PDA

View Full Version : The GOAT that is Roger


Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 07:32 AM
Yes, I too cringe whenever I see a new thread claiming Roger is the best ever. but a recent article caught my attention and I wanted to get the opinion of the community

At the end of the day; if Roger wins 14 - 15 Slams but still is owned by Rafael Nadal; which he is.

Make no mistake, Rafa owns his arse despite Federer taking the last 2, can one be considered a GOAT if you couldn't beat one player in question during his reign ?

Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?

Mick
02-21-2007, 07:47 AM
Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?

Against which players does Sampras have a losing record?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84331

McEnroe won the last three matches that he played against Borg.
1981 Milan, 1981 Wimbledon, 1981 US Open

caulcano
02-21-2007, 07:59 AM
, can one be considered a GOAT if you couldn't beat one player in question during his reign ?

*shakeshead*

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 08:05 AM
*shakeshead*

shakeshead up or down ? (Marvel's at the contribution to the thread)

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 08:07 AM
Against which players does Sampras have a losing record?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84331

McEnroe won the last three matches that he played against Borg.
1981 Milan, 1981 Wimbledon, 1981 US Open

No no no

Not players at the end of his career; I'm referring to his prime and also not 2-1 or 1-0 Matchups; I am talking about OWNAGE as Nadal owns Roger 6 - 3, a clear domination

rommil
02-21-2007, 08:07 AM
This is very subjective. Majority go by the numbers for example that Federer can only be better than Sampras if he breaks his record. Then the use of the word OWNED where you make it sound like player A gets blown away by player B each time they play. It's a head to head record and somebody most of the time has to have an edge.There is an implication of ignorance, of a trash talking rookie when somebody states that this player owns that player. I am sure whoever is in the winning edge of that match up busted their behinds getting there. Tennis is a game of match ups. I am pretty sure you can find players there who have a winning record against Sampras (Krajicek maybe or Federer(but that's only one match and Sampras was in the twilight of his career and blah blah blah). Hell if you ask Nadal if he OWNS Federer or any player for that matter he will be the one to say no. Does Nadal have a better record against Federer? yes. Is Nadal a better player than Federer? You go figure and see who is in contention of being the greatest ever.Now, Federer can quit playing tennis now and he is the GOAT in my personal opinion. Go ahead and disagree.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 08:08 AM
I don't understand how Nadal owning him would take the GOAT status away from him. It would be one thing if Nadal was at Federer's level against the other players as well, but he is obviously not.

Everyone has a weakness in their game. Alot of people say Sampras was the GOAT, but he sucked on clay. So clay to Sampras is what Nadal is to Federer. I still think Federer has a chance to overcome Nadal, but its most likely too late for Sampras to overcome clay. I think Federer is the GOAT, but he just needs more time to prove it with stats.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 08:08 AM
Found it (Thanks!)

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=M&action=headtohead&playerid=SAP001

