Australian Open 2009

[Ong_dynasty]

Sad....Sad freaking sad.

Can't believe how much choking Federer did this whole match. So many set points in the 3rd and he couldn't convert.

Just sad to see Federer going down like this. I just don't get why Nadal is so in his head. Roger is strong against everyone else, but against Rafa he is so mentally weak. Sad...

I think its just the continual beating.
Or at the same time, Nadal has the first person to challenge his greatness and I guess he does not know how to handle it..
Similar to a boxer losing his first match and how he reacts after

[THEmasterWAYNE]

I love how Federer keeps talking himself up in press conferences, for years he's been talking about history and records. He puts pressure on himself until he chokes when challenged by an actual great tennis player. While Nadal is like "I'll try my best and see how it goes. he's very tough opponent". Nadal proceeds to come up with all the big shots, only dropped 4 points on his serve in the 5th set. He has to be the clutchest tennis player of all-time, the Michael Jordan of tennis. So next up it's Roland Garros to take Nadal's total to 7 slams, then Wimbledon for 8 and US Open for 9 and the Calender Year Grand Slam.

[THEmasterWAYNE]

Sad....Sad freaking sad.

Can't believe how much choking Federer did this whole match. So many set points in the 3rd and he couldn't convert.

Just sad to see Federer going down like this. I just don't get why Nadal is so in his head. Roger is strong against everyone else, but against Rafa he is so mentally weak. Sad...

I think its just the continual beating.
Or at the same time, Nadal has the first person to challenge his greatness and I guess he does not know how to handle it..
Similar to a boxer losing his first match and how he reacts after

Federer's "greatness" mostly came against lightweights like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin (Safin's good but not great, freakishly inconsistent) the weak era just after Sampras/Agassi started to decline and before Nadal's arrival.

[Marmoset]

Federer's "greatness" mostly came against lightweights like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin (Safin's good but not great, freakishly inconsistent) the weak era just after Sampras/Agassi started to decline and before Nadal's arrival.

I don't know why some fans of Nadal feel this need to constantly trash Federer, just like I don't understand some fans of Federer having to trash Nadal. They're both legendary players.

I could turn the above argument around and say that Nadal won most of his Roland Garros titles in an era where there are no other great clay court players except perhaps Federer. There's no Kuerten, Borg, Muster, Lendl, Bruguera, Courier, or anyone else that has consistently had good clay results. Most of the Spanish and Argentinian players these days are all-court players, and quite a few are better on hard courts.

Or maybe, Federer was just so good that all those guys like Roddick were made to look bad? It's an argument that nobody can ever prove one way or another.

Today's match was outstanding, but more than what happened on big points, I think ultimately the difference was Federer's awful serving. If he serves even at an average level, he would have won in 4 sets. Nadal's ability to return definitely plays a part in that, but mostly Federer just has a mental hiccup with Nadal that he needs to overcome. It was obvious watching today's match that Federer is very capable of beating Nadal in terms of skill - he needs to somehow improve his mental game to come through.

We'll see if both Nadal and Federer can keep this up - the pack is getting closer to both of them, so it won't be easy.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow. It's quite interesting. At this point, even if Federer fails to win another slam, if he can just keep getting to the finals, I'll likely consider him the GOAT at year's end, and yet you just can't shake the feeling that he feels like a lightweight next to Nadal.

Regardless, I'm quite excited to see what happens next. I absolutely love the turn men's tennis has taken this decade. 10 years ago we thought the sport would eventually end up being just a bunch of supertall guys acing each other to death. We now that nightmare won't come to pass any time soon.

[Doctor MJ]

Federer's "greatness" mostly came against lightweights like Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin (Safin's good but not great, freakishly inconsistent) the weak era just after Sampras/Agassi started to decline and before Nadal's arrival.

Oh BS. While it's true that Federer didn't have a Sampras/Agassi in his era until Nadal came, it's not like Sampras and Agassi dominated every event in there era. In fact there dominance looks absolutely pathetic next to Federer's, and to blame the level of competition on that is silly. The level of competition doesn't explain Sampras getting knocked out in the 3rd round, or Agassi virtually dropping off the tour in their peak while Federer was always at least the 2nd best guy in every tournament in the last half decade.

