PDA

View Full Version : Does having poor h2h's against his rivals Hurt Fed's resume as GOAT?


GameSampras
01-09-2009, 11:35 AM
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?

World Beater
01-09-2009, 11:50 AM
first of all...nadal and murray are not exactly federer's contemporaries...they are current rivals but they are a diff generation of players.

second.titles matter more than h-hs and only two players nadal and murray have superior h-hs to federer atm. two players esp of the calibre of murray and nadal...not a big deal. if however, federer loses to these guys in gs finals as the years go by,then yes it becomes a bigger deal.

aphex
01-09-2009, 11:57 AM
are you trying to promote sampras as goat again?? eeeh?

federer has a losing record against two active players--please let me know against how many players sampras had a losing record...honestly i dont know but my guess is: many more

GameSampras
01-09-2009, 12:00 PM
Fed is only what 27? Its not like hes 35 and far removed from this generation. And No Im not trying to promote Pete at all. Im just asking a valid question

380pistol
01-09-2009, 12:00 PM
It does and it doesn't. Generally it looks bad surface (gotta look deeper) wise when players like Nadal and Murray have been problematic to him, but tennis is like boxing..."styles make fights".

Nadal will always give Federer problems (and Murray to a lesser extent) due to the fact their games match up well with Federer's. It's not necessarily a slight issue it's that styles make facts, and their styles match up well vs Federer.

LanceStern
01-09-2009, 12:01 PM
Nah I don't think so.

Murray came up as a different generation, he's the young blood so it's expected to give Federer a hard time.

Nadal... no I don't think hurts his chances. It just stands as an obstacle that's been a roadblock for the GOAT from being far and away the GOAT. Without Nadal, Fed would have smashed Sampras' record and had multiple career Golden Slams. As well as have been the best on hard,grass and clay.

egn
01-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Against Nadal maybe but against Murray no because ets remember for four of Federer's carrer it was Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Davydenko etc. etc. who he has outstanding records against..two guys, Nadal and Murray...not going to hurt him that much. Most of Murray is now as he is no longer in his dominating era he is not as much of a threat and Murray is in his prime now so he is more of a threat. Besides there are always those two to three guys who can beat a player. Besides Nadal it is only clay that he has a losing record...so that will definitely be taken into account.

Mungo73
01-09-2009, 03:29 PM
are you trying to promote sampras as goat again?? eeeh?

federer has a losing record against two active players--please let me know against how many players sampras had a losing record...honestly i dont know but my guess is: many more

Wrong. Simon owns Fed 2-0!!! 3 top-ten players own Fed in h2h

Fed is not going to be the GOAT anyway

The-Champ
01-09-2009, 03:46 PM
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?



NO i don't think so. Fed's record against Nadal or Murray doesn't affect anything.

Stich and Krajicek have winning records against Sampras, but so what? GOAT has nothing to do with H2H, it's about slams!




cool stats!

Btw, don't you folks think it's amazing that Stich has only won 1 set against Agassi in 6 meetings?


Agassi has also a winning record against Krajicek, and all their matches on grass was won by Agassi, twice at wimbledon and once at queens where Agassi totally destroyed him.

Chopin
01-09-2009, 04:04 PM
Wrong. Simon owns Fed 2-0!!! 3 top-ten players own Fed in h2h

Fed is not going to be the GOAT anyway

Yeah and Fed destroyed Murray in the only match that really counted--a grand slam final. He's already GOAT in many people's books and two more slams and the tennis world at large will declare him the greatest.

Tennis_Monk
01-09-2009, 05:33 PM
Fed's resume is way too good. His poor H2h against some players doesnt even merit a foot note in history.

Most people dont care too much about who Sampras/Borg/Agassi/Lendl have losing history against. It is an interesting Stat but thats just it.

I belonging to this generation may say Nalbandian has given a lot of trouble to Federer. in 10-20 yrs, this point will be all but forgotten. Ppl remember federer for his 15+ grand slams.

Nadal_Freak
01-09-2009, 05:36 PM
If Fed never wins another slam, Sampras is GOAT.

rubberduckies
01-09-2009, 05:37 PM
It definitely doesn't help his claim to GOAT status but also doesn't exclude him from such consideration. I think that what Federer has achieved is superior to what Sampras achieved, and with one more major this will become indisputable due to Fed's 3 FO finals.

flyer
01-09-2009, 05:45 PM
i think it certainly does in my mind, but not in many other peoples, like it or not greatness in tennis is by in large measured in slam trophies....the factors of the victories are forgotten, such as quality of opponent, court speeds, w/e...

veroniquem
01-09-2009, 05:45 PM
Fed's resume is way too good. His poor H2h against some players doesnt even merit a foot note in history.

Most people dont care too much about who Sampras/Borg/Agassi/Lendl have losing history against. It is an interesting Stat but thats just it.

I belonging to this generation may say Nalbandian has given a lot of trouble to Federer. in 10-20 yrs, this point will be all but forgotten. Ppl remember federer for his 15+ grand slams.
Actually Federer leads the head to head against Nalbandian (10-8), so why would people remember it? They will remember the challenge Nadal and Murray posed to him, he is 2-5 against Murray and 6-12 against Nadal, very unusual numbers for Federer no matter on what surface...

miyagi
01-09-2009, 06:05 PM
I think when Feds career is over and done, it will impossible to mention what he achieved without mentioning Nadal.

I dont think Murray will figure much, more Nadal because he stopped Fed from winning the F.O on 3 occassions and with it the Golden Slam.

Also they will mention Nadal because he stopped Fed at Wimbledon too.

But I dont think it will hurt his status as a GOAT candidate.....he has after all dominated like no other in a fairly competitive era and has won a huge amount of slams.....by anyones standards

pow
01-09-2009, 06:59 PM
Fed's winning record over Sampras has sure put a damper on things... ;)

zagor
01-09-2009, 07:11 PM
Maybe,it depends on a point of view.But realistically almost every GOAT contender has some holes in his resume(except Laver that is)when all is said and done.

JankovicFan
01-09-2009, 08:01 PM
Fed is only what 27? Its not like hes 35 and far removed from this generation. And No Im not trying to promote Pete at all. Im just asking a valid question

That's not quite accurate. The question is rhetorical. You aren't looking for information. Your are baiting people. You already know what you think, and you are going to tell us eventually, like we didn't already know.

All fading players, including Sampras, eventually have "poor H2Hs against their opponents", at least the current ones. But if you frame it in fantasy terms, like "prime X vs. prime Y", assuming both were on top for a significant period, the issue goes away.

It's incredible how many ways there are to frame the premise that everyone plays in the shadow of Pete Sampras, pretenders needn't apply.

ThugNasty
01-09-2009, 08:03 PM
Not at all because at the end of the day federer wins the big ones and has 13 GS. GOAT!

GameSampras
01-09-2009, 08:09 PM
That's not quite accurate. The question is rhetorical. You aren't looking for information. Your are baiting people. You already know what you think, and you are going to tell us eventually, like we didn't already know.

All fading players, including Sampras, eventually have "poor H2Hs against their opponents", at least the current ones. But if you frame it in fantasy terms, like "prime X vs. prime Y", assuming both were on top for a significant period, the issue goes away.

It's incredible how many ways there are to frame the premise that everyone plays in the shadow of Pete Sampras, pretenders needn't apply.

Not at all. I believe what I believe. But I am asking just asking for a general consesus among the posters here. Sampras had his share of poor H2hs against the like of Kraijeck and Edberg as well.


Laver may be the only one to reach all categories to make claim to the undisputed GOAT. Great h2h records and the ability to win slams on all surfaces. He doesnt have the slam record but no doubt he probably would have in the neighborhood of close to 20 had he got to the play the slams in his prime. So Fed and Pete would probably have been chasing Lavers GS record and most likely would never surpass it.

So is it necessarily fair to just go by the GS count in determing the GOAT? When Laver should be sitting on the GS record?

380pistol
01-09-2009, 10:34 PM
are you trying to promote sampras as goat again?? eeeh?

federer has a losing record against two active players--please let me know against how many players sampras had a losing record...honestly i dont know but my guess is: many more

Wrong. Simon owns Fed 2-0!!! 3 top-ten players own Fed in h2h

Fed is not going to be the GOAT anyway

Nadal obvioulsy. Murray. Hrbaty 2-1 over Roger and Simon, so that's 4 I'm aware of.

Dilettante
01-09-2009, 10:51 PM
Does having poor h2h's against his rivals Hurt Fed's resume as GOAT?



No.



.........

Tennis_Bum
01-09-2009, 11:02 PM
NO i don't think so. Fed's record against Nadal or Murray doesn't affect anything.

Stich and Krajicek have winning records against Sampras, but so what? GOAT has nothing to do with H2H, it's about slams!




cool stats!

Btw, don't you folks think it's amazing that Stich has only won 1 set against Agassi in 6 meetings?


Agassi has also a winning record against Krajicek, and all their matches on grass was won by Agassi, twice at wimbledon and once at queens where Agassi totally destroyed him.

You can add Hewitt to that list. He had winning records against Sampras, including a win at the USOpen2001 Final. That got to hurt those fans of Sampras who like to forget losses in finals of US Open, to Safin in 2000 and Hewitt in 2001.

But I am concerned about Fed ability to win matches against Murray more and more. It appears that Fed doesn't want to change the way he plays against Murray. He just plays him the same way every time and expects different results. And every time he does that, he looses. This time he lost much worst. 7-6, 2-6 and 2-6. So Fed actually lost serves 4 times. That's really bad. No matter how you look at it. Whether a small tourney or non-slam, non-master, who cares, I don't think Fed take it lightly. He wants to win against guys like Murray because he wants to prove that he still capable of winning. But with today's result, it looks really tough for Fed when he faces Murray. I am not saying he can't win against Murray, but it will take a lot of great shots and effort to beat Murray if in the Semi, then Fed may not have any gas in the tank in the finals. But if he beats Murray in the finals then who cares, he can rest for 1 month like he usually does.

It will be tough though. But this year's AO is really wide open.

urban
01-09-2009, 11:19 PM
It doesn't help. Surely Federer's 0-3 record against Rafter hasn't so much weight, because it happened before Federer's prime years. All players have some losing records at the begin or end of their careers. Laver got a losing record vs. Borg or Nastase, when he got 36 years old. But Nadal's big lead (with a 5-2 at majors) in Federer's prime years certainly is a factor. Can a goat in his prime years over 4-5 years be constantly beaten by another man and lose 70-75 % of their matches? It's certainly a valid question. He should say: If i am the best, i must and will find a way to beat that sob.
Federer is only 26-27, so he should be able to improve his game, to check out his technical or athletic deficiencies and to react to the challenge of people like Nadal, Murray, Simon or Djokovic. It was imo a disappointment in Borg's career, that he didn't react to the challenge of McEnroe after 1981.