So, no. NO PLAYER HAS EVER OWNED PETE

Chuck Adams USA 1 0 1.000
Andre Agassi USA 20 14 0.588
Ronald Agenor HAI 1 0 1.000
Karim Alami MAR 1 1 0.500
Paul Annacone USA 0 1 0.000
Alex Antonitsch AUT 1 0 1.000
Jan Apell SWE 2 0 1.000
Hicham Arazi MAR 1 0 1.000
Jordi Arrese ESP 1 0 1.000
Wayne Arthurs AUS 2 1 0.667
George Bastl SUI 0 1 0.000
Jeremy Bates GBR 2 1 0.667
Patrick Baur GER 1 0 1.000
Boris Becker GER 12 7 0.632
Jay Berger USA 0 1 0.000
Rikard Bergh SWE 1 0 1.000
Christian Bergstrom SWE 2 1 0.667
Jonas Bjorkman SWE 9 1 0.900
Byron Black ZIM 6 0 1.000
Wayne Black ZIM 2 0 1.000
Galo Blanco ESP 1 1 0.500
Gilad Bloom ISR 2 0 1.000
Arnaud Boetsch FRA 3 0 1.000
Neil Borwick AUS 1 0 1.000
Julien Boutter FRA 1 0 1.000
Karsten Braasch GER 1 0 1.000
Sergi Bruguera ESP 2 2 0.500
Bob Bryan USA 1 0 1.000
Steve Bryan USA 1 0 1.000
Jordi Burillo ESP 1 0 1.000
Doug Burke JAM 1 0 1.000
Alex Calatrava ESP 1 1 0.500
Agustin Calleri ARG 1 0 1.000
Omar Camporese ITA 1 0 1.000
Guillermo Canas ARG 1 0 1.000
Paolo Cane ITA 1 0 1.000
Tomas Carbonell ESP 3 0 1.000
Kenneth Carlsen DEN 1 0 1.000
Johan Carlsson SWE 1 0 1.000
Paul Chamberlin USA 1 0 1.000
Thierry Champion FRA 1 1 0.500
Michael Chang USA 12 8 0.600
Juan Ignacio Chela ARG 2 0 1.000
Andrei Cherkasov RUS 4 2 0.667
Andrei Chesnokov RUS 1 0 1.000
Francisco Clavet ESP 4 0 1.000
Grant Connell CAN 1 0 1.000
Jimmy Connors USA 2 0 1.000
Alex Corretja ESP 4 1 0.800
Albert Costa ESP 5 0 1.000
Carlos Costa ESP 1 1 0.500
Jim Courier USA 16 4 0.800
Barry Cowan GBR 1 0 1.000
Kevin Curren USA 1 1 0.500
Martin Damm CZE 3 0 1.000
Scott Davis USA 1 0 1.000
Horacio De La Pena ARG 1 0 1.000
Olivier Delaitre FRA 1 0 1.000
Ramon Delgado PAR 2 1 0.667
Taylor Dent USA 1 0 1.000
Arnaud Di Pasquale FRA 0 1 0.000
David Dilucia USA 2 0 1.000
Peter Doohan AUS 1 0 1.000
Slava Dosedel CZE 2 0 1.000
Grant Doyle AUS 1 0 1.000
Scott Draper AUS 2 0 1.000
Hendrik Dreekmann GER 2 0 1.000
Joshua Eagle AUS 2 0 1.000
Stefan Edberg SWE 8 5 0.615
Jacco Eltingh NED 1 2 0.333
David Engel SWE 1 0 1.000
Thomas Enqvist SWE 8 2 0.800
Nicolas Escude FRA 1 0 1.000
Kelly Evernden NZL 1 1 0.500
Roger Federer SUI 0 1 0.000
Wayne Ferreira RSA 7 6 0.538
Marcelo Filippini URU 5 0 1.000
Mardy Fish USA 1 0 1.000
John Fitzgerald AUS 1 0 1.000
Doug Flach USA 1 0 1.000
Jean-Philippe Fleurian FRA 1 0 1.000
Guy Forget FRA 5 3 0.625
Andrew Foster GBR 1 0 1.000
Javier Frana ARG 1 0 1.000
Richard Fromberg AUS 4 1 0.800
Renzo Furlan ITA 1 0 1.000
Vladimir Gabrichidze GEO 1 0 1.000
Jan-Michael Gambill USA 4 1 0.800
Chris Garner USA 1 0 1.000
Andrea Gaudenzi ITA 2 1 0.667
Sammy Giammalva Jr. USA 0 1 0.000
Brad Gilbert USA 5 4 0.556
Rodolphe Gilbert FRA 1 1 0.500
Justin Gimelstob USA 4 0 1.000
Marc-Kevin Goellner GER 2 0 1.000
Dan Goldie USA 1 0 1.000
Paul Goldstein USA 1 0 1.000
Jerome Golmard FRA 1 0 1.000
Andres Gomez ECU 2 0 1.000
Fernando Gonzalez CHI 0 1 0.000
Sebastien Grosjean FRA 2 0 1.000
Oliver Gross GER 0 1 0.000
Magnus Gustafsson SWE 5 0 1.000
Paul Haarhuis NED 1 3 0.250
Tommy Haas GER 5 2 0.714
Mauricio Hadad COL 2 0 1.000
Tim Henman GBR 6 1 0.857
Lleyton Hewitt AUS 4 5 0.444
Jakob Hlasek SUI 6 1 0.857
Tommy Ho USA 1 0 1.000
Thomas Hogstedt SWE 1 0 1.000
Henrik Holm SWE 1 0 1.000
Dominik Hrbaty SVK 2 0 1.000
Maxime Huard FRA 1 0 1.000
Andrew Ilie AUS 0 1 0.000
Goran Ivanisevic CRO 12 6 0.667
Martin Jaite ARG 1 0 1.000
Anders Jarryd SWE 2 0 1.000
Eric Jelen GER 1 0 1.000
Thomas Johansson SWE 2 0 1.000
Donald Johnson USA 1 0 1.000
Lars Jonsson SWE 1 0 1.000
Michael Joyce USA 2 0 1.000
Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS 9 1 0.900
Mark Kaplan RSA 1 0 1.000
Bernd Karbacher GER 2 1 0.667
Cedric Kauffmann FRA 1 0 1.000
Mark Keil USA 0 1 0.000
Nicolas Kiefer GER 3 1 0.750
Phillip King USA 1 0 1.000
Kent Kinnear USA 1 0 1.000
Mark Koevermans NED 0 1 0.000
Petr Korda CZE 12 3 0.800
Stefan Koubek AUT 1 0 1.000
Richard Krajicek NED 4 5 0.444
Mark Kratzmann AUS 1 0 1.000
Aaron Krickstein USA 5 1 0.833
Ramesh Krishnan IND 2 0 1.000
Jan Kroslak SVK 3 0 1.000
Karol Kucera SVK 6 1 0.857
Gustavo Kuerten BRA 2 1 0.667
Nicklas Kulti SWE 2 0 1.000
Nicolas Lapentti ECU 3 0 1.000
Sebastien Lareau CAN 3 0 1.000
Todd Larkham AUS 1 0 1.000
Magnus Larsson SWE 6 3 0.667
Rick Leach USA 1 0 1.000
Henri Leconte FRA 2 1 0.667
Hyung-Taik Lee KOR 2 0 1.000
Martin Lee GBR 1 0 1.000
Ivan Lendl USA 5 3 0.625
Harel Levy ISR 0 1 0.000
Michael Llodra FRA 2 0 1.000
German Lopez ESP 1 0 1.000
Jorge Lozano MEX 1 0 1.000
Peter Lundgren SWE 1 1 0.500
Xavier Malisse BEL 2 0 1.000
Alberto Mancini ARG 1 0 1.000
Amos Mansdorf ISR 4 0 1.000
Felix Mantilla ESP 3 2 0.600
Danilo Marcelino BRA 1 0 1.000
Juan Antonio Marin CRC 1 0 1.000
Gabriel Markus ARG 1 1 0.500
Nuno Marques POR 1 0 1.000
Alberto Martin ESP 0 1 0.000
Todd Martin USA 18 4 0.818
Wally Masur AUS 5 0 1.000
Paul-Henri Mathieu FRA 0 1 0.000
Shuzo Matsuoka JPN 4 1 0.800
Luiz Mattar BRA 2 0 1.000
Tim Mayotte USA 4 1 0.800
John McEnroe USA 3 0 1.000
Patrick McEnroe USA 3 0 1.000
Miloslav Mecir SVK 0 1 0.000
Andrei Medvedev UKR 6 2 0.750
Fernando Meligeni BRA 1 1 0.500
Max Mirnyi BLR 1 2 0.333
Francisco Montana USA 2 0 1.000
Agustin Moreno MEX 1 0 1.000
Jamie Morgan AUS 2 0 1.000
Carlos Moya ESP 3 1 0.750
Thomas Muster AUT 9 2 0.818
Markus Naewie GER 1 0 1.000
Diego Nargiso ITA 2 0 1.000
Todd Nelson USA 2 0 1.000
Daniel Nestor CAN 1 0 1.000
Jarkko Nieminen FIN 2 0 1.000
Tom Nijssen NED 2 0 1.000
Yannick Noah FRA 0 1 0.000
Magnus Norman SWE 3 1 0.750
Karel Novacek CZE 0 1 0.000
Jiri Novak CZE 1 0 1.000
Alex O'Brien USA 1 0 1.000
Andrei Olhovskiy RUS 2 0 1.000
Marcos Ondruska RSA 2 0 1.000
Leander Paes IND 0 1 0.000
Jared Palmer USA 4 0 1.000
Veli Paloheimo FIN 1 0 1.000
Arvind Parmar GBR 1 0 1.000
David Pate USA 2 2 0.500
Brad Pearce USA 2 0 1.000
Guillermo Perez-Roldan ARG 1 0 1.000
Diego Perez URU 1 0 1.000
Mikael Pernfors SWE 0 2 0.000
Dinu Pescariu ROM 1 0 1.000
Stefano Pescosolido ITA 2 0 1.000
Alexander Peya AUT 1 0 1.000
Mark Philippoussis AUS 6 2 0.750
Cedric Pioline FRA 7 0 1.000
Kristian Pless DEN 1 0 1.000
Wolfgang Popp GER 1 0 1.000
Albert Portas ESP 1 0 1.000
Gianluca Pozzi ITA 4 0 1.000
Laurent Prades FRA 1 0 1.000
David Prinosil GER 3 0 1.000
Goran Prpic CRO 1 0 1.000
Mariano Puerta ARG 1 0 1.000
Jim Pugh USA 1 0 1.000
Alex Radulescu GER 3 0 1.000
Patrick Rafter AUS 11 3 0.786
Guillaume Raoux FRA 3 1 0.750
Richey Reneberg USA 6 2 0.750
Marcelo Rios CHI 2 0 1.000
Joey Rive USA 1 0 1.000
Olivier Rochus BEL 2 0 1.000
Andy Roddick USA 1 2 0.333
Martin Rodriguez ARG 1 0 1.000
Marc Rosset SUI 3 1 0.750
Derrick Rostagno USA 1 2 0.333
Lionel Roux FRA 2 0 1.000
Greg Rusedski GBR 9 1 0.900
Andre Sa BRA 1 0 1.000
Christian Saceanu GER 0 1 0.000
Marat Safin RUS 3 3 0.500
Emilio Sanchez ESP 2 1 0.667
Javier Sanchez ESP 2 0 1.000
Davide Sanguinetti ITA 3 0 1.000
Stephane Sansoni FRA 1 0 1.000
Fabrice Santoro FRA 4 3 0.571
Danny Sapsford GBR 1 0 1.000
Sargis Sargsian ARM 3 0 1.000
Bill Scanlon USA 1 0 1.000
Sjeng Schalken NED 5 0 1.000
Gilbert Schaller AUT 0 1 0.000
Michiel Schapers NED 1 0 1.000
Rainer Schuettler GER 2 0 1.000
James Sekulov AUS 1 0 1.000
Bryan Shelton USA 2 0 1.000
Leif Shiras USA 0 1 0.000
Jan Siemerink NED 5 0 1.000
Stephane Simian FRA 5 0 1.000
Horst Skoff AUT 3 0 1.000
Roger Smith BAH 1 0 1.000
Vincent Spadea USA 4 1 0.800
Milan Srejber CZE 3 0 1.000
Grant Stafford RSA 1 1 0.500
Jonathan Stark USA 4 0 1.000
Carl-Uwe Steeb GER 3 1 0.750
Brett Steven NZL 1 1 0.500
Michael Stich GER 3 3 0.500
Andrei Stoliarov RUS 1 0 1.000
Sandon Stolle AUS 1 0 1.000
Jason Stoltenberg AUS 4 1 0.800
Jonas Svensson SWE 3 1 0.750
Andrew Sznajder CAN 2 0 1.000
Jimy Szymanski VEN 1 0 1.000
Jeff Tarango USA 4 0 1.000
Eliot Teltscher USA 1 0 1.000
Mikael Tillstrom SWE 6 0 1.000
Bohdan Ulihrach CZE 4 1 0.800
Kevin Ullyett ZIM 1 0 1.000
Daniel Vacek CZE 5 0 1.000
Jan Vacek CZE 1 0 1.000
Johan Van Herck BEL 1 0 1.000
John Van Lottum NED 1 0 1.000
Christo Van Rensburg RSA 1 2 0.333
Jiri Vanek CZE 1 0 1.000
Andreas Vinciguerra SWE 1 0 1.000
Adrian Voinea ROM 2 0 1.000
Alexander Volkov RUS 7 2 0.778
Vladimir Voltchkov BLR 1 0 1.000
MaliVai Washington USA 7 0 1.000
David Wheaton USA 8 0 1.000
Mats Wilander SWE 1 1 0.500
Tim Wilkison USA 1 0 1.000
Todd Witsken USA 3 0 1.000
Todd Woodbridge AUS 7 1 0.875
Mark Woodforde AUS 10 1 0.909
Chris Woodruff USA 4 1 0.800
Martin Wostenholme CAN 1 0 1.000
Simon Youl AUS 2 0 1.000
Mikhail Youzhny RUS 1 0 1.000
Jaime Yzaga PER 4 3 0.571
Mariano Zabaleta ARG 1 0 1.000
Markus Zoecke GER 2 0 1.000

