Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Master of Past and Present

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About Master of Past and Present

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Abyss

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Atlanta Falcons

Recent Profile Visitors

9,767 profile views
  1. Yeah, it's pretty weird, if Federer had won 13 Wimbledons (until this year when Nadal got to his 13th final at RG, both were in 12 finals, Nadal won his 12, Federer was 8-4 at Wimbledon) I don't think many people would act like some sort of negative in the GOAT discussion. Not all majors are equal, there was a pretty good gap of elite talent between Sampras/Agassi decline and before Nadal/Djokovic ascended for Federer to feast on. He had 7 major wins before he beat Nadal in a major. Of his 20 wins, 13 came in tournaments where he didn't beat either. In contrast Nadal has only won 6 without beating either and Djokovic 4. If you add in Murray (not their level but certainly a step above the rest of the tour) before his major injury, Federer still won 12 of his without beating the other three, Nadal won 5, and Djokovic only 1. Honestly that's part of the reason even three behind I think you could argue Djokovic already, add in the fact he's the only one of the three to ever hold all 4 at one time and he's the only one of the three to win every one of the 9 Master events (and he now has at least 2 of each) and he has a strong case. He's probably the favorite to end up with the weeks at #1 record and most player of the year awards. But lets back up a second, Federer was in 12 Wimbledons and Nadal now 13 French finals. Federer won 5 of them without playing the other two at all in the tournament. He's 3-4 vs Nadal/Djokovic in the final. Nadal only has won 3 French without playing the other two and like Federer, faced the other two in the final 7 times but obviously he's 7-0. But for some reason it's almost considered a negative that not only has Nadal made it to the finals one more time than Federer's 12 Wimbledon finals but also that he's won each chance. Djokovic should take note, no one's impressed he's 8-0 in Australian Finals, better drop some finals there and win tournaments elsewhere. Better to be like Federer than Nadal in this situation. Yes, I used some hyperbole but it's tiresome that Federer's case is often discounting other people's accomplishment without looking at ways to discount him. Nadal being too good on one surface affects his major total and head to head. Also affecting head to head is primes of Federer and Nadal/Djokovic don't line up. Yet, that same prime factor can account for a quick racking up of majors for Federer before Nadal/Djokovic rose and they never want to acknowledge that. It's funny, it has been a raw numbers game (even though I've argued it shouldn't be) of total won and now that Nadal defied expectations (I agreed many times I didn't think he'd ever catch Federer due to injuries and the tax his style of play puts on him) but now that he did of course its back to the same old that's he's too damn good on clay. If that's a tick against him then so is Federer winning so many majors without having to be an elite player. Seems only fair but the Federer GOAT discussion is hardly ever fair so whatever. I'm pretty sure at this point the biggest reason people argue for Federer so hard is because his style looks more 'beautiful' than the grinding styles of Nadal/Djokovic.
  2. Why raw numbers are misleading. Djokovic's 260+ is more impressive than Federer's 310 for week's at number one. Federer got a ton of those weeks holding off guys like Roddick and Hewitt before Nadal and Djokovic became into form (Not to penalize Federer since can't control who is challenging you when but can give more impressive points to Djokovic for it). Djokovic getting to his number having to fight off elite players for each week is more impressive already. Federer has 20 Majors, 6 ATP Finals championships, 28 Master 1000s. Djokovic has 16 majors, 5 ATP Finals championships, 33 master 1000s so in the biggest 3 tiers, they both have 54. So Federer's tournament lead is all in minor 500 or 250 level tournaments that no great player is ever going to be measured on. As one all encompassing number it looks great but if broken down, does anyone care that Federer has 23 500 and 27 250 series tournament wins to Djokovic's 12 and 9? Shouldn't, these guys strive to get to this level where they play about 16 tournaments a year, 4 majors, 8-9 Master 1000s, ATP Finals take up 13-14 slots. Pick your favorite or best warm up 500 or 250 to round out the schedule, likely one on grass to transition from clay. Djokovic has won every masters 1000 tournament which it seems Federer will not accomplish. Djokovic held all 4 majors at once and beat Nadal at the French, seems Federer won't do that either. Djokovic is on pace to add another Player of the Year and ITF World Champion to his tally (Nadal would need to win US Open for the vote probably to even be close) and he'd lead Federer in both.
  3. Seems the cop out is always (well, not always since surface too) age compared to them like he should be lifted up from not having to beat elite players for years and not penalized for losing later (yet his best win streak vs Nadal is in recent years). This is also why you can not look at raw numbers like Federer has won 20 majors, Nadal 17, and Djokovic 15 and treat them like each means the same. Since Djokovic and Nadal have had another elite rival to face during their career, their numbers would seem more impressive than they are while since Federer got to face a few years of no elite players, his 20 seems less impressive than the number would suggest. There always seems to be things explained away for Federer, his bad record vs Nadal, his bad record vs Nadal/Djokovic in majors (9-19), whatever it is. Seems the greatest and one cemented by Nadal and Djokovic being around wouldn't need so many excuses. So he gets a credit for them being around with no downside because of excuses. Also we're in a new age where age is really hard to compare when guys go down. This isn't the 90's where 30 was a hugely bad number to hit. Guys in multiple sports are still at the top of their game later than ever. Nutrition and fitness has really helped extend primes, I don't think Federer fell off his prime while those guys popped up as much as Federer fans would like others to believe, he was facing better players finally.
  4. 🤔 But he played a good portion when top contenders were Hewitt and Roddick. Federer 20 major wins, 13 in tournaments where he did not face Djokovic or Nadal - 65% Nadal 17 major wins, 5 in tournaments where he did not face Djokovic or Federer - 29% Djokovic 15 major wins, 4 in tournaments where he did not face Nadal or Federer - 27% Federer did most his work not facing these guys.
  5. Do you get this worked up every time a team gets the bad end of an obvious call? Seems pretty convenient to want everyone to band together when it happens to your team for 'integrity'. Have you never told a fan base to get over it or not to put them self in the position for a call to matter? If you can honest;y say you haven't you are the first I would know of.
  6. So Portland has troubles in playoffs with their undersized back court and decide to take another undersized back court player. Seems like a genius plan
  7. Well the good news is they were unlikely to make the playoffs with the rotation they have anyway and now have an escape goat. Also they can now move Dee Gordon to 2B and just replace a suspended player with one who had been in the past. Lastly, like a lot of Mariner fans, we won't believe the playoffs are actually a thing until we make it back there. This isn't even a blow for a lot of us, it's just part of the way they fail this year.
  8. Giannis had quite the game after he hurt Porzingis who had swatted his #### twice already. #### that guy, had no chance on that block when he got underneath him, didn't even show remorse when he went down.
  9. What a series of blunders. Knicks are called for a phantom foul on a 3. Bazemore misses two and everyone goes for the board on the second shot. Knicks rebound and on their possession get an and 1 sending Hardaway to the line. Refs talk and realize Bazemore shot only 2. Instead of sending him to line for one and then Hardaway, they back up the game taking away the Knicks and 1.