Tennis_Bum
01-09-2009, 11:30 PM
It doesn't help. Surely Federer's 0-3 record against Rafter hasn't so much weight, because it happened before Federer's prime years. All players have some losing records at the begin or end of their careers. Laver got a losing record vs. Borg or Nastase, when he got 36 years old. But Nadal's big lead (with a 5-2 at majors) in Federer's prime years certainly is a factor. Can a goat in his prime years over 4-5 years be constantly beaten by another man and lose 70-75 % of their matches? It's certainly a valid question. He should say: If i am the best, i must and will find a way to beat that sob.
Federer is only 26-27, so he should be able to improve his game, to check out his technical or athletic deficiencies and to react to the challenge of people like Nadal, Murray, Simon or Djokovic. It was imo a disappointment in Borg's career, that he didn't react to the challenge of McEnroe after 1981.

Nadal's 5-2 wins against Fed at slams, of course you know include 4 wins at FO. So, if you look at perspective, it's 5-2 on clay and 1-2 on grass versus Fed. And most people would not argue too much if you say Nadal was or would be the greatest clay court player. It just a way of looking at things in perspective, but then again it's only my opinion.

P_Agony
01-10-2009, 03:17 AM
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?

No, because many of Nadal's and most of Murray's wins over Roger came in 2008, where Roger was far, far from his best. Plus, Roger still has a winning record over Rafa on 2/3 surfaces, and he has yet to lose a match against Murray in a grand slam. He also has a convincing winning record against Djokovic. If the 2005-2007 Federer was playing today, I seriously don't think either Murray or Nadal could stand a chance against him on a grass court (yes, even slower grass) and he would also win most of the HC meetings. Federer had the best movement on tour, amazing backhand, near-perfect forehand which rarely produces an error. Today his backhand is fading away, his forehand is inconsistent, he's slower than he was, and the only thing that's still working well is his serve, and while that's very important, it's not enough. His strokes are still enough to beat most guys on the tour, but to really beat the best he needs his old form again, or at least his USO 2008 form - that should do.

thejoe
01-10-2009, 03:59 AM
No, because many of Nadal's and most of Murray's wins over Roger came in 2008, where Roger was far, far from his best. Plus, Roger still has a winning record over Rafa on 2/3 surfaces, and he has yet to lose a match against Murray in a grand slam. He also has a convincing winning record against Djokovic. If the 2005-2007 Federer was playing today, I seriously don't think either Murray or Nadal could stand a chance against him on a grass court (yes, even slower grass) and he would also win most of the HC meetings. Federer had the best movement on tour, amazing backhand, near-perfect forehand which rarely produces an error. Today his backhand is fading away, his forehand is inconsistent, he's slower than he was, and the only thing that's still working well is his serve, and while that's very important, it's not enough. His strokes are still enough to beat most guys on the tour, but to really beat the best he needs his old form again, or at least his USO 2008 form - that should do.

His serve was bad yesterday. One of the reasons it was such a lackluster performance.

When Roger plays at his best, or even as he did in the US Open final, there is no-one who can stop him. I think most people would agree with that. The problem is that he isn't reaching that level as often as he used to. A lot of it is down to mental problems. The fact that Rafa is just too good for him on clay is a factor. Rafa goes on a clay-court winning streak against him, and he starts to lose confidence and doubt himself. This doubt is carried into all matches, and it affects the way he plays. Against most players, he is still too good, but against Nadal and Murray, this simply isn't good enough, as they are both great players, and the fact that they are bad match-ups only adds to his mental problems. It seems to me that he is forgetting that he is the greatest player of this generation, and in many people's opnions, the GOAT.

I don't necessarily think the head-to-head records will hurt him in his claim to become the GOAT, but I think his play over the last 9 months could. Ever since the Wimbledon final, tennis has skyrocketed in popularity, and if all most people have seen of Roger is the tentative, error-making version, then their ignorance could harm his claim.

Oui, c'est moi.
01-10-2009, 04:25 AM
Fed's winning record over Sampras has sure put a damper on things... ;)
Lolzies.
..

phoenicks
01-10-2009, 04:29 AM
not really, all great champions have some rivals who just win more than him in the H2h, it's simply unavoidable, it happens to all players, esp different generation players.

thejoe
01-10-2009, 04:29 AM
Fed's winning record over Sampras has sure put a damper on things... ;)

People only normally consider it a winning record if the pair have met at least 3 times.

phoenicks
01-10-2009, 04:32 AM
And another thing, don't talk about Fed being the GOAT when he still haven't surpass Sampras.

JankovicFan
01-10-2009, 05:07 AM
Today his backhand is fading away, his forehand is inconsistent, he's slower than he was, and the only thing that's still working well is his serve,

Actually he is losing in part because of a very subpar first serve percentage. The number of breaks is some evidence of that. Hopefully, he will sharpen up, as we go along in the bigger events.

DarthFed
01-10-2009, 07:18 AM
And another thing, don't talk about Fed being the GOAT when he still haven't surpass Sampras.

What about Sampras results on clay? why is that always absent

Sampras is one of the GOAT but his clay record was poor compared to Rogers

rubberduckies
01-10-2009, 10:38 AM
If the 2005-2007 Federer was playing today, I seriously don't think either Murray or Nadal could stand a chance against him on a grass court (yes, even slower grass) and he would also win most of the HC meetings. Federer had the best movement on tour, amazing backhand, near-perfect forehand which rarely produces an error.

Lol. Good attempt at revisionist history. I can understand how you would feel that way about Fed's game if all you watched were youtube highlights of him. His forehand produces errors - it always has. His backhand was 'perfect' in the eyes of Fedfans UNTIL he started losing to Nadal consistently. Nadal dominated him during that time, beating him on hard court (2-1), on clay in 2004-2006 to start his career 6-1 against Fed. Nadal had the chance to serve out the second set at Wimby 06. Nadal outplayed Fed and pushed him to 5 sets in 07. This was all before Nadal hit his prime.

P_Agony
01-10-2009, 10:49 AM
His serve was bad yesterday. One of the reasons it was such a lackluster performance.

When Roger plays at his best, or even as he did in the US Open final, there is no-one who can stop him. I think most people would agree with that. The problem is that he isn't reaching that level as often as he used to. A lot of it is down to mental problems. The fact that Rafa is just too good for him on clay is a factor. Rafa goes on a clay-court winning streak against him, and he starts to lose confidence and doubt himself. This doubt is carried into all matches, and it affects the way he plays. Against most players, he is still too good, but against Nadal and Murray, this simply isn't good enough, as they are both great players, and the fact that they are bad match-ups only adds to his mental problems. It seems to me that he is forgetting that he is the greatest player of this generation, and in many people's opnions, the GOAT.

I don't necessarily think the head-to-head records will hurt him in his claim to become the GOAT, but I think his play over the last 9 months could. Ever since the Wimbledon final, tennis has skyrocketed in popularity, and if all most people have seen of Roger is the tentative, error-making version, then their ignorance could harm his claim.

Yes, his serve wasn't so great in Doha, he didn't get many cheap points with it like he's used to. But he'll find his serve in Australia, I'm confident he will. I just hope he finds his strokes again, like in the Basel final against Nalbandian, IMO his best performence of 2008.

thejoe
01-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Lol. Good attempt at revisionist history. I can understand how you would feel that way about Fed's game if all you watched were youtube highlights of him. His forehand produces errors - it always has. His backhand was 'perfect' in the eyes of Fedfans UNTIL he started losing to Nadal consistently. Nadal dominated him during that time, beating him on hard court (2-1), on clay in 2004-2006 to start his career 6-1 against Fed. Nadal had the chance to serve out the second set at Wimby 06. Nadal outplayed Fed and pushed him to 5 sets in 07. This was all before Nadal hit his prime.

And thats a good attempt yourself :roll: I believe the passage you quoted as "during that time" referred to 2005-2007, not 2004-2006 as you wanted to believe, to make your spin on things fit. In 2005-2007 Federer was 3-1 against Nadal on hardcourts (loss coming in Dubai, victories coming in Miami, and two in Shanghai), and 5-1 against him on surfaces other than clay (adding the two Wimbly matches.) Yes, Nadal may have served for the second set at Wimbledon 2006, but only after he had lost the first set 6-0, and Federer beat him convincingly. 2007 Wimbledon, Roger did not play well and still managed to win. Before 2008, Nadal had never beaten Federer on grass, but Federer had beaten Nadal on clay (with a bagel to boot) convincingly, and if you think Nadal came close to beating Roger in 2007 at Wimbledon, then Roger came even closer to beating Nadal on clay in Rome 2006.

All these victories, and Nadal is a horrible match-up for Federer.

EDIT: You're right, that match was a joy to watch. I was on holiday in Portugal at the time, and I watched the match in a bar overlooking a lake, on a sweltering day in Lisbon. Fantastic :)

P_Agony
01-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Lol. Good attempt at revisionist history. I can understand how you would feel that way about Fed's game if all you watched were youtube highlights of him. His forehand produces errors - it always has. His backhand was 'perfect' in the eyes of Fedfans UNTIL he started losing to Nadal consistently. Nadal dominated him during that time, beating him on hard court (2-1), on clay in 2004-2006 to start his career 6-1 against Fed. Nadal had the chance to serve out the second set at Wimby 06. Nadal outplayed Fed and pushed him to 5 sets in 07. This was all before Nadal hit his prime.

What a failure of a post.

First, somehow you're "forgetting" the TMC matches against Nadal, in both Nadal didn't have the answer against Fed's brilliant play. Second, Federer didn't even play well and still killed Nadal in that Wimbeldon 2006 final. Fed played even worse in 2007 and still got the win. Third, of course his forehand produces errors, as any other player. There is no player in the world who can hit 100% perfect strokes, that's pathetic of you to even mention it. The point was he was hitting many winners and made very few errors with it. It was more precise and more powerful and the most beautiful stroke to watch in tennis (still is I think, even with the errors). His backhand was never the best, but it has so much variety and is beautiful to watch too.

tacou
01-10-2009, 11:12 AM
I personally think yes it does, but this is just another case of how GOAT is such a pointless discussion, but no one will ever learn.

In my opinion to be greatest of all time you need to hold every record in the game (at least the important ones). Until someone manages that Federer will be considered among the greats of the game, but no one man will ever be THE greatest.

miyagi
01-10-2009, 11:17 AM
What a failure of a post.

First, somehow you're "forgetting" the TMC matches against Nadal, in both Nadal didn't have the answer against Fed's brilliant play. Second, Federer didn't even play well and still killed Nadal in that Wimbeldon 2006 final. Fed played even worse in 2007 and still got the win. Third, of course his forehand produces errors, as any other player. There is no player in the world who can hit 100% perfect strokes, that's pathetic of you to even mention it. The point was he was hitting many winners and made very few errors with it. It was more precise and more powerful and the most beautiful stroke to watch in tennis (still is I think, even with the errors). His backhand was never the best, but it has so much variety and is beautiful to watch too.