Wimby
02-21-2007, 08:09 AM
Make no mistake, Rafa owns his arse despite Federer taking the last 2, can one be considered a GOAT if you couldn't beat one player in question during his reign ?

Yes, if you can consider a player who couldn't get past the 2nd round of a major SIX times in his prime a GOAT.

Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?
Did you forget Krajicek? He won 5 out of 6 matches against Pete from 1993-1998, which were Sampras's #1 years. At least Federer lost most of the times - 4 out of 6- on clay, a surface on which Nadal is a GOAT candidate. On the other hand, Pete got bested by Krajicek on his own surfaces - including Wimbledon center court - and at his own game.

If you are referring to the article that was posted here some time ago, it should be noted that it was written tongue-in-cheek.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 08:10 AM
I don't understand how Nadal owning him would take the GOAT status away from him. It would be one thing if Nadal was at Federer's level against the other players as well, but he is obviously not.

Everyone has a weakness in their game. Alot of people say Sampras was the GOAT, but he sucked on clay. So clay to Sampras is what Nadal is to Federer. I still think Federer has a chance to overcome Nadal, but its most likely too late for Sampras to overcome clay. I think Federer is the GOAT, but he just needs more time to prove it with stats.


Well, that is the point of the thread. At the end of the day; when Roger is the best ever and assuming Nadal continues his dominance; I think it has a profound affect on his GOAT status.

Edit - and a 5-4 edge would not be dominance; a winning record, yes ... but not the spanking Rafa has been doing

rommil
02-21-2007, 08:18 AM
Now if you really need to see what spanking really looks like, watch the US Open 2000 men's finals.

tricky
02-21-2007, 08:35 AM
Make no mistake, Rafa owns his arse despite Federer taking the last 2, can one be considered a GOAT if you couldn't beat one player in question during his reign ?

Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?

Really depends whether Federer can have a winning record against Rafa on non-clay surfaces. In fact, it could be argued that clay court competition has probably never been higher, making Rafa's dominance of the surface even more remarkable.

Federer and Nadal mutually bring out the worst in each other's game too. Even on clay, it's not so much dominance but a shankfest.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 08:42 AM
Well, that is the point of the thread. At the end of the day; when Roger is the best ever and assuming Nadal continues his dominance; I think it has a profound affect on his GOAT status.

Edit - and a 5-4 edge would not be dominance; a winning record, yes ... but not the spanking Rafa has been doing

So does that mean Nadal is the GOAT? If Nadal is not the GOAT, then him beating Federer is the SAME as Sampras playing on clay.

Everyone here knows Nadal is NOT the GOAT.

noeledmonds
02-21-2007, 08:45 AM
Good stats Nick!

I looked up Borg. Borg does not have a losing H2H against any player he has player he played 3 times or more. This is incredible. Borg's worst H2H are 0-2 to several players. Interestingly Borg has not won any matches against players he has losing H2H against.

ACE of Hearts
02-21-2007, 08:45 AM
Fed has beaten Nadal the last 2 times.I think he has him figured out.Not to mention some of the other players.I hope they meet again just so that my suspicion is right.Can we take into account that Nadal has beaten Fed in clay matches.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 08:49 AM
Even without the 14 slams Fed is already the Goat.

noeledmonds
02-21-2007, 08:50 AM
Interestingly Agassi only has losing H2H by 3 matches or more against 4 players. These are Ronald Agenor (0-3), Fededer (3-8 ), Lendl (2-6), Sampras (14-20). This is remarkable considering Agassi's inconsistancy and longitivity.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 08:52 AM
Even without the 14 slams Fed is already the Goat.

If I remember correctly, somebody put out a post a few days ago showing Sampras' accomplishments at the same age as Federer were almost identical.

I think Fed has proven to be the most dominant against the rest of the players in a particular era, but I still think the longevity of his dominance is just as important for determining GOAT.

OrangeOne
02-21-2007, 08:54 AM
Yes, I too cringe whenever I see a new thread claiming Roger is the best ever.
Make no mistake, Rafa owns his arse despite Federer taking the last 2,

I cringe when I see another GOAT thread OR another Rafa / Fed thread, and here we get two for the price of one! :(

The whole 6-3 difference comes down to Fed's performance on clay last year against Nadal. Fed would play better on a court made of marshmallow and broken glass than Sampras did on clay, Fed's record on clay is already superior to Sampras' record on clay.

Game over, who cares, and if you really truly cringe, and didn't just want to re-start the Fed-Nadal BS, there's an easy solution.... don't click the "new thread" button! :|

rommil
02-21-2007, 08:57 AM
Even without the 14 slams Fed is already the Goat.

Amen to that Drak. Btw, I didn't realize you were 10 years old lol.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 08:59 AM
If I remember correctly, somebody put out a post a few days ago showing Sampras' accomplishments at the same age as Federer were almost identical.

I think Fed has proven to be the most dominant against the rest of the players in a particular era, but I still think the longevity of his dominance is just as important for determining GOAT.

I think I may have put a post out like that. This is what made me have interest in the topic; time and longevity will help us better see. -- I still somewhat subscribe to the parity from the # 2 on down positions in todays players. Roger is the ONLY great player in this current ERA.

Interestingly Agassi only has losing H2H by 3 matches or more against 4 players. These are Ronald Agenor (0-3), Fededer (3-8 ), Lendl (2-6), Sampras (14-20). This is remarkable considering Agassi's inconsistancy and longitivity.

Wow, that is notable. The one thing about Agassi that always dissapointed me was his inconsistency

Good stats Nick!

I looked up Borg. Borg does not have a losing H2H against any player he has player he played 3 times or more. This is incredible. Borg's worst H2H are 0-2 to several players. Interestingly Borg has not won any matches against players he has losing H2H against.

Yes ! I saw this and was very surprised; and leading back the question; how can I be the GREATEST EVER if YOU Owned me my entire career ?

So does that mean Nadal is the GOAT? If Nadal is not the GOAT, then him beating Federer is the SAME as Sampras playing on clay.

Everyone here knows Nadal is NOT the GOAT.

Of course not. That would be silly to think this

Even without the 14 slams Fed is already the Goat.

Let us try and remain somewhat serious

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 09:00 AM
Staying on course; at the end of the day, Nadal will most definately be the asterik on Federer's career Bio.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
02-21-2007, 09:02 AM
Nadal only leads Federer 6-3 head to head because 4 of their matches have been on clay. If you eliminate the 4 clay court matches, and the 1 grass court match, they are 2-2 on neutral surfaces. It is pretty obvious though Federer will not be losing to Nadal on anything but clay in the future, and even on clay he will win atleast half of their future matches. The head to head is not going to stay in Nadal's favor for long unless Nadal does not do well enough to play Federer on anything but clay.

If Federer sucked as bad as Pete on the clay he would probably have a winning head to head with Nadal now.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
02-21-2007, 09:06 AM
Well, that is the point of the thread. At the end of the day; when Roger is the best ever and assuming Nadal continues his dominance; I think it has a profound affect on his GOAT status.