Resist the temptation to tear Federer down. Nadal has a very good chance to go down as better than Federer, but Federer being the best player not named Nadal will only help Nadal cement his legacy.

[THEmasterWAYNE]

Unfortunately for Federer, making grand slam Finals doesn't really make you a winner. Lendl was never considered the GOAT despite holding the record for GS Final appearances. The first thing you can do if you want GOAT status is win all 4 slams. And then you need to get the total slams record. Those 2 feats are really the only way to seal it. And there is one player on target to do that, with his 6 slams at age 22 and 3 of 4 titles won, including the 2 toughest - French/Wimbledon. Nadal also has the luxury of knowing he can win the French Open every year without even playing his best, he could win 10 of them the way he keeps improving on clay each year.

You don't know why Agassi and Sampras didn't win every event? Because they had Becker, Goran, Courier, Lendl, Edberg, Rafter, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Moya all these champions, all better than Safin (he had talent but didn't use it enough), Hewitt, Roddick and all the other robots on tour in early 21st century. I'm thinking the domination of a rare talent like Nadal and the emergence of the talented Murray, Tsonga and Federer hanging around will signal the dawning of a quality era.

Well the pack is getting closer to Federer with Murray and Djokovic close to capturing the number 2 ranking. But Nadal's lead at the top is growing by the month as he improves on all surfaces. Murray has the biggest chance to get the number2 ranking, he is extremely consistent, not yet in the slams but he'll be winning any tournament Nadal doesn't win, and as we saw at the US Open he beat Nadal albeit a very burnt-out Nadal who would take 3 months off at the end of year. I'd say Murray is definitely at the top of Nadal's "to do list" for 2009.

[TheMartian]

Wow. I think someone here's got a big man-crush on Nadal.

[THEmasterWAYNE]

If I was in Laver's era I'd have just as much admiration for him, its kind of like NBA fans with Michael Jordan. The difference is I don't have posters on my walls of Nadal, which the Jordan fans do. So if anything I'd be targeting fans of Kobe and Jordan as having major mancrushes. All I do is watch the tennis matches, no fanfare. Though I have Hingis and Kournikova posters.

[Doctor MJ]

Unfortunately for Federer, making grand slam Finals doesn't really make you a winner. Lendl was never considered the GOAT despite holding the record for GS Final appearances. The first thing you can do if you want GOAT status is win all 4 slams. And then you need to get the total slams record. Those 2 feats are really the only way to seal it. And there is one player on target to do that, with his 6 slams at age 22 and 3 of 4 titles won, including the 2 toughest - French/Wimbledon. Nadal also has the luxury of knowing he can win the French Open every year without even playing his best, he could win 10 of them the way he keeps improving on clay each year.

You don't know why Agassi and Sampras didn't win every event? Because they had Becker, Goran, Courier, Lendl, Edberg, Rafter, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Moya all these champions, all better than Safin (he had talent but didn't use it enough), Hewitt, Roddick and all the other robots on tour in early 21st century. I'm thinking the domination of a rare talent like Nadal and the emergence of the talented Murray, Tsonga and Federer hanging around will signal the dawning of a quality era.

Well the pack is getting closer to Federer with Murray and Djokovic close to capturing the number 2 ranking. But Nadal's lead at the top is growing by the month as he improves on all surfaces. Murray has the biggest chance to get the number2 ranking, he is extremely consistent, not yet in the slams but he'll be winning any tournament Nadal doesn't win, and as we saw at the US Open he beat Nadal albeit a very burnt-out Nadal who would take 3 months off at the end of year. I'd say Murray is definitely at the top of Nadal's "to do list" for 2009.

Hmm. Well, nobody in the modern era has won all 4 slams, so saying that's the first basis for GOAT is ridiculous. Again, I've got no problem with anyone who thinks Nadal is on pace to be the GOAT, but the current GOAT discussion involves a bunch of guys who didn't win all 4 slams, so obviously, it's not that big a deal. Particularly when Federer has clearly shown he's good enough to win on all surfaces.