I'm not joining in with your arguement with whoever you responded to but to say Fed "killed" Nadal at any of their Wimbledon meetings is a reach. Especially when you think how close those encounters were a few points here and there and you have a totally different outcome.

Nadal has been the only man who showed that he might be able to beat Fed at SW19.

But anyway Fed is great to watch and I will enjoy watching him this year too.

tintin
01-10-2009, 11:24 AM
Federer:13 slams win








































































Murray:USO finalist:rolleyes::lol:

helloworld
01-10-2009, 11:29 AM
Nadal has been the only man who showed that he might be able to beat Fed at SW19.

Wrong!

Nadal is the man who already showed that he can BEAT Fed at SW19.

There fixed it for ya.

P_Agony
01-13-2009, 10:36 AM
I'm not joining in with your arguement with whoever you responded to but to say Fed "killed" Nadal at any of their Wimbledon meetings is a reach. Especially when you think how close those encounters were a few points here and there and you have a totally different outcome.

Nadal has been the only man who showed that he might be able to beat Fed at SW19.

But anyway Fed is great to watch and I will enjoy watching him this year too.

Come on - Fed didn't even play very well in the 2006 Wimbeldon, and still bageled Nadal. What more do you want? I still believe that an in form Federer is a way better grass court player than an in form Nadal. In 2007 Fed played like crap and barely got the win, but in 2006 it was pretty one-sided for most of the match.

ksbh
01-13-2009, 12:39 PM
Federer has already surpassed Sampras in tennis achievements. How many FO finals did Sampras get to? Federer already has 3 FO finals on his resume and will likely get more.

He's a long way from GOAT though.

And another thing, don't talk about Fed being the GOAT when he still haven't surpass Sampras.

ksbh
01-13-2009, 12:43 PM
Not against other players but his record against Nadal will without doubt cast a shadow on his achievements. 6-12 overall but more importantly 2-4 in grand slam finals. And I don't think Nadal is done yet with widening that H2H against Federer.

veroniquem
01-13-2009, 12:54 PM
Come on - Fed didn't even play very well in the 2006 Wimbeldon, and still bageled Nadal. What more do you want? I still believe that an in form Federer is a way better grass court player than an in form Nadal. In 2007 Fed played like crap and barely got the win, but in 2006 it was pretty one-sided for most of the match.
A bagel set doesn't mean anything at all. Fed bageled Nadal in a RG final and he still lost the next 3 sets and the match. The 2006 W final may have included a bagel set but it wasn't a straight set win, Nadal still got a set. If you want to see what a one-sided match is, look at RG final 2008: straight sets, 18 games to 4, that's a comprehensive victory, no?

P_Agony
01-13-2009, 12:56 PM
Not against other players but his record against Nadal will without doubt cast a shadow on his achievements. 6-12 overall but more importantly 2-4 in grand slam finals. And I don't think Nadal is done yet with widening that H2H against Federer.

I disagree with the shadow part. 2 of Nadal's GS wins against Federer came in 2008, Federer's worst year. Until then it was the usual routine of Nadal beating Federer in FO, and Federer beating Nadal in Wimbly. 2008 really hurt Fed's H2H with Nadal, with 4 losses.

Still, Federer has a winning record against Nadal on HC and grass. People tend to forget about that, but it's 2/3 surfaces. They didn't meet a lot on HC because Nadal didn't reach a lot of finals. When they did meet, mostly in the TMC, it was Federer who wiped the floor with Nadal. On grass they didn't meet a lot because there was nowhere to meet, so it was mostly clay, and Nadal has the upper hand there (altough other than Hamburg 2007, Fed was close to beat Rafa in many occasions).

P_Agony
01-13-2009, 12:58 PM
A bagel set doesn't mean anything at all. Fed bageled Nadal in a RG final and he still lost the next 3 sets and the match. The 2006 W final may have included a bagel set but it wasn't a straight set win, Nadal still got a set. If you want to see what a one-sided match is, look at RG final 2008: straight sets, 18 games to 4, that's a comprehensive victory, no?

That was indeed one-sided, way more than the 2006 Wimbly final. Still, if you watch that final again, it was Federer who really dominated the match.
The last set was pretty one-sided too.

veroniquem
01-13-2009, 01:03 PM
Federer has already surpassed Sampras in tennis achievements. How many FO finals did Sampras get to? Federer already has 3 FO finals on his resume and will likely get more.

He's a long way from GOAT though.
This is an unending discussion I guess but sure Fed has 3 RG finals, however Sampras has more W titles than Fed, more slams overall, more titles overall and more weeks at #1. I'd say the case isn't closed yet.

Zaragoza
01-13-2009, 01:04 PM
Something people tend to forget too is how close their head-to-head is on hardcourts (3-2) and grass (2-1) as opposed to clay (9-1). Federer doesn't dominate the head to head on other surfaces like Nadal does on clay, otherwise the head to head would be 9-9 and not 12-6 in favour of Nadal. Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. Period.

veroniquem
01-13-2009, 01:10 PM
To answer the OP's question, I don't think poor head to head makes any difference whatsoever to the GOAT issue. As long as a player keeps winning tournaments and slams, who cares about his bad head to heads, all players have some. It's only significant in so far as those poor head to head prevent the potential GOAT from winning majors. That's the relevance of Nadal in Fed's career: he doesn't hold a FO title (and didn't break Borg's record at W). Imagine that Murray beat Fed 20 times but never beat him in a major, then the poor head to head would have very little impact on Fed's status in the game.

veroniquem
01-13-2009, 01:12 PM
That was indeed one-sided, way more than the 2006 Wimbly final. Still, if you watch that final again, it was Federer who really dominated the match.
The last set was pretty one-sided too.
OK we can say parts of the match were one-sided but still the match as a whole was not because Nadal grabbed a set.

Zaragoza
01-13-2009, 01:27 PM
Come on - Fed didn't even play very well in the 2006 Wimbeldon, and still bageled Nadal. What more do you want? I still believe that an in form Federer is a way better grass court player than an in form Nadal. In 2007 Fed played like crap and barely got the win, but in 2006 it was pretty one-sided for most of the match.

And how well did Nadal play in the 2006 Wimbledon final? As well as he did in 2008? Some Federer fans really enjoy this "Federer didn't play well/played like crap and still beat Nadal" thing. Do you think Nadal played his best against Federer in Wimbledon 2006, Miami 2005, the Masters Cup, Hamburg and Monte Carlo this year? Do you think Murray and Djokovic always play their best against Federer? So when Nadal beats Federer or plays a close match with him you say Federer didn't play well or played like crap but when Federer beats Nadal full credit goes to Federer because Nadal always plays his best even if he plays back to back tournaments, that's how some Federer fans think here.
And the 2006 Wimbledon final went to 4 sets, that's the best Federer has done against Nadal in 4 years at Roland Garros.
Nadal and Federer have played 16 outdoor matches and Federer has never beaten Nadal in straight sets (grass, hardcourts or clay).

tennis-hero
01-14-2009, 05:08 PM
in 08 Fed was declining

before then the Rafa Fed h2h was 8-6

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 05:17 PM
take away the clay and fed has a winning record against nadal, the reason why its not more even is because nadal has trouble making the finals on hard court surfaces.

As far as murray, Feds beat em where it counts most, A grand slam final, but i think the 5 straight wimbys and the 5 straight us opens speak for themselves

enough said Fed is the undisputed greatest of all time.

lambielspins
01-14-2009, 08:33 PM
To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

edberg505
01-14-2009, 08:40 PM
To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

I've said this before on another thread, it's unfortunate they don't hand out slams for the leaders in H2H. It's clear what the OP is trying to do here as many have already said in the post before me. It's a never ending agenda of his.

lambielspins
01-14-2009, 08:52 PM
I've said this before on another thread, it's unfortunate they don't hand out slams for the leaders in H2H. It's clear what the OP is trying to do here as many have already said in the post before me. It's a never ending agenda of his.

The OP isnt saying Nadal deserves to rank as a great player than Federer however. He is saying Nadal and now Murray's dominance over Federer is an argument against him when it comes to comparing him to other greatest players of all time like Sampras, Laver, or Borg, and an argument against him being the best player ever. He has a valid point on that.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 08:58 PM
And how well did Nadal play in the 2006 Wimbledon final? As well as he did in 2008? Some Federer fans really enjoy this "Federer didn't play well/played like crap and still beat Nadal" thing. Do you think Nadal played his best against Federer in Wimbledon 2006, Miami 2005, the Masters Cup, Hamburg and Monte Carlo this year? Do you think Murray and Djokovic always play their best against Federer? So when Nadal beats Federer or plays a close match with him you say Federer didn't play well or played like crap but when Federer beats Nadal full credit goes to Federer because Nadal always plays his best even if he plays back to back tournaments, that's how some Federer fans think here.
And the 2006 Wimbledon final went to 4 sets, that's the best Federer has done against Nadal in 4 years at Roland Garros.
Nadal and Federer have played 16 outdoor matches and Federer has never beaten Nadal in straight sets (grass, hardcourts or clay).



Federer was playing absolutely craptacular in the Miami 2005 final, and Nadal was playing extremely well, better than he even does today. I think you should be a little more objective. In the first 2 sets, Federer had some ridiculous number of unforced errors, like 35+ or something to that extent. That is not normal for Federer in 2005. Federer turned it around despite having a pretty bad day for his standards, and flipped the switch and beat Nadal, fair and square.


Also, you fail to realize that Nadal does not make it deep enough to reach Federer in HC tournaments. The one surface that he is capable of doing it on, is grass, which isn't really what we would like to call "grass." It's more of some sort of synthetic abomination.

edberg505
01-14-2009, 09:00 PM
The OP isnt saying Nadal deserves to rank as a great player than Federer however. He is saying Nadal and now Murray's dominance over Federer is an argument against him when it comes to comparing him to other greatest players of all time like Sampras, Laver, or Borg, and an argument against him being the best player ever. He has a valid point on that.

Exactly. About the point being valid, well I dunno about that. Richard Krajicek and Lleyton Hewitt anyone?

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 09:05 PM
To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.



No, he actually hasn't. The two indoor matches they played were demolition derby for Federer, and the Miami 2005 final was a really bad day for Federer (53 errors in 3 sets) and he still managed to beat an onfire Nadal. Wimbledon 2006 and 2007 were both convincing wins for Federer, with Federer pretty much in control of the 06 final, and putting away Nadal convincingly in the 5th set of the 2007 final, 6-2.