Edit - and a 5-4 edge would not be dominance; a winning record, yes ... but not the spanking Rafa has been doing

There is no reason to "assume" Nadal will continue any edge over Federer head to head. Federer is only getting better while Nadal at a young age is already showing signs of early burnout/stagnation. In the future Nadal will be hard pressed to ever beat Federer in a non clay court match, and Federer has a good chance of winning some of their future clay court meetings.

Any rational person will look at the Federer-Nadal head to head and consider how many of the matches were on clay, Nadal's best surface by far and Federer's worst by far. There is no ownage unless Nadal was able to own Federer on a neutral surface like hard courts.

Anyway though, as I said, the only way Nadal mantains a head to head edge over Federer is if he isnt able to even get far enough to lose to Federer in non-clay events in the future(as losing is likely all he will do in a future non
-clay match with Roger)and if they keep playing often on clay to give Nadal a chance to pad his deceiving head to head.

tricky
02-21-2007, 09:10 AM
Yeah, but people make assumptions that Nadal is already a fading player when he hasn't yet lost a clay court match in years. So far, it hasn't really been close between Fed and Rafa on clay. Even if his 1H BH is more stable against the high bounce, would that really be enough to beat Nadal at the FO?

rommil
02-21-2007, 09:15 AM
Staying on course; at the end of the day, Nadal will most definately be the asterik on Federer's career Bio.

Agreed. Compared to Federer, Nadal is an asterisk.

OrangeOne
02-21-2007, 09:24 AM
Staying on course; at the end of the day, Nadal will most definately be the asterik on Federer's career Bio.

Or he'll be an insignificant memory from 2006. Fed intends playing for at least 5 more years, a bunch of clay losses in 2006 may look minor from there. Maybe because he's won a slam. Maybe because he faded away. Maybe Murray rises and owns Fed later on. Maybe Fed dominates for a few more years, and his 16 GSs to Nadals 2/3/4 makes that asterisk not even a spot!

Who knows? All I know.... this isn't a thing to be nadal-ranting about. Right now comparing someone who has won 2 clay GSs and made 1 other final... to someone who has unquestionably dominated the tour in a way few or none ever have.... just seems wrong. Even mentioning them in the same sentence as Fed seems wrong.

If Federer sucked as bad as Pete on the clay he would probably have a winning head to head with Nadal now.

And that's the interesting fact that I'd never thought of! Sampras avoided the negative clay results against the big clay-courters of his time as he simply didn't make it to enough finals against them. Good point, JHHF.

The flipside of this irony? If Nadal had have been good enough to make a few Hardcourt finals in the last 8 months (in fact, any major final in the last 8 months where Fed was in the draw), the 6-3 probably would be closer / closed a bit now anyways...

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 09:24 AM
Nadal only leads Federer 6-3 head to head because 4 of their matches have been on clay. If you eliminate the 4 clay court matches, and the 1 grass court match, they are 2-2 on neutral surfaces. It is pretty obvious though Federer will not be losing to Nadal on anything but clay in the future, and even on clay he will win atleast half of their future matches. The head to head is not going to stay in Nadal's favor for long unless Nadal does not do well enough to play Federer on anything but clay.

If Federer sucked as bad as Pete on the clay he would probably have a winning head to head with Nadal now.

There is no reason to "assume" Nadal will continue any edge over Federer head to head. Federer is only getting better while Nadal at a young age is already showing signs of early burnout/stagnation. In the future Nadal will be hard pressed to ever beat Federer in a non clay court match, and Federer has a good chance of winning some of their future clay court meetings.

Any rational person will look at the Federer-Nadal head to head and consider how many of the matches were on clay, Nadal's best surface by far and Federer's worst by far. There is no ownage unless Nadal was able to own Federer on a neutral surface like hard courts.

Anyway though, as I said, the only way Nadal mantains a head to head edge over Federer is if he isnt able to even get far enough to lose to Federer in non-clay events in the future(as losing is likely all he will do in a future non
-clay match with Roger)and if they keep playing often on clay to give Nadal a chance to pad his deceiving head to head.

Nothing but speculation on your part in regards to victory on said surfaces. What is done is done. But based on both of our viewpoints, there is no reason to assume Nadal will not continue his edge.

I do not believe Federer will get better; I believe he is at his peak.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 09:33 AM
Amen to that Drak. Btw, I didn't realize you were 10 years old lol.

You need to "realize" different---I'm actually 8 years old.

By the way, if people say Laver with 11 slams is the goat, or Borg with 11 slams is the goat>>>> what is so "incredible" about someone stating their opinion that Fed with 10 is the GOAT?

have a nice day!

ACE of Hearts
02-21-2007, 09:36 AM
I dont know about that, Nadal will need to do a 180 on his game, changing everything.I will say it now without any hesitation.He wont win another slam besides the FO.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 09:37 AM
Let us try and remain somewhat serious

Kind of hard when you start a thread suggesting just because Fed does not have a winning record against Nadal, this somehow would taint his legacy.

Fed has already surpassed Sampras' French Open success, or lack thereof.

OrangeOne
02-21-2007, 09:37 AM
Nothing but speculation on your part in regards to victory on said surfaces. What is done is done. But based on both of our viewpoints, there is no reason to assume Nadal will not continue his edge.

Based on recent form, there's no reason to assume he will continue this edge either.

This time last year, he was about ready to start the clay season coming off a very good hardcourt season, in a few weeks he's likely to start the claycourt season....without a tourney win since he played on clay. Big, big difference.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 09:37 AM
You need to "realize" different---I'm actually 8 years old.

By the way, if people say Laver with 11 slams is the goat, or Borg with 11 slams is the goat>>>> what is so "incredible" about someone stating their opinion that Fed with 10 is the GOAT?

have a nice day!

I think that all 3 of them (and Pete) have a stake in the argument. But calling Roger absolute at this point is premature as he still has some issues to work out; the French being one of them and being able to tame the very player who outright owns his ***.

Which is of course, the goal of the thread. So based on the replies of the Federer Fans, even if RAFA owns him for the rest of his career, it'll have no impact on GOAT status ?

-

I can see them both now at 80 years of age, sitting in the old folks home.

"Ladies, I was the greatest. I am the GOAT !"

Rafa sits in the corner shaking his head and mumbling

"I owned you biatch."

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 09:45 AM
Predicatably, the rabid Fedbase have come out.

I am not a fan of either (I prefer Rafa over Roger in choosing) but I have not made up my mind on how I feel about this question. That was the purpose of the thread, to explore the idea.

Some of us question while others cannot.

TheNatural
02-21-2007, 09:51 AM
Where has Hrbaty been. He's federer's other bogey man at 2-0. Rafter also has Fed 3-0.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 09:51 AM
I think that all 3 of them (and Pete) have a stake in the argument. But calling Roger absolute at this point is premature as he still has some issues to work out; the French being one of them and being able to tame the very player who outright owns his ***.

I wouldn't call a 3-6 record "owning his ***". 1-5, or 0-6 obviously. In fact, the last two matches they have played Fed has "owned" Nadal.

Which is of course, the goal of the thread. So based on the replies of the Federer Fans, even if RAFA owns him for the rest of his career, it'll have no impact on GOAT status ?

No it won't. Fort argument sake let's say they never play again. Fed ends up with 20 slams including a few French Opens>>>>> the only ones making the argument you are making are YOU, and Nadal fans.

The only way your argument would have a strong foundation is if Nadal would have more total slams say 7 or 8. He doesn't.

snapple
02-21-2007, 09:53 AM
Predicatably, the rabid Fedbase have come out.

I am not a fan of either (I prefer Rafa over Roger in choosing) but I have not made up my mind on how I feel about this question. That was the purpose of the thread, to explore the idea.

Some of us question while others cannot.

Nick, it's not an issue of not being able to question but simply the fact that most of us REJECT your premise. Besides, as has already been pointed out, Nadal has a better H2H cause most of those matches have been on clay, which by the way, when you claim these contests are not even close, you are way off base. If I recall, Fed had a match point in Rome last year, and even at the FO, rafa won in a 4th set tiebreaker...not exactly "ownership" like results.

