reached 17, not even in the same ballpark)

Now getting back to that caveat, in 2002, we had two players win their first French. They each reach the Semis the next year, since then, neither have made it that far again. One of these players is Serena Williams, the other is Albert Costa. I can only hope that puts into perspective how bizarre it is to go into each French Open thinking that it's Serena's to lose. People have this idea that Serena's inconsistent, but when she really shows up, she never loses. However, after her 2002-2003 stretch when she was truly dominant, she's never won a major tournament on a surface other than hard court.

To boil it down: Someone other than Serena won the French not because "Serena was out this year" but because of the same reason someone other than Serena wins every year: Serena is not the player that we thought she would be.

I'm not saying Serena is the greatest of all time, but to me she is definitely the best player on the WTA right now and so it is abit shocking to see her lose. Sveta played very well, but again if Serena doesn't choke and plays abit better in that match, then she wins it and wins another French title.

Also part of the reason why Serena hasn't always played to her potential and been as dominate as Federer has for so long is because she's been injured and out for periods at a time. So if she wasn't injured so often, who knows how many more slams she would have won, but despite that, she still has 10 to her name. And also, considering that every tournament she's in she's a top contender or the favorite, why wouldn't it be abit surprising to see her get knocked out?

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not saying Serena is the greatest of all time, but to me she is definitely the best player on the WTA right now and so it is abit shocking to see her lose. Sveta played very well, but again if Serena doesn't choke and plays abit better in that match, then she wins it and wins another French title.

Also part of the reason why Serena hasn't always played to her potential and been as dominate as Federer has for so long is because she's been injured and out for periods at a time. So if she wasn't injured so often, who knows how many more slams she would have won, but despite that, she still has 10 to her name. And also, considering that every tournament she's in she's a top contender or the favorite, why wouldn't it be abit surprising to see her get knocked out?

Well, I think you need to reset your expectations. I completely agree with you that she's the best player right now (something she hasn't been at all times even though her peak is the best), but that doesn't mean I expect her to win every tournament, and it definitely doesn't mean I expect her to win every clay tournament. For me, if Serena loses 5-7 in the 3rd to the eventual champ on any surface but hard court, I'm encouraged because she's very clearly surpassed what any reasonable better would put even money on.

I don't think it's fair to talk about the difference between Serena and Federer by saying "injuries". You realize she's never won 60 matches in a season? (Federer's been in the 90s, and he's not a guy who plays a ridiculous amount). It's not because of injury, she chooses to do other things (like lots of WTA players). And that's fine, but when she then underachieves in the big tournaments after showing up rusty, the explanation is straight forward.

[GQStylin]

Well, I think you need to reset your expectations. I completely agree with you that she's the best player right now (something she hasn't been at all times even though her peak is the best), but that doesn't mean I expect her to win every tournament, and it definitely doesn't mean I expect her to win every clay tournament. For me, if Serena loses 5-7 in the 3rd to the eventual champ on any surface but hard court, I'm encouraged because she's very clearly surpassed what any reasonable better would put even money on.

I don't think it's fair to talk about the difference between Serena and Federer by saying "injuries". You realize she's never won 60 matches in a season? (Federer's been in the 90s, and he's not a guy who plays a ridiculous amount). It's not because of injury, she chooses to do other things (like lots of WTA players). And that's fine, but when she then underachieves in the big tournaments after showing up rusty, the explanation is straight forward.

I think injuries is quite significant. Serena looked to be on a roll in the early 2000s before she had her spate of injuries. And despite her missing alot of time she still was able to win 10 slams so far. I think its not unrealistic to say she could have maybe even equalled the number of slams that Roger has by now if she wasn't injured.

So maybe she hasn't been quite as dominate as Feds in winning so many matches and smaller tourneys, but when it comes to winning the big tounaments, she does show up and gets it done unlike someone like Safina. :p And that's what makes her a favorite in any tournament on any surface.

[Doctor MJ]

I think injuries is quite significant. Serena looked to be on a roll in the early 2000s before she had her spate of injuries. And despite her missing alot of time she still was able to win 10 slams so far. I think its not unrealistic to say she could have maybe even equalled the number of slams that Roger has by now if she wasn't injured.

So maybe she hasn't been quite as dominate as Feds in winning so many matches and smaller tourneys, but when it comes to winning the big tounaments, she does show up and gets it done unlike someone like Safina. :p And that's what makes her a favorite in any tournament on any surface.

Hmm. I guess I'll say two things.

1) It's a very funny kind of injury that causes both sisters consistently win about 1 slam per year. I mean look at Venus, evidently after the Sister Slam run she's been consistently injured at all time except last June early July. Basically every athlete I've ever heard of that people make the case that their career was severely heard by injuries have one or two clear times when they are injured, so the "injury" excuse here seems quite far fetched.

2) Because of how odd these recurring injuries are, if that's the true cause, I'm going to say it's got to be a symptomatic flaw in the sisters bodies. So, if we grant that excuse, the Williams can get talked about in relation to Federer as Bill Walton gets referred to Kareem.

And all that said, Williams sisters looking good now. So congrats to them.