Alot of matches on the clay were close, especially in the period of Federer's prime. Federer has managed to take most of the matches to 3 sets in a best of 3 format, and has taken Nadal to 5 in Rome. Even when he loses in two sets, he has had monumental leads before and pulls a massive epic choke to somehow lose the set. Let's also not forget in the 06 and 07 finals, Federer had plenty of opportunities to win each of those matches. He was up a break in the 4th set of the 06 final, and he had bajillions of breakpoints in both finals.


The only REAL lopsided match was the 08 final. That's kind of countered by the fact that Federer has dominated Nadal a few times, such as the TMC 07 where he beat Nadal 6-4, 6-1, Hamburg where he blew Nadal away 6-0 in the 3rd, and Wimbledon 06 where he won the first set 6-0.

lambielspins
01-14-2009, 09:06 PM
Exactly. About the point being valid, well I dunno about that. Richard Krajicek and Lleyton Hewitt anyone?

- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 09:06 PM
Exactly. About the point being valid, well I dunno about that. Richard Krajicek and Lleyton Hewitt anyone?



How bout that Wayne Ferrira (sp) guy? Or Federer? Or how bout that time Safin gave Sampras a beatdown in the USO final (literally)?

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 09:08 PM
- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.



6-12, when 9 of your matches were on clay, against possibly the greatest clay court player in the history of the sport is not bad either. How many guys can take even 1 match off of Nadal out of 10 (with Nadal healthy, trying, etc.) matches on clay? Not that many.

edberg505
01-14-2009, 09:25 PM
- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

His biggest rival? Then why have they not played one single time on a hardcourt slam. If Federer sucked in clay then, kinda like Sampras did, then the H2H between Federer and Nadal would look more like the Sampras vs Hewitt or Krajcek H2H. But I'm probably beating a dead horse here as it sounds like you might be a big Sampras fan as well.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 03:26 AM
His biggest rival? Then why have they not played one single time on a hardcourt slam. If Federer sucked in clay then, kinda like Sampras did, then the H2H between Federer and Nadal would look more like the Sampras vs Hewitt or Krajcek H2H. But I'm probably beating a dead horse here as it sounds like you might be a big Sampras fan as well.
You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

egn
01-15-2009, 04:35 AM
You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

If they had met more on hard and grass from the years 2004-2007 Federer would have a head to head probably close to equal. Nadal would score a win but Federer would probably have taken it for those 3 years. I will admit Nadal would still probably have the better but I imagine it being more like 11-14 or something. not 6-12.

Second Sampras never made runs in clay, never had to face the top clay court players on clay too often. Everyone seems to forget you take away clay they are quite even. I think that can help the case, but still Nadal's record will hurt him severly. You can't be GOAT if you lose consistently on a surface to a single player. If they were more like 3-7 the case would be better (note than the head to head would be equal..) However Sampras would soley have a better head to head against Nadal, because he would probably avoid a lot of matches against Nadal due to his bad clay court ability..

What will save Federer is the fact that he actually was able to dominate the circuit even with Nadal being a pest. Nadal's 2005-2007 years were all strong years..even if for some reason people discredit this and claims 2008 to be Nadal finally being a threat. Nadal's 05 and 07 season could have put him in number 1 in some eras. So Fed will get credit for dominating the circuit which might help out the poor h2h

abmk
01-15-2009, 04:57 AM
To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

The OP isnt saying Nadal deserves to rank as a great player than Federer however. He is saying Nadal and now Murray's dominance over Federer is an argument against him when it comes to comparing him to other greatest players of all time like Sampras, Laver, or Borg, and an argument against him being the best player ever. He has a valid point on that.

Agree on both counts, but I would wait to see how murray performs against federer in the slams in future.

Edit: And yeah fed-murray have met only on HCs , not even once on grass/clay , something that needs to be considered as well !

abmk
01-15-2009, 05:12 AM
You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

LOL !

If they had met more on HC, federer would have won the majority of their matches on HC which would give him more confidence while playing against nadal anywhere and perhaps he wouldn't be choking away as many BPs as he did against him in so many matches .....

ksbh
01-15-2009, 06:14 AM
As regards winning 5 straight, Bjorn Borg did that. Pete Sampras won 7 in 8 years! Rafa has 4 straight at Roland Garros and will likely make it 5 this year. Federer hasn't achieved anything unique that makes him the undisputed GOAT.

Only in a Federer lover's mind is Federer the 'undisputed' GOAT. In reality, he's not even close.


As far as murray, Feds beat em where it counts most, A grand slam final, but i think the 5 straight wimbys and the 5 straight us opens speak for themselves

enough said Fed is the undisputed greatest of all time.

bluetrain4
01-15-2009, 06:22 AM
I'd stop short of saying it's doesn't matter at all. Clearly, you would like a GOAT who had the upperhand against their main rivals.

But, I don't think it matters that much. With Nadal, I mean, is it even that big of a deal considering the surface? His H2H on clay against Nadal is horrible, but then again, Nadal is one of the best clay-courters of all time. Murray, it really doesn't matter until Murray starts beating him in Slams.

I actually think Fed gets penalized in the GOAT discussion for getting so close winning the French, but coming up short. I mean, the guy has been in 3 finals and a semi, and a couple of those finals were competitive (obviously, the last one was a disaster). Yet, a lot of people insist that we must win it to be GOAT, unless he surpasses Sampras' total by 2 or 3. I'm not picking one or the other, I just think it's an interesting point.

ksbh
01-15-2009, 06:23 AM
Awesome post, Lamb! When seen in proper perspective, Sampras' losing H2H against some of his rivals is nowhere as bad as Federer's vs Nadal.

It's rare to see a Federer fan being as objective as you are!

- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

abmk
01-15-2009, 06:31 AM
Federer hasn't achieved anything unique that makes him the undisputed GOAT.

5 consecutive U.S Open titles - no one has done that in the open era.

5 consecutive wimbledon and 5 consecutive U.S open* titles - no one else in history has any such sort of double distinction ( meaning 5 consecutive at 2 diffferent slams )

18 consecutive times - SFs or better at slams* - something that I don't think will be surpassed .

* - streak still going on !

Only in a Federer lover's mind is Federer the 'undisputed' GOAT. In reality, he's not even close.

He is not the undisputed GOAT. It would be be illogical to say that just as it is illogical to say he's not even close.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 06:35 AM
If they had met more on hard and grass from the years 2004-2007 Federer would have a head to head probably close to equal. Nadal would score a win but Federer would probably have taken it for those 3 years. I will admit Nadal would still probably have the better but I imagine it being more like 11-14 or something. not 6-12.

Second Sampras never made runs in clay, never had to face the top clay court players on clay too often. Everyone seems to forget you take away clay they are quite even. I think that can help the case, but still Nadal's record will hurt him severly. You can't be GOAT if you lose consistently on a surface to a single player. If they were more like 3-7 the case would be better (note than the head to head would be equal..) However Sampras would soley have a better head to head against Nadal, because he would probably avoid a lot of matches against Nadal due to his bad clay court ability..

What will save Federer is the fact that he actually was able to dominate the circuit even with Nadal being a pest. Nadal's 2005-2007 years were all strong years..even if for some reason people discredit this and claims 2008 to be Nadal finally being a threat. Nadal's 05 and 07 season could have put him in number 1 in some eras. So Fed will get credit for dominating the circuit which might help out the poor h2h
I hope you're joking about the pest part, I'm sure you meant Nadal being an extraordinary or remarkable clay player (and player in general). "Pest" is way off mark and very unwarranted + what do you mean by "save" Federer, I don't think the guy needs to be saved by anything, he's doing very well for himself as it is.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 06:39 AM
LOL !

If they had met more on HC, federer would have won the majority of their matches on HC which would give him more confidence while playing against nadal anywhere and perhaps he wouldn't be choking away as many BPs as he did against him in so many matches .....
Well we'll never know anyway but my hypothesis is as likely as yours.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 06:41 AM
You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

Considering how Federer laid the smack down on Nadal the last couple of times they played on hard courts I'm going to have to say I strongly disagree.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 06:46 AM
5 consecutive U.S Open titles - no one has done that in the open era.

5 consecutive wimbledon and 5 consecutive U.S open* titles - no one else in history has any such sort of double distinction ( meaning 5 consecutive at 2 diffferent slams )

18 consecutive times - SFs or better at slams* - something that I don't think will be surpassed .

* - streak still going on !



He is not the undisputed GOAT. It would be be illogical to say that just as it is illogical to say he's not even close.

That streak is unreal and no one has ever come remotely close to reaching it. I think Lendl was the closest and I think he had 2 streaks 7 and 8 respectively. He'll most likely break the record of slam final appearances this year as well. You also forgot to add that he has the record for the number of most consecutive slam finals too.

abmk
01-15-2009, 06:47 AM
Well we'll never know anyway but my hypothesis is as likely as yours.

Its not because federer would be winning more of their HC encounters from 2005-07 which would give him more confidence against rafa and which in turn would further lessen rafa's chances of winning more against him on any surface. It could've been very late by the time rafa figured out fed on HC in that case.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 06:53 AM
5 consecutive U.S Open titles - no one has done that in the open era.

5 consecutive wimbledon and 5 consecutive U.S open* titles - no one else in history has any such sort of double distinction ( meaning 5 consecutive at 2 diffferent slams )

18 consecutive times - SFs or better at slams* - something that I don't think will be surpassed .

* - streak still going on !



He is not the undisputed GOAT. It would be be illogical to say that just as it is illogical to say he's not even close.
Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

abmk
01-15-2009, 06:58 AM
That streak is unreal and no one has ever come remotely close to reaching it.

Seconded !


You also forgot to add that he has the record for the number of most consecutive slam finals too.

Oh yeah, that was broken by djoko at the aussie open in 2008.


He'll most likely break the record of slam final appearances this year as well.

Hope so ..

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 07:06 AM
Considering how Federer laid the smack down on Nadal the last couple of times they played on hard courts I'm going to have to say I strongly disagree.
The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 07:07 AM
Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if Nadal someohow managed to equal or break that streak you would be praising it.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 07:09 AM
The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

LOL, what's the difference? Outdoor/indoor, they are both played on hardcourts, that fact doesn't change. Is there some magical difference between the two? Doesn't he(Federer) hold some insane record for number of consecutive hardcourt wins?

abmk
01-15-2009, 07:11 AM
The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

I thought I had already contradicted that ! :)

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 07:11 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if Nadal someohow managed to equal or break that streak you would be praising it.
You have a very low opinion of me I see. I repeat: I couldn't give a fig about either quarter-finalists or semi-finalists (you can keep it for prosperity!) It's winners that make GOATS!

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 07:12 AM
I thought I had already contradicted that ! :)
You did but you haven't convinced me :twisted:

abmk
01-15-2009, 07:13 AM
Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

Its not just about prestige . Its about consistency at peak ( and at the slams ) which shows how good an all-surface player he is/how well he plays at the slams . Making to the SF or better 18 times consecutively while winning 11 out of those is a very good indication of that.