OrangeOne
02-21-2007, 09:55 AM
Predicatably, the rabid Fedbase have come out.

I am not a fan of either (I prefer Rafa over Roger in choosing) but I have not made up my mind on how I feel about this question. That was the purpose of the thread, to explore the idea.

Some of us question while others cannot.

Perhaps you just don't like it when Nadal is questioned, seems to me you created the thread to question Federer....

Anyways - why do people need to be classified as 'Fed fans' or 'Nadal fans'? I think Fed is a contender for GOAT in the coming years, I already think he's the GOAT in terms of hitting the ball, playing the game. I think Nadal is an excellent clay-courter who shows some good fight on hardcourts too, it's a genuine challenge and commitment for anyone to beat him. He reminds me of many other excellent clay-courters, Kuerten, Muster, etc. All excellent players and great clay players, none of whom rate a mention when talking about Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, etc etc....

Again: I can appreciate things in both players, I just think we're talking about two different leagues here.

Lambsscroll
02-21-2007, 10:00 AM
Pete was owned by the French Open and Borg was owned by the The Australian Open and US Open.

Wimby
02-21-2007, 10:02 AM
Predicatably, the rabid Fedbase have come out.

Of course that was exactly what you wanted, you troll - with all the disrespectful and provoking comments about owning arses.

I am not a fan of either (I prefer Rafa over Roger in choosing) but I have not made up my mind on how I feel about this question. That was the purpose of the thread, to explore the idea.
If that was purpose, you would have been more civil in your comments.

You are a Federer hater anyway. If he wins, there is no competition and the other guy gave up. If he loses (even if it is to some player who is a GOAT candidate on his surface), how can he be GOAT?

And you conveniently ignored that Sampras was 2-6 vs Krajicek until 1999 on his BEST surfaces. He also had a losing record, 2-3 to Bruguera. He was 0-2 on clay in 1993. If he was good enough to meet Bruguera 2 more times on clay in 93, he would have been 0-4. Sampras also lost 4 straight times to a nobody like Ferreira in his prime.

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 10:12 AM
Federer has the 'misfortune' of being far better than Sampras on clay. As a result, he has to face the best clay-court player of the decade, on his opponent's preferred surface, multiple times in a single season. I think the mere fact that Federer REACHES so many finals on clay (even to lose to Nadal) shows that he is a better all-around player than Sampras ever was.

If you really examine the Federer-Nadal rivalry, it's not the 'domination' you find in the 3-6 record. Federer has the advantage over Nadal on grass (1-0), Nadal has the advantage on clay (0-4), and they are even on hard courts (2-2). What's more, Federer has come closer to beating Nadal on clay, holding match points against the Spaniard in Rome. Nadal did not come close to beating Federer at Wimbledon, and their last meeting on a hard court was a straight-set victory for Federer. The only unfortunate thing for Federer is that so many of their meetings have come on clay, b/c Nadal is not good enough to consistently make the finals at non-clay tournaments.

So I don't think this is such a blemish on Federer's G.O.A.T. resume. If he can take some matches off Nadal on clay, even win the French one of these years, it will be a big boost for him. In my mind though, the bigger test for Federer is longevity. It remains to be seen if he can keep up his stratospheric level of play and doesn't burn out in his mid-20s, like Borg did before him.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 10:52 AM
Perhaps you just don't like it when Nadal is questioned, seems to me you created the thread to question Federer....

Anyways - why do people need to be classified as 'Fed fans' or 'Nadal fans'? I think Fed is a contender for GOAT in the coming years, I already think he's the GOAT in terms of hitting the ball, playing the game. I think Nadal is an excellent clay-courter who shows some good fight on hardcourts too, it's a genuine challenge and commitment for anyone to beat him. He reminds me of many other excellent clay-courters, Kuerten, Muster, etc. All excellent players and great clay players, none of whom rate a mention when talking about Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, etc etc....

Again: I can appreciate things in both players, I just think we're talking about two different leagues here.

This is an insightful post. I too think that Fed is a contender (Top 3) and i only label fans in terms of the rabid fan base. I alos think Rafa is still young; this year will be interesting as he needs to step up

Pete was owned by the French Open and Borg was owned by the The Australian Open and US Open.

:confused: Player's man, player's.

Of course that was exactly what you wanted, you troll - with all the disrespectful and provoking comments about owning arses.


If that was purpose, you would have been more civil in your comments.

You are a Federer hater anyway. If he wins, there is no competition and the other guy gave up. If he loses (even if it is to some player who is a GOAT candidate on his surface), how can he be GOAT?

And you conveniently ignored that Sampras was 2-6 vs Krajicek until 1999 on his BEST surfaces. He also had a losing record, 2-3 to Bruguera. He was 0-2 on clay in 1993. If he was good enough to meet Bruguera 2 more times on clay in 93, he would have been 0-4. Sampras also lost 4 straight times to a nobody like Ferreira in his prime.

You're the exact kind of poster that doesn't even warrant a reply you little kook.

Federer has the 'misfortune' of being far better than Sampras on clay. As a result, he has to face the best clay-court player of the decade, on his opponent's preferred surface, multiple times in a single season. I think the mere fact that Federer REACHES so many finals on clay (even to lose to Nadal) shows that he is a better all-around player than Sampras ever was.

If you really examine the Federer-Nadal rivalry, it's not the 'domination' you find in the 3-6 record. Federer has the advantage over Nadal on grass (1-0), Nadal has the advantage on clay (0-4), and they are even on hard courts (2-2). What's more, Federer has come closer to beating Nadal on clay, holding match points against the Spaniard in Rome. Nadal did not come close to beating Federer at Wimbledon, and their last meeting on a hard court was a straight-set victory for Federer. The only unfortunate thing for Federer is that so many of their meetings have come on clay, b/c Nadal is not good enough to consistently make the finals at non-clay tournaments.

So I don't think this is such a blemish on Federer's G.O.A.T. resume. If he can take some matches off Nadal on clay, even win the French one of these years, it will be a big boost for him. In my mind though, the bigger test for Federer is longevity. It remains to be seen if he can keep up his stratospheric level of play and doesn't burn out in his mid-20s, like Borg did before him.

Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces.

Who cares when were talking the W and L columns ? Scoreboard; it is what it is.

Anyways' I am still undecided on my thoiughts; no one owned Borg (As previously mentioned), no one owned Jordan, no one owns Tiger.

But Rafa, face it haters, owns Federer, and that is the question of the day.

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 11:02 AM
So it is better to lose to nobodies in the early rounds on clay than to consistently make finals and lose to one of the great clay-court players of all time? The former scenario would prevent one from having a particularly bad win-loss record against a single opponent, but I cannot see how it makes one a 'greater' player.

Brettolius
02-21-2007, 11:28 AM
Nick Irons= Pusher Terminator

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Nick Irons= Pusher Terminator

You got that right.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 11:52 AM
But Rafa, face it haters, owns Federer, and that is the question of the day.

I suppose you think James Blake, 3-0 record against Nadal takes away from Nadal's clay court supremacy/legacy? Will Nadal have an asterisk next to his consecutive clay court wins record because he has a losing record against Blake? Or his 2 French Open Tiltes? I don't think so.

Nadal hardly owns Fed. He has the edge on clay, no doubt about that, but he doesn't own him. When he starts beating him at the other 3 slams--then you have a much stronger foundation for your argument.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 11:57 AM
I suppose you think James Blake, 3-0 record against Nadal takes away from Nadal's clay court supremacy/legacy? Will Nadal have an asterisk next to his consecutive clay court wins record because he has a losing record against Blake? Or his 2 French Open Tiltes? I don't think so.

Not at all; stop supposing.

Nadal hardly owns Fed. He has the edge on clay, no doubt about that, but he doesn't own him. When he starts beating him at the other 3 slams--then you have a much stronger foundation for your argument.

W and L's are all that matters at the end of the day.

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 12:01 PM
Agreed, drakulie.