Good lord. I never said I didn't know why Sampras and Agassi failed to win every event. I KNOW why. This isn't any kind of question to me. I guess though, you need to be informed that Sampras lost to freaking Gilbert Shaller in the 1st round of a major smack dab in the middle of his prime. If you think Federer was only reaching the finals every tournament because he didn't have to face competition like Shaller, well, you're ridiculous.

Flat out, there is no "level of competition" difference that makes any sense in damning Federer relative to previous generations. If you want to say that Sampras at his best would have beaten Federer on some surfaces, that's reasonable. But there is absolutely no excuse for Sampras' inconsistency relative to Federer. The truth is simple: Federer was much better able to play at an elite level of consistency than Sampras was, and any comparison with Agassi is just laughable.

[Joker]

Roger Federer is in the middle of some type of existential crisis or something. He got Clubber Langed.

[teamny1]

Nadal fans belittling Federer end up belittling Nadal, since most of the reason why Nadal is so great is he is the only one to consistently beat Federer. So if Federer is such a scrub, then what Nadal is doing isn't that great is it?

[THEmasterWAYNE]

Well, first thing you should already know Doctor is that tennis doesn't have a GOAT. Experts (commentators, journalists, ex-players) never agree on who the GOAT is. Not all sports have a GOAT, basketball barely does but enough people agree on Jordan so he is the GOAT (but still debatable). For tennis to have a "majority GOAT" a player must win all 4 slams titles and also surpass Sampras' record. And only one player is in a position to do that now. Winning the Calender Year Grand Slam would further cement this (make them a "conclusive GOAT").

[Ong_dynasty]

Well here in Europe.we seem to believe Borg is the G.O.A.T. Not because of how many slams he had but because of the French / Wimbledon doubles...(which I think is the hardest 2 to win.) at his time (correct me if im wrong) the Australian Open was not really considered a Grand Slam.

For me personally, I think Federer will go down as the best player of all time. I do not believe in the argument of weaker competition. The likes of Hewitt, Roddick and Safin were good at there time and you can make an argument that Nadal's time is based around an Aging Federer with Murray and Djokovic (who by the way have not proven anything compared to the weak class of Hewitt and all).

I think anybody who actually watches Tennis quite regularly knows Federer has the game to win the French (unlike Sampras) it really is just unfortunate that he is going up against the best clay court player of all time.

I am the biggest Nadal fan and starter supporting him when he had no winning shots..In my wildest dreams I would have never thought he would improve this much ..It really is a testament to him.

For people saying Nadal may break down (Which is possible ofcourse), the only thing going for him is that he normally finishes his opponents in 3 and 2 sets..he has been that dominant.

[Slava]

Well.. Nadal is to Federer what Federer has been to Roddick. For the moment it just seems like a huge mental block for him to put a winner past Nadal as consistently as he does against most other players. Nadal looked completely ordinary for the first 3 sets last night and looked very exhausted from the semi game against Verdasco and still Federe just couldn't capitalize on that. Nadal instead capitalized on Federer's nerves in the first set and from the way Federer started the 2nd and with Nadal's court coverage getting restricted all the more with each passing game, I honestly thought this was getting over in 4 sets and after Nadal called for the trainer in the 3rd set, I even feared the worst for him.

However Nadal somehow found that second wind and finished off the business. I think yesterday's win was more of a testament to the level of fitness and athleticism that he has maintained in his career for so long and it'd be very interesting to see how he adapts to the game 4 years later when he's not the fastest guy on the court but right now, I just can't see a player beat Nadal for a slam, unless he's having an extraordinary day.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, first thing you should already know Doctor is that tennis doesn't have a GOAT. Experts (commentators, journalists, ex-players) never agree on who the GOAT is. Not all sports have a GOAT, basketball barely does but enough people agree on Jordan so he is the GOAT (but still debatable). For tennis to have a "majority GOAT" a player must win all 4 slams titles and also surpass Sampras' record. And only one player is in a position to do that now. Winning the Calender Year Grand Slam would further cement this (make them a "conclusive GOAT").

lol, well thanks for the lesson there. I was a tournament player, and have followed tennis for 25 years, so I think my perspective is just fine.