Btw those were just the slam ones, he has some other ridiculous streaks too - record no of consec. grass wins, record no of consec. hard court wins and record no of consec. finals ( not just @ the slams ) which was broken by nalbandian in TMC 2005 F.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 07:22 AM
You have a very low opinion of me I see. I repeat: I couldn't give a fig about either quarter-finalists or semi-finalists (you can keep it for prosperity!) It's winners that make GOATS!

I was going to reply to this but it appears that "abmk" has already responded to this. It goes to show how amazingly consistent the guy is. Even the great Pete Sampras wasn't even able to do that. Now in no way am I putting down Sampras, I loved watching the guy play. He's one of my all time favourites but some of these jokers, like the OP, try to raise him to deity like status and it's becoming quite annoying. If Federer were to somehow break Pete's record that doesn't make Pete any less of a player, that's just a ridiculous assumption. I loved watching Pete play too. Why isn't it possible to like them both?

The one positive thing about his chances of winning is that he has improved his results every year so far:
In 2004 he made 3rd round
in 2005 he made 4th round
in 2007 he made quarters (didn't play in 2006 because of a foot problem)
in 2008 he made semis
If the logic continues, 2009 should be final or win!!

Apparently you lend some sort of credence to a semi-final appearance.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 07:23 AM
We cant necessarily consider Nadal a "Prime Nadal". Prior to his past year either can we? The best may be yet to come from Nadal. Or it happened last year. Certainly not years prior to last. His game improved just about everywheres. So theoretically, You can argue that Fed was losing to Nadal BEFORE his prime while Fed was in his

P_Agony
01-15-2009, 07:53 AM
The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

I respect your opinon, but I disagree. I believe it depends on the court, and quite frankly even though both the AO and USO are outdoor courts, I think Nadal would not stand a chance against prime Fed in one of those. Fed brought his best tennis to Australia and New York year after year (IMO better than he plays in Wimbeldon) and gave guys who usually give Nadal problems on HC quite the beating on a regular basis. In the meantime, Nadal was never able to go far in any of those events, and only last year was able to get to the semis of both. The only guy since 2004, prior to 2008 (Fed's worst year) that was able to beat him in one of those events was Safin in one of the most intense 5-set matches in history (and a match that could have gone either way with the quality of play there). Nobody else could, Fed was just too good on hard courts, way better than Murray, Djokovic and Nadal are good on hard courts today.

How can you underestimate Federer HC play after so many HC grand slams?

P_Agony
01-15-2009, 08:01 AM
You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

Exactly, Fed was less than stellar in 2008 and I bet Nadal would have beat him on most hard courts as well. But how can you compare the guys who is having his best year to a guy who's having the worst of his? Wouldn't you want to compare prime Fed to prime Nadal? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Aabye
01-15-2009, 08:04 AM
I respect your opinon, but I disagree. I believe it depends on the court, and quite frankly even though both the AO and USO are outdoor courts, I think Nadal would not stand a chance against prime Fed in one of those. Fed brought his best tennis to Australia and New York year after year (IMO better than he plays in Wimbeldon) and gave guys who usually give Nadal problems on HC quite the beating on a regular basis. In the meantime, Nadal was never able to go far in any of those events, and only last year was able to get to the semis of both. The only guy since 2004, prior to 2008 (Fed's worst year) that was able to beat him in one of those events was Safin in one of the most intense 5-set matches in history (and a match that could have gone either way with the quality of play there). Nobody else could, Fed was just too good on hard courts, way better than Murray, Djokovic and Nadal are good on hard courts today.

How can you underestimate Federer HC play after so many HC grand slams?

You can't really, but you also cannot say that because Federer beat all those people who gave Nadal trouble quite easily, that he would necessarily have done the same to Nadal. Nadal's game has always been troublesome for Federer on any court, and even when Federer was in his "prime".

abmk
01-15-2009, 08:06 AM
We cant necessarily consider Nadal a "Prime Nadal". Prior to his past year either can we? The best may be yet to come from Nadal. Or it happened last year. Certainly not years prior to last. His game improved just about everywheres. So theoretically, You can argue that Fed was losing to Nadal BEFORE his prime while Fed was in his

Good, very convenient,except that a 'non-prime' nadal was able to win @ more than 80% * those 3 years and was a monster on clay right from his 1st RG .

Theoretically you can also argue -> nadal rose to no1 because of federer's slump **

* Something which your fav's biggest rival was able to do only twice when your fav was in his prime

** while not giving any credit to nadal for improving.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:11 AM
Its not just about prestige . Its about consistency at peak ( and at the slams ) which shows how good an all-surface player he is/how well he plays at the slams . Making to the SF or better 18 times consecutively while winning 11 out of those is a very good indication of that.

Btw those were just the slam ones, he has some other ridiculous streaks too - record no of consec. grass wins, record no of consec. hard court wins and record no of consec. finals ( not just @ the slams ) which was broken by nalbandian in TMC 2005 F.
All this is well and good but doesn't override most slams won or most titles won IMO.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:14 AM
Good, very convenient,except that a 'non-prime' nadal was able to win @ more than 80% * those 3 years and was a monster on clay right from his 1st RG .

Theoretically you can also argue -> nadal rose to no1 because of federer's slump **

* Something which your fav's biggest rival was able to do only twice when your fav was in his prime

** while not giving any credit to nadal for improving.
Nadal was "prime" from the start, that's why he 's a phenomenon (unlike Fed who sucked for quite some time before metamorphosing into Mr Hyde!)

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:28 AM
I was going to reply to this but it appears that "abmk" has already responded to this. It goes to show how amazingly consistent the guy is. Even the great Pete Sampras wasn't even able to do that. Now in no way am I putting down Sampras, I loved watching the guy play. He's one of my all time favourites but some of these jokers, like the OP, try to raise him to deity like status and it's becoming quite annoying. If Federer were to somehow break Pete's record that doesn't make Pete any less of a player, that's just a ridiculous assumption. I loved watching Pete play too. Why isn't it possible to like them both?



Apparently you lend some sort of credence to a semi-final appearance.
Not at all! The post you quoted was only meant to indicate the positive evolution of Nadal at AO, it wasn't a discussion about GOAT. My opinion about GOAT is that noone can be a GOAT without winning all 4 slams on top of other considerations. So to me Laver is the GOAT and Agassi could have been if he had been more serious and consistent about his career. Sampras is a kind of "SEMI-GOAT" because even though he hasn't won all 4 he has the absolute record in # of slams and weeks at #1, which are records one simply cannot ignore but he'll never really be a GOAT because he never won FO. Federer is not in the conversation as long as he doesnt EITHER break Sampras's records OR win the FO.

egn
01-15-2009, 08:41 AM
I hope you're joking about the pest part, I'm sure you meant Nadal being an extraordinary or remarkable clay player (and player in general). "Pest" is way off mark and very unwarranted + what do you mean by "save" Federer, I don't think the guy needs to be saved by anything, he's doing very well for himself as it is.

Pest as in from 2005 to 2007 Federer actually had to try to get his number one ranking, it was a sarcastic statement. Should have put it in italics. Pest as in Nadal was taking titles from Federer and giving him a run for his money in both 2005 and 2007. And by saving it was what saves his criticism of the bad h2h was he still was about to dominate. If you want to use bad h2h even then he was still able to hold on to the top spot. So it really is a bad h2h vs. 1 player through his prime, but he was on top of him in the rankings for those years. I was joking about pest, he was far more than a pest his 2005 season could have put him number 1 some years.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 08:44 AM
Not at all! The post you quoted was only meant to indicate the positive evolution of Nadal at AO, it wasn't a discussion about GOAT. My opinion about GOAT is that noone can be a GOAT without winning all 4 slams on top of other considerations. So to me Laver is the GOAT and Agassi could have been if he had been more serious and consistent about his career. Sampras is a kind of "HALF-GOAT" because even though he hasn't won all 4 he has the absolute record in # of slams and weeks at #1, which are records one simply cannot ignore but he'll never really be a GOAT because he never won FO. Federer is not in the conversation as long as he doesnt EITHER break Sampras's records OR win the FO.

And the post that "abmk" was replying to said that Federer had never done anything that hasn't been done before so I was replying to that fact. And to be honest all of this GOAT talk is kinda absurd. I willing to bet that even if Federer were to break some of those records that people still wouldn't consider him the so called "GOAT". They'll just come up with some other reason to say why he isn't.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:47 AM
Pest as in from 2005 to 2007 Federer actually had to try to get his number one ranking, it was a sarcastic statement. Should have put it in italics. Pest as in Nadal was taking titles from Federer and giving him a run for his money in both 2005 and 2007. And by saving it was what saves his criticism of the bad h2h was he still was about to dominate. If you want to use bad h2h even then he was still able to hold on to the top spot. So it really is a bad h2h vs. 1 player through his prime, but he was on top of him in the rankings for those years. I was joking about pest, he was far more than a pest his 2005 season could have put him number 1 some years.
OK, I understand. About the head to head BTW my opinion from the start was that it CAN'T tarnish a player's reputation by itself. If Federer ends up winning the French one day, his head to head with Nadal won't diminish his achievement in the slightest. So on that particular point I guess we agree.

egn
01-15-2009, 08:48 AM
And the post that "abmk" was replying to said that Federer had never done anything that hasn't been done before so I was replying to that fact. And to be honest all of this GOAT talk is kinda absurd. I willing to bet that even if Federer were to break some of those records that people still wouldn't consider him the so called "GOAT". They'll just come up with some other reason to say why he isn't.

Federer wins one french open it will be well he only won one. Though that would probably be enough, the problem is just everyone wants greatness where they dominate all the surfaces but you don't get that easily in mens tennis. It comes more often in womens tennis, mens tennis for some reason it is not as often. I guess it is mroe dedicated and higher level playing...I have no idea.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:52 AM
And the post that "abmk" was replying to said that Federer had never done anything that hasn't been done before so I was replying to that fact. And to be honest all of this GOAT talk is kinda absurd. I willing to bet that even if Federer were to break some of those records that people still wouldn't consider him the so called "GOAT". They'll just come up with some other reason to say why he isn't.
That's the problem with those discussions. There aren't any absolute criteria that would enable a total consensus, so the debate will probably be ongoing.

danb
01-15-2009, 09:19 AM
NO i don't think so. Fed's record against Nadal or Murray doesn't affect anything.

Stich and Krajicek have winning records against Sampras, but so what? GOAT has nothing to do with H2H, it's about slams!




cool stats!

Btw, don't you folks think it's amazing that Stich has only won 1 set against Agassi in 6 meetings?


Agassi has also a winning record against Krajicek, and all their matches on grass was won by Agassi, twice at wimbledon and once at queens where Agassi totally destroyed him.