I am most interested to find out whether Nadal's performance at Wimbledon last year was a fluke. Nadal seems to be more at home in Europe, and he may have a preference for natural surfaces ... I wouldn't be at all surprised if grass turns out to be a better surface for Nadal than hard courts over his career. I think it suits his movement better. Though it's perhaps too tempting to see Nadal as Borg reincarnated, after what he did the first half of last year. We'll just have to wait and see.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 12:03 PM
Not at all; stop supposing.

Uhmm, you are the one "supposing" with the entire issue you rasied in this thread. Go back and read your first post.

W and L's are all that matters at the end of the day.

OK. As I pointed out>>> Blake has a 3-0 record against Nadal. Using your logic, the fact he is "owned" by Blake immediately disqualifies him from being the best clay courter.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 12:12 PM
Agreed, drakulie.

I am most interested to find out whether Nadal's performance at Wimbledon last year was a fluke. Nadal seems to be more at home in Europe, and he may have a preference for natural surfaces ... I wouldn't be at all surprised if grass turns out to be a better surface for Nadal than hard courts over his career. I think it suits his movement better. Though it's perhaps too tempting to see Nadal as Borg reincarnated, after what he did the first half of last year. We'll just have to wait and see.

Becker, I also agree with what you state regarding grass. I don't see any reason why Nadal would not be able to do very well on that surface. Unlike other clay court specialsits he has embraced the idea that not only does he want to improve on that surface, he also wants to win Wimbledon.

I was not surprised he did so well last year at Wimbldeon, regardless of people arguing he had a "weak" draw. However, the injuries seem to be piling on. I hope he is able to up his level and become healthy again.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 12:13 PM
And that folks is the reason I refuse to even get into any debate with Drakulie. No more replies V.I.

Mick
02-21-2007, 12:18 PM
2007 could change all that. If Federer managed to beat Nadal consistently this year, that asterisk won't be there on Federer's record.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 12:21 PM
I agree with that staement. I also think this year Nadal must challenge him elsewhere on the tour.

tricky
02-21-2007, 12:44 PM
Hmm, another issue is if Fed and Nadal remains #1/#2, it will be rare to see them in H2H unless they reach finals. This favors Nadal, as he's been more likely to show up in a clay court final than other surfaces.

In any case, surfaces end up mattering because even media recognizes clay as a specialty now. If there's a moderate advantage to Federer on non-clay and a severe advantage to Nadal on clay, then I guess the argument can be made for Nadal.

However, it's been a long, long time since we've had a guy who was legitimate top-5 on both grass and clay.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 12:54 PM
Hmm, another issue is if Fed and Nadal remains #1/#2, it will be rare to see them in H2H unless they reach finals. This favors Nadal, as he's been more likely to show up in a clay court final than other surfaces.

In any case, surfaces end up mattering because even media recognizes clay as a specialty now. If there's a moderate advantage to Federer on non-clay and a severe advantage to Nadal on clay, then I guess the argument can be made for Nadal.

However, it's been a long, long time since we've had a guy who was legitimate top-5 on both grass and clay.

Nadal worries me at being so young, yet having so many injuries. He needs to adjust his playing style I think.

Moose Malloy
02-21-2007, 01:01 PM
However, it's been a long, long time since we've had a guy who was legitimate top-5 on both grass and clay.

don't think its been that long-Agassi, Lendl, perhaps even Edberg or Becker(don't laugh, he was a 3 time FO semifinalist, & twice a Monte Carlo finalist. Not sure how to quantify 'top 5' but I think being top 5 in win % on clay & grass over a season should be enough.

Polaris
02-21-2007, 01:06 PM
:confused: Player's man, player's.

shakeshead up or down ? (Marvel's at the contribution to the thread)

Please pardon the "ad hominem"-ness of this, but I marvel at your penchant for putting apostrophes where they don't belong.

Now, to your argument about Nadal owning Federer: As many posters have pointed out, the fact that Nadal owns Federer on clay is a consequence of the fact that Federer is good enough to reach the final and challenge Nadal on clay. Sampras, for all his hard court, indoor court and grass court prowess, was not nearly as good enough to consistently challenge the gods of clay (on clay). Thus, instead of making your GOAT arguments based on win-loss records like a lot of so-called journalists, look at what those win-loss records mean. The devil is, as always, in the details (or detail's, if you prefer.;))

That said, GOAT is an entirely subjective concept and depends on the criteria that you ascribe. If you say, "Sampras is the GOAT because I like him more than Federer," then more power to you. People will disagree with you, but will recognize that you are entitled to your opinion. However, people are going to object if you present facts and use a myopic interpretation of them to justify who you think is the GOAT.

tricky
02-21-2007, 01:12 PM
Nadal worries me at being so young, yet having so many injuries. He needs to adjust his playing style I think.

Nadal in my mind has already made some adjustments. His serve is much better now, and on faster surfaces, he's tried to incorporate some net game. He could work his schedule to ease up after dominating the clay court season, perhaps play a relative minimum like what Fed seems to be doing.

That said, a clay court player is a clay court player. It's one thing to have a Henman attain a more baseline game, it's another to make him a grinder. But I think the problem is actually the source of his defensive game -- Nadal's aggressive movement. Nadal is like what Hewitt used to be, running after balls in a kind of half-sprint. Often when he changes direction, it's jarring on his lower body.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 01:23 PM
Nadal in my mind has already made some adjustments. His serve is much better now, and on faster surfaces, he's tried to incorporate some net game. He could work his schedule to ease up after dominating the clay court season, perhaps play a relative minimum like what Fed seems to be doing.

That said, a clay court player is a clay court player. It's one thing to have a Henman attain a more baseline game, it's another to make him a grinder. But I think the problem is actually the source of his defensive game -- Nadal's aggressive movement. Nadal is like what Hewitt used to be, running after balls in a kind of half-sprint. Often when he changes direction, it's jarring on his lower body.


Now that seems to be the logical thing to do. Limit the Clay tourney's. Now that is smart.

The Clay court specialist player bore me. I dig what they do and how they do it, but at the end of the day, a Kuerten or Muster are footnotes in my book of Tennis history.

Polaris
02-21-2007, 01:59 PM
There is no argument in NAdal owning Federer. Period. He just does. W's and L's. He owns him as of today. Why create different variables on it ?
I'm not creating variables. I'm just providing a way to interpret the W-L statistic.
I would never subscribe to this chain of thought and to this day, I am not sure who I consider the GOAT; probably Laver Good for you. I consider the GOAT argument meaningless because I consider comparisons across eras unhelpful. It is, of course, great fodder for threads like these.
This was an entire article in Tennis on it. If you mean Tennis Magazine or Tennis.com, then it is a great source of information, but a terrible source for insight. Some of the commenters on Tennis.com and some of the posters on Talk Tennis have a better understanding of tennis than the writers themselves.
I was curious as to the overall concsenuss.
Apogizes in advance for any grammatical or typo errors. :pLimit the Clay tourney'sMan, you weren't even trying! ;)

Lambsscroll
02-21-2007, 02:12 PM
Didn't, like Hewitt, Nalbandian and Agassi own Fed in the early stages. And Didn't Fed beat Nadal the last 2 times. Hmm, anyone see a pattern here?

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 03:01 PM
That pattern may exist if Nadal was the veteran, right ? Federer is in his Prime and having trouble with the guy.

Let's face it; it is a great rivalry; er, was a great rivalry. I hope we see more of it this year.

(Disclaimer; no argument or stance has been taken by me on this at all; only trying to explore the phenomenon of Nadal)

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 03:02 PM
Man, you weren't even trying! ;)

I wasn't kidding; feel free to instruct. :p

Lambsscroll
02-21-2007, 03:16 PM
Yeah, Fed is in his prime but he keeps improving so maybe hes not in his prime he he. For instance his backhand is much better than 2 years ago when he had, what, 6 slams already he he. The guy has no weakness now so its a matter of time before he figures out Nadal on clay.

lude popper
02-21-2007, 03:21 PM
Did anyone own Pete ?

Yes -- his name is Paris.

He didn't have the ground game or the legs for the dirt. Without all the free service points, he was average at best. Good thing he left before they slowed Wimbledon down.

Sampras = GSOAT not GOAT

avmoghe
02-21-2007, 03:59 PM
This is quite possibly the biggest load of bulls**t I've seen on these boards (and that is saying quite a lot)... Let's have a fun little hypothetical universe to illustrate the foolishness of this argument.

