It seems to me he's got a pretty good shot here. It's take a good performance to stop him now. If his semi goes to plan in 3 sets or 4 sets I think he will do it.
he'll take out Berdych in 3 no probs, he's in another stratosphere to that guy the hard match could be Cilic in the final, he beat Cilic in 5 last year but it was real tight, i'd expect Cilic to beat Querrey but could be close that one as they both have such strong serves
I was just looking up exactly when he won his slams and came across all his achievement listed on wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer if you even take 30s to scan down it it really reinforces the GoaT claims for him. I think if he serves well the first serve will win him the matches. The way anyone beats federer now is win the first set and then dig in as he will fade. This wimbledon is really a last hurrah as he took the entire clay season off to focus on it knowing he'd a chance. To be 36 and still doing it, to be world no 5, win 4 titles including australia this year... and have started in 1998/99 is just astounding really to put this in context andy murray got world no 1 on the back of 9 titles last year but he never won more than 6 in his career and only 1 this year. if federer wins this wimbledon he will be on 5 titles for year.
He will be given the GOAT purely for 3 reasons, his longevity, people like him as a person as well as love his style (ala Barca) and because he holds the current most slams. It would have been interesting how well he would have done if he was around at the same time as rafa and djokovic and grown up with them (murray doesn't count, he's crap compared to the other 3). However you can only beat whats in front of you and he's got the most slams so you can't take that away from him
Depends on how you look at it. Remember Laver as barred from playing in most tournaments, including the four majors, for about 5 years. And still managed to win 11 slam titles. He is also the only man to achieve the calendar slam twice and played and won doubles and mixed slams over almost 30 years (that's longevity)
IMO watching nadal v federer was such a high standard that they defined the rivalry. IMO federer directly competed for several years with nadal and nadal was the greatest ever clay player but federer was 100% better guy on grass and prob hard courts too. IMO federer ticks that rivalry box. shame nadal kept getting injured.
For me Feds is the more complete player with the purest game which has worked across surfaces because it is so classic, so he will always be the G.O.A.T. for me. I'm basing this on his winning more slams on more surfaces than Nadal who is really a clay court wizard who managed to translate his game to grass and hard a few times with great success. Nadal is a phenomenal highly honed, finely tuned athlete and competitor and his game is awesome but Federer is pure tennis, his variety, his class, his natural shotmaking and instinctive movement. Federer has also competed for slams over more years. If he wins Wimbers on Sunday that'll be two slams this year with a potential third at the US ... that's their prime for loads of tennis players, two slams in a season and call it a career, yet Feds is doing this at 35 having done it year after year for nearly 15 years and without ever really being away through injury. The ability to manage the body and stay fit is as much a part of being a sportsperson as winning since you can't win if you're not fit Obviously lots of people will always say the opposite, that it's Nadal's mastery of a particular type of play and particular surface together with his athleticism and fighting character that put him above Federer but I can't see it that way, and I do like Nadal's game a lot Both are great ambassadors for the sport (but again something about Federer's character, his geniality and humour, the way he handles himself, puts him above Nadal for me, although Nadal seems a good bloke too mostly, just a bit weird at times )
Complete over 3 surfaces. He wasn't briliant at the french. He was brilliant at other surfaces though. Was just comparing the 3 of them (the big 3 everyone else is just pretenders) and was surprised at how many more finals federer has made (obviously, he couldn't be knocked out by djoko or nadal in the 2003-2007 period which he dominated). I'm not saying thats a question mark on his record but it would have been interesting to know how he would have faired. Slam Wins Finals (inc wins) Fed 18 28 Nadal 15 22 Djoko 12 21
No, I agree, clay will always be the 'weakness' or area lacking that people will throw at Federer and his legacy due to his relative lack of success on the surface BUT, he's made 5 finals, winning 1 of those, at the French Open and most of those were inevitably against Nadal, the outstanding clay player ever, BUT he only won that because Nadal was absent. However, he still had to beat other clay court specialists to win it
I knew you were going to chuck that in. So if we concede making 5 finals makes him great on that surface, then surely Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist (well he is, he's ****ing superb at it). Nadal has made 5 Wimbledon finals winning 2 of them (great at that surface then). He's also 4 Aussie finals winning 1 of them (close go great?) And 3 US finals winning 2 of them (as close to great)?
Bit of Tennis trivia now: Venus Williams has only ever lost a Slam final to two players, Serena Williams and Martina Hingis (US way back in 97). In fact the only reason she doesn't have the Career slam is because of losing to her sister in finals. My money would firmly be on Venus to take the title on Saturday.