The guys that have a winning record against Pete have 2 more wins than Pete (a difference of 2). Fed is 6-12 against Rafa and 2-5 against Murray. That is different. And Murray beats Fed on hard courts.

abmk
01-15-2009, 09:25 AM
All this is well and good but doesn't override most slams won or most titles won IMO.

Well that might be your way of looking at the things, but I consider quite a few more factors as significant too like consistency(dominance)/ability to play well on all surfaces etc and I wouldn't keep them 'rigid'.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 09:31 AM
Well that might be your way of looking at the things, but I consider quite a few more factors as significant too like consistency(dominance)/ability to play well on all surfaces etc and I wouldn't keep them 'rigid'.
Once again to me results (hard facts) have to prevail because the rest is either not significant enough or too subjective (head to heads, beauty of the play, style, etc)

srinrajesh
01-15-2009, 09:41 AM
Federer certainly has a poor record agaisnt lot of players like Nadal, Murray, Simon. A few other players too have winning records.
However we should look at this at the end of his career - if his H2H remains on the losing end - IMO he cant be called the GOAT even if he breaks sampras' record.. He can be called one of the greatest of his era.
who knows nadal could well challenge the record if he remains fit and improves like he is doing. How can th best player in any sport lose consistently to others - he is still only 27 while agassi won grand slams at 33.

P_Agony
01-15-2009, 09:52 AM
The guys that have a winning record against Pete have 2 more wins than Pete (a difference of 2). Fed is 6-12 against Rafa and 2-5 against Murray. That is different. And Murray beats Fed on hard courts.

Yes, and many of these wins came in 2008, when Fed also lost to guys like Blake, Karlovic, Roddick and Fish, players he usually owns. Federer, as much as I hate to admit it, is no longer in his prime and is near the end of his career. In 2008, he played some matches so bad, I thought maybe if I'd play against him I could win. OK, not really, but still it was a horrid play for most of the year. The fact that he still gave a lot of trouble to the top guys despite playing so bad is amazing.

But leave the H2H for a while.

Take prime Murray, prime Nadal and prime Fed. Make some matches between the three on hard courts. I'm confident Federer will win most of the matches, with Murray being second, and Nadal third. On grass, it'll Fed first, Nadal second, and Murray third. On clay it'll be Nadal of course, and then Fed, with Murray not doing much to either.

The H2Hs are worthless. Federer has a losing streak against Nadal, but he has a winning streak against Nalbandian and Blake, and Nadal has a losing streak on HC against Blake and Nalbandian. What does it say about the best of the bunch? Nothing. All it says is that a player is a bad matchup for another player who is a bad matchup for the first player.

The best player is the player who can be very consistent (despite some losing records) and win slams. And that's Roger.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 09:56 AM
Good, very convenient,except that a 'non-prime' nadal was able to win @ more than 80% * those 3 years and was a monster on clay right from his 1st RG .

Theoretically you can also argue -> nadal rose to no1 because of federer's slump **

* Something which your fav's biggest rival was able to do only twice when your fav was in his prime

** while not giving any credit to nadal for improving.

But his HC game left much to be desired and his Grass game isnt what it was last year. I dont feel it is all just Federer "slumping". I mean he did reach the semis of the Australian.. Didnt lose one set before the Wimbeldon Final. Reached the finals of the RG and won the US OPEN. Nadal was just more improved player last year on all surfaces as opposed to before

srinrajesh
01-15-2009, 10:06 AM
sampras losing records are very close
only 2 players lead by at least 2 matches
players having lead are
Richard Krajicek 6-4(lead by 2)
Paul Haarhuis 3-1(lead by 2)
Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stich 5-4
Federer 1-0


A lot of Federer's losing record is by big margins
6-12 nadal (-6)
2-5 murray(-3)
0-3 rafter (-3)
0-2 simon (-2)
1-2 kuerten
1-2 Hrbaty
0-1 bruguera
also close records with
canas 3-3 (canas led 3-1)
Nalbandian 10-8

wonder how many others have winning records agaisnt sampras and federer

edberg505
01-15-2009, 10:11 AM
Federer certainly has a poor record agaisnt lot of players like Nadal, Murray, Simon. A few other players too have winning records.
However we should look at this at the end of his career - if his H2H remains on the losing end - IMO he cant be called the GOAT even if he breaks sampras' record.. He can be called one of the greatest of his era.
who knows nadal could well challenge the record if he remains fit and improves like he is doing. How can th best player in any sport lose consistently to others - he is still only 27 while agassi won grand slams at 33.

Those are in fact the only 3 that have winning records against him (of active players) + Hrbaty of course.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 10:14 AM
sampras losing records are very close
only 2 players lead by at least 2 matches
players having lead are
Richard Krajicek 6-4(lead by 2)
Paul Haarhuis 3-1(lead by 2)
Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stich 5-4
Federer 1-0


A lot of Federer's losing record is by big margins
6-12 nadal (-6)
2-5 murray(-3)
0-3 rafter (-3)
0-2 simon (-2)
1-2 kuerten
1-2 Hrbaty
0-1 bruguera
also close records with
canas 3-3 (canas led 3-1)
Nalbandian 10-8

wonder how many others have winning records agaisnt sampras and federer

3 and 2 are big margins? Damn, I though I was good at math.

380pistol
01-15-2009, 10:32 AM
sampras losing records are very close
only 2 players lead by at least 2 matches
players having lead are
Richard Krajicek 6-4(lead by 2)
Paul Haarhuis 3-1(lead by 2)
Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stich 5-4
Federer 1-0


A lot of Federer's losing record is by big margins
6-12 nadal (-6)
2-5 murray(-3)
0-3 rafter (-3)
0-2 simon (-2)
1-2 kuerten
1-2 Hrbaty
0-1 bruguera
also close records with
canas 3-3 (canas led 3-1)
Nalbandian 10-8

wonder how many others have winning records agaisnt sampras and federer

Even as a Sampras fan this is not entirely accurate. Throw out Hewitt, when Pete beat him in 2000 US Open he led 4-1, Lleyton racked up his wins after that. Bruguuera beat Fed when Roger was 20. Rafter got Federer before he blossomed. Different stages, playing levels etc. of players career.

The only telling ones are Nadal and Murray, mainly due to the margins and they've have done it in Roger's prime. But then again it's also matchup issue, not neccessarily a slight vs Federer. But it is interesting I must say.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 10:39 AM
sampras losing records are very close
only 2 players lead by at least 2 matches
players having lead are
Richard Krajicek 6-4(lead by 2)
Paul Haarhuis 3-1(lead by 2)
Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stich 5-4
Federer 1-0


A lot of Federer's losing record is by big margins
6-12 nadal (-6)
2-5 murray(-3)
0-3 rafter (-3)
0-2 simon (-2)
1-2 kuerten
1-2 Hrbaty
0-1 bruguera
also close records with
canas 3-3 (canas led 3-1)
Nalbandian 10-8

wonder how many others have winning records agaisnt sampras and federer
You forgot Enqvist, Fed is 1-3 vs him. And Kafelnikov 2-4 for the Russian. +0-2 vs Squillari :) (just kidding guys!)

West Coast Ace
01-15-2009, 10:47 AM
And Murray beats Fed on hard courts.At tournaments Fed considers practice for the majors...

To the OP: No. You Sampras fans can try, try, try - ain't changing the hard fact. Fed is already past Sampras in the GOAT debate based on his clay court skills and non-dependence on one shot (Sampras' serve). The real question is: has Fed done enough to pass Laver?

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 10:51 AM
At tournaments Fed considers practice for the majors...

To the OP: No. You Sampras fans can try, try, try - ain't changing the hard fact. Fed is already past Sampras in the GOAT debate based on his clay court skills and non-dependence on one shot (Sampras' serve). The real question is: has Fed done enough to pass Laver?
Fed is not past Sampras, objectively he's not (he may be soon though). Sampras has more slams than Fed, more weeks at #1, more titles and most dominance in 1 slam (7 W). There is no clear cut case that the RG finals are enough at this point to override the other records held by Sampras.

luckyboy1300
01-15-2009, 12:45 PM
Fed is not past Sampras, objectively he's not (he may be soon though). Sampras has more slams than Fed, more weeks at #1, more titles and most dominance in 1 slam (7 W). There is no clear cut case that the RG finals are enough at this point to override the other records held by Sampras.

not objectively as you may say, because you're still basing it on your own criteria, with which i can come up with mine. consecutive weeks at number 1 which is a tad more difficult than compiling an overall record, consecutive slam finals, consecutive slam semis, winning streak on hardcourt and grass court, two different slams won 5 consecutive times, highest ranking point margin achieved at year end by the number 1 as against the number 2, largest winning streak against top 10 players, etc. and the fact that fed reached RG finals 3 times shows "consistency on all surfaces", which is more GOAT-defining as against "consistency in a single slam (wimbledon)". so the point is, you're GOAT opinion is still subjective, as is mine.

danb
01-15-2009, 12:57 PM
At tournaments Fed considers practice for the majors...

To the OP: No. You Sampras fans can try, try, try - ain't changing the hard fact. Fed is already past Sampras in the GOAT debate based on his clay court skills and non-dependence on one shot (Sampras' serve). The real question is: has Fed done enough to pass Laver?

Fed? Fed is Rafa's goat, soon to be Murray's goat. Just kidding.
Let's enjoy the tennis guys - whoever your favorite player is.
This kind of discussion my GOAT vs your GOAT is a bit subjective - don't you think so?
Again, they're all fine players - let's enjoy tennis.

ESP#1
01-15-2009, 02:33 PM
As regards winning 5 straight, Bjorn Borg did that. Pete Sampras won 7 in 8 years! Rafa has 4 straight at Roland Garros and will likely make it 5 this year. Federer hasn't achieved anything unique that makes him the undisputed GOAT.

Only in a Federer lover's mind is Federer the 'undisputed' GOAT. In reality, he's not even close.

Ok let me make myself clear since you seem to be confused, first im from spain, and being patriotic as i am makes me a huge nadal fan! So if you consider the nadal and fed rivalry there have been many times where ive despised federer, so that rules out me being biased in favor of Fed

Ok now on why he is the best, Borg has 5 wimblys, Fed has 5 wimblys and 5 us opens in a row, not to mention 3 finals of Roland Garros in a row where he lost to no one other than the greatest clay courter to ever play the game, Pete never even made a French Open final! He also has something to the tune of about 18 semifinals in Grand slams in a row! And 10 finals in a row!

And you dare to say he has not achieved anything unique? And I am the biased one?

danb
01-15-2009, 02:50 PM
Yes, and many of these wins came in 2008, when Fed also lost to guys like Blake, Karlovic, Roddick and Fish, players he usually owns. Federer, as much as I hate to admit it, is no longer in his prime and is near the end of his career. In 2008, he played some matches so bad, I thought maybe if I'd play against him I could win. OK, not really, but still it was a horrid play for most of the year. The fact that he still gave a lot of trouble to the top guys despite playing so bad is amazing.