Let's assume a universe with 2 Grand slams (slams A and B), with two different surfaces ( surface S(A) and surface S(B) ). All non-Grand Slam tournaments are played on surface S(A). The sport has been going on for 25 years. Let's look at the sport's first ten years, and then the final ten years:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first ten years, the sport's most important players are player W and player X. Assume player W is invicible on surface S(A), but cannot win a single match on surface S(B). Assume player X is invincible on surface S(B), but cannot win any match on surface S(A).

During a period of ten years, the above constraints lead to the following records:
Player W: 10 wins of Slam A and every non-Grand Slam tournament. 10 first round losses at Slam B against 10 different unseeded nameless players
Player X: 10 wins of Slam B. First round losses in every other tournament.
Head to Head: It is not necessary (though its possible) for players W and X to ever play each other given the above constraints. Lets assume their head to head is 0-0. Note that player W has beaten all of his first round vanquishers at Slam B at other tournaments, and has good head-to-head records against them.

After the first 10 years, everyone considers player W the GOAT. Player W and X retire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Five years pass without any significant GOAT candidates....

For the final ten years, the sport's most important players are player Y and player Z. Assume player Y is invicible on surface S(A), and can beat every player except Player Z on surface S(B). Assume player Z is invincible on surface S(B), but cannot win any match on surface S(A).

During a period of ten years, the above constraints lead to the following records:
Player Y: 10 wins of Slam A and every non-Grand Slam tournament. 10 final's losses to Player Z at Slam B.
Player Z: 10 wins of Slam B beating Player A in the finals every year. First round losses in every other tournament against 10 different unseeded nameless players.
Head to Head: It is only necessary for players Y and Z to meet 10 times. Player Y has an awful 0-10 head to head record against player Z.

After these 10 years, Players Y and Z retire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, who is the GOAT of this universe? Anyone but a complete fool would pronounce player Y as the GOAT of the sport. Player Y got to the finals of Slam B 10 times, while Player W had 10 first round losses.

Exactly what sort of idiot would claim "ZOMG player Z pwned player Y 10-0, so player Y cannot be GOAT!!!!"?

Head 2 Head records are almost completely meaningless.

snapple
02-21-2007, 04:16 PM
This is quite possibly the biggest load of bulls**t I've seen on these boards (and that is saying quite a lot)... Let's have a fun little hypothetical universe to illustrate the foolishness of this argument.

Let's assume a universe with 2 Grand slams (slams A and B), with two different surfaces ( surface S(A) and surface S(B) ). All non-Grand Slam tournaments are played on surface S(A). The sport has been going on for 25 years. Let's look at the sport's first ten years, and then the final ten years:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first ten years, the sport's most important players are player W and player X. Assume player W is invicible on surface S(A), but cannot win a single match on surface S(B). Assume player X is invincible on surface S(B), but cannot win any match on surface S(A).

During a period of ten years, the above constraints lead to the following records:
Player W: 10 wins of Slam A and every non-Grand Slam tournament. 10 first round losses at Slam B against 10 different unseeded nameless players
Player X: 10 wins of Slam B. First round losses in every other tournament.
Head to Head: It is not necessary (though its possible) for players W and X to ever play each other given the above constraints. Lets assume their head to head is 0-0. Note that player W has beaten all of his first round vanquishers at Slam B at other tournaments, and has good head-to-head records against them.

After the first 10 years, everyone considers player W the GOAT. Player W and X retire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Five years pass without any significant GOAT candidates....

For the final ten years, the sport's most important players are player Y and player Z. Assume player Y is invicible on surface S(A), and can beat every player except Player Z on surface S(B). Assume player Z is invincible on surface S(B), but cannot win any match on surface S(A).

During a period of ten years, the above constraints lead to the following records:
Player Y: 10 wins of Slam A and every non-Grand Slam tournament. 10 final's losses to Player Z at Slam B.
Player Z: 10 wins of Slam B beating Player A in the finals every year. First round losses in every other tournament against 10 different unseeded nameless players.
Head to Head: It is only necessary for players Y and Z to meet 10 times. Player Y has an awful 0-10 head to head record against player Z.

After these 10 years, Players Y and Z retire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, who is the GOAT of this universe? Anyone but a complete fool would pronounce player Y as the GOAT of the sport. Player Y got to the finals of Slam B 10 times, while Player W had 10 first round losses.

Exactly what sort of idiot would claim "ZOMG player Z pwned player Y 10-0, so player Y cannot be GOAT!!!!"?

Head 2 Head records are almost completely meaningless.

Maybe I shouldn't be downing cold ones anymore while reading this tennis forum, but I had WAY too much difficulty following this analysis :D (though I basically agree with its conclusion)

Mick
02-21-2007, 04:17 PM
Maybe I shouldn't be downing cold ones anymore while reading this tennis forum, but I had WAY too much difficulty following this analysis :D
haha. I thought only I had that problem :)

BigServer1
02-21-2007, 04:18 PM
There is no argument in Nadal owning Federer. Period. He just does. W's and L's. He owns him as of today. Why create different variables on it ?

Sorry, but that is the dumbest argument that I've ever heard. Why create variables on it? Because at the end of the day Roger has been good enough to go to clay finals and play Nadal on his best surface. Nadal hasn't returned the favor lately on hard courts. If you take out clay (Nadal's best surface) and Grass (Roger's best surface), their head to head is 2-2. Hardly domination, or ownage, as you put it. You can downplay the fact that Roger has won two in a row all you want, but what looks better? 6-1 or 6-3? I think that asnwer is pretty obvious. He has obviously built some momentum going into this season, and it will be interesting to see if Nadal can hold his game on clay this year.

avmoghe
02-21-2007, 04:19 PM
Maybe I shouldn't be downing cold ones anymore while reading this tennis forum, but I had WAY too much difficulty following this analysis :D (though I basically agree with its conclusion)

Perhaps you could pinpoint an area at which I've been unclear? I'll be happy to explain in more detail.

Players of the universe: W,X,Y,Z
Grand Slams of the universe: A,B.
Surfaces of the universe: surface S(B) for Grand Slam B. surface S(A) for everything else.


"Downing cold ones" doesn't seem like it would help though :)

snapple
02-21-2007, 04:27 PM
Perhaps you could pinpoint an area at which I've been unclear? I'll be happy to explain in more detail.


Perhaps my powers of concentration are not currently up to the task :)

Originally Posted by Nick Irons
There is no argument in Nadal owning Federer. Period. He just does. W's and L's. He owns him as of today. Why create different variables on it ?

You seem to ONLY focus on wins and losses. Question: If a player has a 3-0 record against another but each match has been decided in a final set tie breaker, does one player "own" the other? To me, being owned is when the contest is lopsided and the result is never in question.

Lambsscroll
02-21-2007, 04:28 PM
No no no avmoghe, we got your point. :) No need to explain any further he he.

avmoghe
02-21-2007, 04:30 PM
Perhaps my powers of concentration are not currently up to the task :)


:) No matter. About the only thing I can think of would be my use of variables instead of actual values. Having majored as an engineer through college, I prefer their usage to preserve the full generality of the situation.

When you're sufficiently 'alert', you may substitute 'Federer' for player Y, and 'Sampras' for player W to see if it helps (though that would be quite unfair - since neither Federer and Sampras have those types of records)

My post isn't to argue that Federer is or isn't the GOAT. I only wish to show how a player with an awful head 2 head record against some other player can be better than someone who does not have a bad head 2 head record against anyone.

Greengrass
02-21-2007, 04:46 PM
How can Federer even up the H2H if Nadal keeps getting dumped out before he reaches the finals - in case you haven't noticed, Federer is always in those finals.

MoFed
02-21-2007, 05:01 PM
Yeah, but people make assumptions that Nadal is already a fading player when he hasn't yet lost a clay court match in years. So far, it hasn't really been close between Fed and Rafa on clay. Even if his 1H BH is more stable against the high bounce, would that really be enough to beat Nadal at the FO?
Dude, what are you talking about "not even close" on clay? Last year they played 2 4set matches including the French and a five set match on clay. I don't exactly call that not even close. I could be mistaken, but Roger had matchpoints in Rome and should have won that title.