As you mentioned, even with Jordan there is debate, because there is always debate no matter what the sport is when the sport has been around long enough. Sports don't have GOATs so much as they have GOAT discussions, which as you've mentioned, obviously exists in tennis.

[Ong_dynasty]

Well, first thing you should already know Doctor is that tennis doesn't have a GOAT. Experts (commentators, journalists, ex-players) never agree on who the GOAT is. Not all sports have a GOAT, basketball barely does but enough people agree on Jordan so he is the GOAT (but still debatable). For tennis to have a "majority GOAT" a player must win all 4 slams titles and also surpass Sampras' record. And only one player is in a position to do that now. Winning the Calender Year Grand Slam would further cement this (make them a "conclusive GOAT").

lol, well thanks for the lesson there. I was a tournament player, and have followed tennis for 25 years, so I think my perspective is just fine.

As you mentioned, even with Jordan there is debate, because there is always debate no matter what the sport is when the sport has been around long enough. Sports don't have GOATs so much as they have GOAT discussions, which as you've mentioned, obviously exists in tennis.

Wow I never knew you were a touney player....Anybody famous you have played against?!

[Joker]

Well, first thing you should already know Doctor is that tennis doesn't have a GOAT. Experts (commentators, journalists, ex-players) never agree on who the GOAT is. Not all sports have a GOAT, basketball barely does but enough people agree on Jordan so he is the GOAT (but still debatable). For tennis to have a "majority GOAT" a player must win all 4 slams titles and also surpass Sampras' record. And only one player is in a position to do that now. Winning the Calender Year Grand Slam would further cement this (make them a "conclusive GOAT").

lol, well thanks for the lesson there. I was a tournament player, and have followed tennis for 25 years, so I think my perspective is just fine.

As you mentioned, even with Jordan there is debate, because there is always debate no matter what the sport is when the sport has been around long enough. Sports don't have GOATs so much as they have GOAT discussions, which as you've mentioned, obviously exists in tennis.

I think it's safe to say that Gretzky is the pretty clear-cut choice for nhl GOAT.

[Slava]

Wow! Doc is a tournament player.. I'd love to know about any interesting games you played with a big name player.

[Marmoset]

Well, first thing you should already know Doctor is that tennis doesn't have a GOAT. Experts (commentators, journalists, ex-players) never agree on who the GOAT is. Not all sports have a GOAT, basketball barely does but enough people agree on Jordan so he is the GOAT (but still debatable). For tennis to have a "majority GOAT" a player must win all 4 slams titles and also surpass Sampras' record. And only one player is in a position to do that now. Winning the Calender Year Grand Slam would further cement this (make them a "conclusive GOAT").

It seems like you're talking about reaching different levels of GOATness, which contradicts being the GOAT, doesn't it?

Here's a question - if Nadal blows out his back at Indian Wells and has to miss Roland Garros, and Federer wins there in his absence, where would you put Federer? Does it matter if he beats Djokovic in the final, or if it's a guy we never conceived could reach a slam final?

Another thought to ponder - if Nadal's absolute best tennis coincided with Federer's absolute best tennis 2-3 years ago, would the results be the same? It could be argued Nadal is beating Roger Federer on the downward part of his career, not Roger Federer at his best.

Just some thoughts to ponder. I agree that Nadal's chances of being the greatest ever are improved with his win, but:

1) He still has a LONG way to go. Borg and McEnroe, to name a couple greats, went from winning slams consistently to none at all very quickly. At various points those guys could have been on pace to smash records as well. Becker won 5 of his 6 slams fairly early on. Etc.

2) His young age is a big factor. One thing about tennis history is that guys who succeed at young ages tend to stop winning slams at younger ages as well. I'm not saying that will happen to Nadal. He shows no signs of letting up right now. But I bet if you worked out the numbers, the probability of his (elite) career not lasting all that much longer would be very high. Then again, probability doesn't seem to mean much with respect to either of these two players!