But leave the H2H for a while.

Take prime Murray, prime Nadal and prime Fed. Make some matches between the three on hard courts. I'm confident Federer will win most of the matches, with Murray being second, and Nadal third. On grass, it'll Fed first, Nadal second, and Murray third. On clay it'll be Nadal of course, and then Fed, with Murray not doing much to either.

The H2Hs are worthless. Federer has a losing streak against Nadal, but he has a winning streak against Nalbandian and Blake, and Nadal has a losing streak on HC against Blake and Nalbandian. What does it say about the best of the bunch? Nothing. All it says is that a player is a bad matchup for another player who is a bad matchup for the first player.

The best player is the player who can be very consistent (despite some losing records) and win slams. And that's Roger.

Talking about consistency:
How many weeks has Fed been #1 (compared to Pete)?
How many GS has he won (compared to Pete)?
???
All that plus being Nadal's %*&% can't make Fed that great. If Fed doesn't retire in time he might become Murray's ^(*(*& too on hard courts.

Now of course it is all subjective - whatever floats your boat.
For me Fed stopped being great when Rafa came around. He is simply tentative when runs into Rafa - not that great.

jstr
01-15-2009, 02:52 PM
Yet another strange thread concerning Federer ...

West Coast Ace
01-15-2009, 02:54 PM
not objectively as you may say, because you're still basing it on your own criteria, Well said. The Sampras jock sniffers are legendary for their ability to believe that the ATP tour ceases to exist after Key Biscayne and before Halle! To them, the European spring clay season is in the same category as UFO's and Sasquatch.

Don't forget Fed has never lost a major final to anyone other than Rafa. Sampras lost to Hewitt and Safin - two young guys he should have schooled if he were a real GOAT, playing in his home country, with conditions the USTA ginned up to favor his S&V game! GOATs don't lose matches they should win - they 'find a way' - and spare me the 'blood iron level' and age stuff - if you show up, you're good to go. And didn't Fed make 10 major finals in a row? What was Sampras' best? Oh, 3! Cause he had to BUY A TICKET to the RG final! LOL!

veritech
01-15-2009, 02:55 PM
Fed? Fed is Rafa's goat, soon to be Murray's goat. Just kidding.
Let's enjoy the tennis guys - whoever your favorite player is.
This kind of discussion my GOAT vs your GOAT is a bit subjective - don't you think so?
Again, they're all fine players - let's enjoy tennis.

agreed. make love, not war.

edberg505
01-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Talking about consistency:
How many weeks has Fed been #1 (compared to Pete)?
How many GS has he won (compared to Pete)?
???
All that plus being Nadal's %*&% can't make Fed that great. If Fed doesn't retire in time he might become Murray's ^(*(*& too on hard courts.

Now of course it is all subjective - whatever floats your boat.
For me Fed stopped being great when Rafa came around. He is simply tentative when runs into Rafa - not that great.

Yup, that guy is garbage. Sampras is KING. Sampras could come out of retirement right now and destroy everyone. Oh, did I forget to mention that Sampras' poop smells like rose petals?

edberg505
01-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Well said. The Sampras jock sniffers are legendary for their ability to believe that the ATP tour ceases to exist after Key Biscayne and before Halle! To them, the European spring clay season is in the same category as UFO's and Sasquatch.

Don't forget Fed has never lost a major final to anyone other than Rafa. Sampras lost to Hewitt and Safin - two young guys he should have schooled if he were a real GOAT, playing in his home country, with conditions the USTA ginned up to favor his S&V game! GOATs don't lose matches they should win - they 'find a way' - and spare me the 'blood iron level' and age stuff - if you show up, you're good to go. And didn't Fed make 10 major finals in a row? What was Sampras' best? Oh, 3! Cause he had to BUY A TICKET to the RG final! LOL!

LOL, ok that one made me laugh.

zagor
01-15-2009, 03:06 PM
How many GS has he won (compared to Pete)?

13 by the age of 27 compared to Pete's 11 by the age of 27.How many 3 slam years Sampras had? How many USOs in a row? How many FO finals? How many weeks at #1 consecutively? How many AOs? How many-reaching all 4 slam finals-year did he had? Did he win 5 consecutive times at 2 different slams like Fed did(actually nobody did that,ever)? etc. compared to Fed? Sampras has some records over Fed,certainly,but Fed has some over him as well and his career isn't finished yet(no matter how many people in this forum wish that).

Well said. The Sampras jock sniffers are legendary for their ability to believe that the ATP tour ceases to exist after Key Biscayne and before Halle! To them, the European spring clay season is in the same category as UFO's and Sasquatch.

Don't forget Fed has never lost a major final to anyone other than Rafa. Sampras lost to Hewitt and Safin - two young guys he should have schooled if he were a real GOAT, playing in his home country, with conditions the USTA ginned up to favor his S&V game! GOATs don't lose matches they should win - they 'find a way' - and spare me the 'blood iron level' and age stuff - if you show up, you're good to go. And didn't Fed make 10 major finals in a row? What was Sampras' best? Oh, 3! Cause he had to BUY A TICKET to the RG final! LOL!

Yup, that guy is garbage. Sampras is KING. Sampras could come out of retirement right now and destroy everyone. Oh, did I forget to mention that Sampras' poop smells like rose petals?

LOL! You guys are hilarious :).

danb
01-15-2009, 03:58 PM
Yup, that guy is garbage. Sampras is KING. Sampras could come out of retirement right now and destroy everyone. Oh, did I forget to mention that Sampras' poop smells like rose petals?

Nice...
In the end GOAT is the one you like better. Fed is good, Rafa is better IMHO.
I like Pete even more. Nothing wrong with Fed - he is one of the greats. It is all subjective.
Can't wait for OZ Open

egn
01-15-2009, 07:06 PM
Nice...
In the end GOAT is the one you like better. Fed is good, Rafa is better IMHO.
I like Pete even more. Nothing wrong with Fed - he is one of the greats. It is all subjective.
Can't wait for OZ Open

Good point there. Really everyone has their own GOAT..hell my goat is Fabrice Santoro for the fact that he plays so sexily.. =] lol but seriously good point but you still continue to really underrated Fed, but hey whatever.

Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

Now hold it you threw me off here, since when has 5 years been short term? I mean hell your average number 1 player holds it for 2 or 3 years..so since when has 5 in a row been short term. I think 5 in a row is better than 5 over a 12 year span, more condensed period of dominace. Though I agree about the semi finals things its nice to see it happen alot I don't like to take praise into coming up short. For example Ivan Lendl made 19 slam finals and won 8...seriously when you quickly glance that makes him seem very similar to his competition though Lendl was far superior, but Lendl couldn't always come up big. SO yes it would be nice if Fed goes to semis over and over, but until he wins slam 14 thats not going to help his fight via Sampras.

We cant necessarily consider Nadal a "Prime Nadal". Prior to his past year either can we? The best may be yet to come from Nadal. Or it happened last year. Certainly not years prior to last. His game improved just about everywheres. So theoretically, You can argue that Fed was losing to Nadal BEFORE his prime while Fed was in his

Now this is interesting...than in that case 08 Fed is not prime Fed. But I like to think of Fed is in his prime but at the end of his prime falling out, while no offense Nadal has well been in his prime for at least two maybe 3 years. Sorry he won 3 french opens in a row prior to this and had 2 wimby finals...sounds pretty prime to me..consistently number 2 rank...I don't know thats pretty prime to me. That was prime of most players who had years equal to Nadals year this year. I note Williander well in his prime before 88 and flamed out after 88, 88 wasn't the entering of his prime.

You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

I like this point, but less than stellar Fed 1 HC GS prime Nadal 0.

Talking about consistency:
How many weeks has Fed been #1 (compared to Pete)?
How many GS has he won (compared to Pete)?
???
All that plus being Nadal's %*&% can't make Fed that great. If Fed doesn't retire in time he might become Murray's ^(*(*& too on hard courts.

Now of course it is all subjective - whatever floats your boat.
For me Fed stopped being great when Rafa came around.He is simply tentative when runs into Rafa - not that great.

Now you are just really pushing small details. Fed and pete weeks at number 1 is actually close I think Fed is about 40 away..not sure if he gets there but it is really not much of noted, because Fed did his in a long streak Pete constantly was hoping around..dominace rules to Fed.

lol 14 to 13 OH MAN HUGE GAP THERE NOT EVEN CLOSE. Note Fed's career is not over.

Well said. The Sampras jock sniffers are legendary for their ability to believe that the ATP tour ceases to exist after Key Biscayne and before Halle! To them, the European spring clay season is in the same category as UFO's and Sasquatch.

Don't forget Fed has never lost a major final to anyone other than Rafa. Sampras lost to Hewitt and Safin - two young guys he should have schooled if he were a real GOAT, playing in his home country, with conditions the USTA ginned up to favor his S&V game! GOATs don't lose matches they should win - they 'find a way' - and spare me the 'blood iron level' and age stuff - if you show up, you're good to go. And didn't Fed make 10 major finals in a row? What was Sampras' best? Oh, 3! Cause he had to BUY A TICKET to the RG final! LOL!

As much as I hate super biased statements that me laugh my pants off.

jackson vile
06-11-2012, 08:48 AM
I have to wonder if this will start to come into consideration if Nadal is able to close the slam gap? Or if Federer will be forgotten about over time, his H2H with Nadal and Novak become worse and worse.

NadalAgassi
06-11-2012, 08:53 AM
I have to wonder if this will start to come into consideration if Nadal is able to close the slam gap? Or if Federer will be forgotten about over time, his H2H with Nadal and Novak become worse and worse.

In the case Federer loses his slam record to Nadal, and ends up trailing both Nadal and Djokovic in head to head, he will be less talked about than Sampras is today. In fact the consensus will be even Sampras is above him again. He would have held the slam record for longer, and he stared down the best of his era, unlike Federer.

merlinpinpin
06-11-2012, 08:58 AM
In the case Federer loses his slam record to Nadal, and ends up trailing both Nadal and Djokovic in head to head, he will be less talked about than Sampras is today. In fact the consensus will be even Sampras is above him again. He would have held the slam record for longer, and he stared down the best of his era, unlike Federer.

Lol! Funny stuff...

NadalAgassi
06-11-2012, 09:15 AM
Not to mention over time people will realize Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and 6 straight year end #1s are better records than any Federer has. 16 slams is a very beatable record and wont last all that long, even if Nadal doesnt break it. Sampras nor Federer would have ever held the slam record if the pros werent barred from the slams previously.

mandy01
06-11-2012, 09:21 AM
Not to mention over time people will realize Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and 6 straight year end #1s are better records than any Federer has. 16 slams is a very beatable record and wont last all that long, even if Nadal doesnt break it. Sampras nor Federer would have ever held the slam record if the pros werent barred from the slams previously.
Yeah funny how you left out his record of 237 consecutive weeks as the no.1 player while putting in 6 YE#1s for Sampras when in fact that isn't nearly as sustained and as consistent a dominance.