As for Nadal "owning" Federer, I wouldn't say that exactly. None of their matches have been blow outs by any means. Their matches have always been close and competitive. Roger's greatness will not be defined by his ability or record against one player. His greatness will be defined by the slams he wins and the records he breaks.

ATP, Davis Cup and Grand Slam Main Draw Results


2006 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard S Federer 6-4 7-5
Stats
2006 Wimbledon
England Grass F Federer 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3
Stats
2006 Roland Garros
France Clay F Nadal 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Rome
Italy Clay F Nadal 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo
Monaco Clay F Nadal 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)
Stats
2006 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard F Nadal 2-6 6-4 6-4
Stats
2005 Roland Garros
France Clay S Nadal 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3
Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1
Stats
2004 Miami AMS
FL, U.S.A. Hard R32 Nadal 6-3 6-3
Stats

8PAQ
02-21-2007, 05:11 PM
Where has Hrbaty been. He's federer's other bogey man at 2-0. Rafter also has Fed 3-0.

I don't think either of them would be able to get 4 games a set against Fed now.

MoFed
02-21-2007, 05:21 PM
Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces.

Who cares when were talking the W and L columns ? Scoreboard; it is what it is.

Anyways' I am still undecided on my thoiughts; no one owned Borg (As previously mentioned), no one owned Jordan, no one owns Tiger.

But Rafa, face it haters, owns Federer, and that is the question of the day.


You can't say that the surface they are playing on doesn't matter. (Well, you could say, but you'd be wrong.) Nadal is a clay courter, there's no two ways about it. The blemish for Nadal is that he has the most wins on clay. He has not transferred that success consistently to other surfaces. When Nadal starts "owning" Federer on a surface other than clay, then that would be something to talk about.

tricky
02-21-2007, 05:58 PM
Dude, what are you talking about "not even close" on clay? Last year they played 2 4set matches including the French and a five set match on clay. I don't exactly call that not even close. I could be mistaken, but Roger had matchpoints in Rome and should have won that title.

Yeah, I just don't think it's been that close (note I didn't say that Nadal blows away/owns Federer on clay either.) Given the grinding nature of clay, you should expect most matches among elite players to be in the 4 set range, just like Federer vs. whomever at the US Open and Wimbledon. In the French, Nadal still took the back 3 straight sets from Federer. After that 2nd set, I never really believed Fed was in that match.

Their matches have always been close and competitive.

They bring out the worst in each other. We know what Nadal's game does to Fed's accuracy, but people underestimate how hitting shots above shoulder level again and again also neutralizes what Fed's FH can do with the shotmaking.

Moreover, Nadal actually shanks against Fed a whole lot more than against any other opponent. And in fact, Rafa visibily shows nerves when playing Federer in big matches. The situation is that Fed's new emphasis on net approach, wholly unusualy for the clay court game, may be the important leverage against Nadal should they meet again.

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 06:03 PM
In two of Federer's four losses to Federer last year, he actually won more points than Nadal (the Dubai and Rome finals). I call that remarkably close.

tricky
02-21-2007, 06:09 PM
Yeah I meant on clay. But I agree the Rome final was a minor breakthrough for Federer regardless of the result.

I see the situation as kinda like Federer and Roddick. It looked like Roddick was making real progress, winning a set here and there, to close some of the gap between the two. There was even some media speculation that he might even upset Fed at Oz. And that made the dismantling that much more brutal.

Until clay court season starts and you see either Nadal fall back to the pack, or Federer just killing the ball on his BH wing, I'm just convinced that the gap has really been closed. His BH seems more stable than ever, but then he hasn't played on clay since. I guess we'll see?

colonelforbin
02-21-2007, 06:31 PM
Yes, I too cringe whenever I see a new thread claiming Roger is the best ever. but a recent article caught my attention and I wanted to get the opinion of the community

At the end of the day; if Roger wins 14 - 15 Slams but still is owned by Rafael Nadal; which he is.

Make no mistake, Rafa owns his arse despite Federer taking the last 2, can one be considered a GOAT if you couldn't beat one player in question during his reign ?

Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?

How can you say Nadal owns Federer when Federer has the winning record over Nadal? Because Nadal simply can beat Federer (but not often), does not mean he owns Federer. And though Pete obviously didn't lose often, he was generally beaten by a greater variety of players than Federer. Federer loses to one person, Nadal, whereas Pete lost to more than one person (I'm talking generally here, but you get the point). Pete was never really successful on clay, so you could say Pete was owned by anyone who beat him on clay. Federer is a much better clay-courter, and the fact that there is really only one person who stands against him as a competitor is impressive.

Don't get the wrong idea here, I like Sampras a lot, but I feel Federer is the more consistently dominant player.

prince
02-21-2007, 07:26 PM
Yes, I too cringe whenever I see a new thread claiming Roger is the best ever. but a recent article caught my attention and I wanted to get the opinion of the community

At the end of the day; if Roger wins 14 - 15 Slams but still is owned by Rafael Nadal; which he is.

Make no mistake, Rafa owns his arse despite Federer taking the last 2, can one be considered a GOAT if you couldn't beat one player in question during his reign ?

Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?

At the end of the day - peoples opinion here ( you wanted to get the opinion of the community ) said fed is GOAT .
So stop trolling around anymore coz your question has been answered by the community.

drakulie
02-21-2007, 07:38 PM
At the end of the day - peoples opinion here ( you wanted to get the opinion of the community ) said fed is GOAT .
So stop trolling around anymore coz your question has been answered by the community.

Now that I think of it, has anyone even agreed with him?

Pretty sad when he is the one who started this thread and is being "owned" by everyone who is posting on here.

Mick
02-21-2007, 07:56 PM
Federer is only 25 and he has at least 4 more good years to win the major tournaments. Unless some players step up and change things, by 2010, all tennis fans will proclaim Federer the GOAT.

Phil
02-21-2007, 07:57 PM
Anyways' I am still undecided on my thoiughts; no one owned Borg (As previously mentioned), no one owned Jordan, no one owns Tiger.

But Rafa, face it haters, owns Federer, and that is the question of the day.

How does having a 6-4 record h-2-h, with only ONE of those wins being a real blow-out (the 2005 RG semis), qualify as "ownage". The record could easily be reversed, as Fed was pretty much at the finish line at Rome and Dubai. OWNAGE is Edberg's 10-0 record against Muster, or Sampras' 16-4 record against Courrier or his 9-1 record against Rusedski, or Federer's record against any number of players. You probably need to go back and learn what constitutes ownage. There's always Internet kooks around who will try to throw a wrench into any accolade. Let me tell you this, spanky...when Federer's done, he'll probably have 15 - 18 majors and possibly 5 or 6 straight years at #1. And NO ONE other than your sorry self and a few other Nadal fanboys will be talking about RF's h-2-h vs. one player. And that h-2-h record will change, too...in RF's favor.

AJK1
02-21-2007, 08:06 PM
If Nadal didn't lose so often in Tournaments, maybe we'd see a better head to head with Federer. They may never play again, but that doesn't mean Nadal Owns Federer. It will mean that Federer worked him out and beat him soundly the last 2 times they met. Hardly being owned.

caulcano
02-22-2007, 12:51 AM
Federer is only 25 and he has at least 4 more good years to win the major tournaments. Unless some players step up and change things, by 2010, all tennis fans will proclaim Federer the GOAT.

I would but many other fans won't (SAMP/LAVER etc fans & Nick Irons).

caulcano
02-22-2007, 12:54 AM
shakeshead up or down ? (Marvel's at the contribution to the thread)

Nope, neither, it was "left & right".

I think everyone has more or less replied with what I think.

drakulie
02-22-2007, 01:53 PM
Looks like Nick dodged his own thread.

Moose Malloy
02-22-2007, 03:27 PM
here are some interesting head to heads involving a GOAT.

Laver was only 7-6 vs Riessen. Ashe was 16-4 vs Riessen, yet was only 1-14 vs Laver.