NadalAgassi
06-11-2012, 09:29 AM
Yeah funny how you left out his record of 237 consecutive weeks as the no.1 player while putting in 6 YE#1s for Sampras when in fact that isn't nearly as sustained and as consistent a dominance.

That is an impressive record I admit, but it isnt one that people care about as much. They do now since Federer is still playing but when he retires they wont. Many of Federers records besides his slam count are consistency records, similar to Chris Everts. Slam semis, slam semis streak, rankings, etc...However those records of Chris are almost never talked about are given any regards today relative to the more glamorous records of Navratilova, Graf, and even Court today.

tudwell
06-11-2012, 09:29 AM
In the case Federer loses his slam record to Nadal, and ends up trailing both Nadal and Djokovic in head to head, he will be less talked about than Sampras is today. In fact the consensus will be even Sampras is above him again. He would have held the slam record for longer, and he stared down the best of his era, unlike Federer.

What a load of crap! Head-to-heads only mean so much. Federer will inevitably have worse H2Hs with Nadal and Djokovic than Sampras did with any of his rivals, but there are a few reasons for this. Sampras didn't have a single opponent anywhere near the level of Nadal and, depending on how things turn out, possibly not even Djokovic. He also was far less consistent than Federer, especially at 30+. It's hard to meet (and subsequently lose to) the top players of the time when you crap out in the first round of every other tournament. Furthermore, there were no dominant players in Sampras's old age for him to meet consistently the way Federer has Djokovic and Nadal. I would also like to point out that, if Federer retires at the same age as Sampras, 2012 will be his last year. This looks unlikely, meaning Federer (according to you) is being punished for sticking it out and continuing to play the game he loves even when he's far from the level he once played at.

Federer has a losing head-to-head against Nadal in slams, even in his prime, and that is one of the largest shortcomings of his extensive resume. His head-to-head with Djokovic means nothing. He handled Djokovic plenty of times when he (Federer) was younger and playing better. He's handled Murray even better, despite the still negative head-to-head. You're grasping at straws here.

mandy01
06-11-2012, 09:39 AM
That is an impressive record I admit, but it isnt one that people care about as much. They do now since Federer is still playing but when he retires they wont. Many of Federers records besides his slam count are consistency records, similar to Chris Everts. Slam semis, slam semis streak, rankings, etc...However those records of Chris are almost never talked about are given any regards today relative to the more glamorous records of Navratilova, Graf, and even Court today.
Federer's appeal is great enough for those records to be talked about. Honestly, I think it's very unfair to Evert when people only judge her by her record against Navratilova even though when I watch their matches I definitely prefer Navratilova. But then again, imo perceptions in tennis change all the time and it's very likely that most will recognize Federer's records. I actually get tired of commentators drooling over his major semis record, something a lot of journos today seem to consider as one of the most extraordinary achievements in sport as a whole. Whatever anyone might say, tennis is so much about image-building as well. Federer's image is such that people will talk of him fondly no matter what. Atleast his fans will and he has quite a legion. Also, Nadal's records are so heavily biased in favour of clay that it's unlikely that Federer will be completely overshadowed.

tennis_pro
06-11-2012, 09:43 AM
Not to mention over time people will realize Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and 6 straight year end #1s are better records than any Federer has. 16 slams is a very beatable record and wont last all that long, even if Nadal doesnt break it. Sampras nor Federer would have ever held the slam record if the pros werent barred from the slams previously.

That's because these are the only 2 Sampras' records that stand out. Federer has 10 times as many of those. If the semi streak is not enough for you find me another player who won 2 majors 5 times in a row or reached 18 out of 19 slam finals in a 5 year span.

Also, some of Sampras' no 1 seasons were a complete joke, 1998 being a prime example. He had results similar to Juan Martin Del Potro in 2009, while the Argentine finished 5th, Sampras was 1st.

There was nobody consistent enough to threaten his ranking in 1993-1998 apart from Agassi for the biggest part of 1995. Federer has to constantly face Nadal since 2005 and Djokovic since 2007.

Flash O'Groove
06-11-2012, 09:45 AM
I have to wonder if this will start to come into consideration if Nadal is able to close the slam gap? Or if Federer will be forgotten about over time, his H2H with Nadal and Novak become worse and worse.

If Nadal reaches 15 slams, Fed will stay greater.
If Nadal reaches 16 slams, they will be equalt.
If he reaches 17 or more, he will be the greatest.*

*But The Dark Night will argue that his 10 RG were acquired against the weakest field ever, so it is in reallity Djokovic the GOAT.

DolgoSantoro
06-11-2012, 10:40 AM
Nadal has to win more slams and defend a non clay title(which he will have to wait until at least next year to do) to get any closer to being goat.

zagor
06-11-2012, 10:44 AM
I have to wonder if this will start to come into consideration if Nadal is able to close the slam gap? Or if Federer will be forgotten about over time, his H2H with Nadal and Novak become worse and worse.

Bumping a 3 year old thread, pretty desperate move there LOLville.

tudwell
06-11-2012, 10:58 AM
Not to mention over time people will realize Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and 6 straight year end #1s are better records than any Federer has.

You seem very knowledgeable about tennis history, so I'm curious why you think Sampras's seven Wimbledons is better than any record Federer has. It's impressive, sure, very impressive - but it's still only a single tournament. A guy could come and win 10 Wimbledons in a row, but if he didn't do anything anywhere else, he'd be nothing but a footnote in the tennis history books. Federer winning 6 of 8 slams in 2006-2007 is way more impressive - it's a similar number of slams in much less time and over more surfaces.

Additionally, Sampras's 6 year-end No. 1 finishes are also very impressive, but it becomes interesting when you look at the sorts of performances he put up in those years. In 1996 and 1998, for example, the types and amount of titles he won would be comparable to, say, Djokovic in 2008, who finished No. 3. Due to the weak field in the late 90s, Sampras could get away with this, but unfortunately for Federer, a much superior 2008 did not allow him to maintain the No. 1 ranking because he had much tougher competition.

16 slams is a very beatable record and wont last all that long, even if Nadal doesnt break it.

I think you'll be surprised. It's possible Nadal breaks it, but his performance at the French does not always correlate with his performance elsewhere - and he'd need to win quite a bit more on other surfaces to overtake Federer.

Sampras nor Federer would have ever held the slam record if the pros werent barred from the slams previously.

Definitely.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-11-2012, 11:15 AM
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?

With Federer is does not matter, since he cannot be the GOAT after failing to win the Grand Slam.

NadalAgassi
06-11-2012, 11:30 AM
You seem very knowledgeable about tennis history, so I'm curious why you think Sampras's seven Wimbledons is better than any record Federer has. It's impressive, sure, very impressive - but it's still only a single tournament. A guy could come and win 10 Wimbledons in a row, but if he didn't do anything anywhere else, he'd be nothing but a footnote in the tennis history books. Federer winning 6 of 8 slams in 2006-2007 is way more impressive - it's a similar number of slams in much less time and over more surfaces.


The records people automatically know first are the total Slams record and the records at each individual Slam, along with the number 1 stats (which both Sampras and Federer have some of, but the 6 straight year end number 1s is the most recognized). Sampras has more Wimbledons than anyone since a guy early in the 1900s who played a Challenge Round system when you only had to play 1 match as the defending Champion so cant even be put in the same category. Federer does not hold the record on his own at any slam. Tilden has more U.S Opens, Emerson has more Australian Opens. Even in the Open Era, Connors and Sampras also have 5 U.S Opens and more finals, although Federer has 5 in a row, so all are similar. At the Australian Open, Agassi also has 4. Furthermore Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam even today. We see how much it aids Venus and her rating by people, despite the numerous holes of her overall career.

Lets face it, most Wimbledons is far more known by people than most slam semis or most slam semis in a row, or how many years you won 3 slams in a year. It isnt in the same ballpark.


Additionally, Sampras's 6 year-end No. 1 finishes are also very impressive, but it becomes interesting when you look at the sorts of performances he put up in those years. In 1996 and 1998, for example, the types and amount of titles he won would be comparable to, say, Djokovic in 2008, who finished No. 3. Due to the weak field in the late 90s, Sampras could get away with this, but unfortunately for Federer, a much superior 2008 did not allow him to maintain the No. 1 ranking because he had much tougher competition.


This is true but the competition arguments could go on forever. It is just like how you could also say Federer would have never won 6 Wimbledons in the grass field of all previous decades, or won 16 slams had he peaked today instead of when he did, or in many past eras, but he still did it. Same with Sampras and his 6 year end number 1s. While the overall competition back then was extremely strong, I would agree the competition for number #1 itself wasnt neccessarily the hardest, but he still did it, just like Federer did win 16 slams no matter what.


I think you'll be surprised. It's possible Nadal breaks it, but his performance at the French does not always correlate with his performance elsewhere - and he'd need to win quite a bit more on other surfaces to overtake Federer.

Like I said even if Nadal doesnt break it I think someone else will within the next 15 years max. It will not be a long standing record, especialy with the homogenized playing conditions of today. 7 Wimbledons might be matched but I dont think it will be broken awhile, probably wont even be matched as there arent many grass specialists anymore with the best players more likely to dominate on hards and to a lesser degree clay, and the 6 straight year end number 1s I think will last a long time.

Gizo
06-11-2012, 11:56 AM
It's true that many tennis writers and historians put more emphasis on Sampras's 7 Wimbledon titles and 6 consecutive years ended as world no. 1, than the grand slam title record when he held it for 9 years.

Roy Emerson had no idea he even held the grand slam title record for such a long time, and there was very little fuss made when Borg was closing in on that record. If breaking Emerson's record was such a big deal, Borg wouldn't have skipped the Australian Open every year after 1974, skipped the French Open in 1977 when he was entering his peak and, or retired so early when he was one shy of the record. He could quite easily have continued to dominate the French Open (a 17 year old Wilander and Noah won the titles at RG in 1982 and 1983) to surpass Emerson, but he didn't see the point if his Wimbledon dominance was over for good.

The calendar grand slam was the holy grail of tennis back, and the only way Borg would have played in Australia would have been if he had the opportunity to complete it there (and another serial AO absentee Connors said he would have gone to try to stop Borg in such circumstances).

Players main goals for long periods of tennis history were to complete the calendar grand slam, win as many Wimbledon titles as possible, make as much money as they could from lucrative exhibitions, win the Davis Cup for their country etc.

The grand slam title count only became big during Sampras's era. Chris Evert herself said that 'no-one was really counting' slam titles won during her time on the tour, otherwise she wouldn't have routinely skipped Australian and French Opens either.

It's a shame that this 'only slams matter' mentality became more common during Sampras's time (and possible when Lendl was approaching the end of his career).