If Rnadal surpasses Rfederer in slam count,will he be considered the greatest ever?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tusharlovesrafa, Jul 8, 2013.

?

If Rnadal surpasses Rfederer in slam count,will he be considered the greatest ever?

  1. yes

    30.6%
  2. yes

    1.4%
  3. yes

    0.7%
  4. yes

    1.4%
  5. yes

    4.2%
  6. yes

    2.8%
  7. yes

    1.4%
  8. yes

    0.7%
  9. yes

    3.5%
  10. no

    53.5%
  1. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,371
    I predict the most important stat will be how long you dominated tour
    (in comparing players of different eras).
     
    #51
  2. jhhachamp

    jhhachamp Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,944
    Nadal has had a great career, but at this point is not even in the same league as Federer (few are)...that's how. Slam count is important, but not the only thing that matters. To this point, Nadal has only very briefly been a dominant top player. He has been otherworldly on clay, but far from great on the other surfaces for the majority of his career.
     
    #52
  3. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749

    Slam count used to be the only thing that mattered....till people started realising Nadal might actually be able to catch Federer in slam count.

    Then the criteria by the Federer mob started to change, in order to protect his legacy. WTF started becoming almost s important as slams (lol!), weeks at no 1, semi and quarter-final streaks ect.....anything that Fed had over Nadal began being used as a new criteria for GOAT status. It's incredibly,ridiculously transparent.

    When Fed was nearing Sampras slam record, it was all about the slams. Now it' about every record that Fed holds. If Fed held the Masters Shield record in stead of Nadal, I'm pretty sure that would be a GOAT criteria as well:)
     
    #53
  4. Morj

    Morj Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    498
    This. It's more important for him to diversify his slams and add some more weeks to no. 1 than to match Fed's slam count.
     
    #54
  5. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,349
    One can also say that 7 of Federer's slams are all on grass/one surface :)
     
    #55
  6. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,975
    The answer is very straightforward because OP specified Fed will retire with 17 and Rafa with 18; in this case, the answer is clearly yes.

    Winning 6 more slams will not leave no positive impact on ranking. So with his more masters title the gap in WTF is more than made up for by the extra slam. Nadal will then be the greatest.

    Problem is, of course, winning 6 more slams is not easy.
     
    #56
  7. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,975
    Yes, one can certainly say that. If you subtract their respective "pet" slam count out of the totals, Fed has 17-7=10 slams and Rafa has 12-8=4 slams left. Who has more dominance on their less dominant slams?
     
    #57
  8. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,349
    well. at this moment, I feel Federer is better than Nadal based upon the results.
    however, most people think Federer's days of winning GS may be over.

    Nadal's days of winning GS may not be over if his knees hold up, we don't know what he is capable of winning.
     
    #58
  9. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    I would tend to say "yes", but the weeks #1, 2+ slam seasons, domination in most dominant seasons, WTF, diversity of slams, etc is also an issue.

    With Federer, many GS and the weeks #1 just went together.

    That is not the case with Nadal, because (surprisingly) it seems like he may get slams over a longer period of time, but he isn't typically having them concentrated in dominant years.
     
    #59
  10. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    No, actually as Federer surpassed more and more records, it became about the records that he didn't have. 15 slams? Ok, check, what about matching pre-Open era players, who you could argue had 20+? Not so long ago, Federer stated that was a goal. A huge ask, but he probably had Rod Laver's real Major count in mind. Or maybe just that 20 is a nice big intimidating number.

    But it was also about the consecutive weeks # 1. When Federer shattered that record, people started to focus on Sampras' 286 total weeks # 1. Federer came just shy at 285 weeks, and most people didn't think Sampras' record would be broken. There was approximate parity, but Sampras still held the record. Well Federer regained #1 and now holds that record.

    There is still of course Sampras' 6 straight years finishing the season ranked #1. Neither Federer nor Nadal will break this record.

    So it has always been a moving goalpost and while Majors were the most important achievement, they were never the *only* consideration.

    I've always said that emphasizing the H2H is double-counting and really finding fault with the other player in a ridiculous way. Really, emphasizing say the GS H2H of Nadal vs. Federer is faulting Federer for "only" having 17 slams instead of up to 23.

    That said, Nadal would certainly have a case for GOAT if he equalled or exceeded Federer's slam count. I'm not sure it would be the strongest case, but he'd have a case. Right now, there really isn't a case for him, although he is undoubtedly a first-tier all-time great.
     
    #60
  11. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    If he surpasses him in weeks at No. 1 and his slam count tally, he will be seen as the greatest of all time.
     
    #61
  12. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    If Nadal were to retire right now with 12 slams, that would still be an insanely impressive career. If he surpasses or equals Federer's slam count, he makes his case for GOAT, although it isn't definitive just as it isn't definitive that Federer is the GOAT (really, you can't make a definitive case for anyone over Laver, imo).
     
    #62
  13. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    I'd probably agree there. That's just about impossible though. Nadal would need to almost triple his number of weeks at #1 from 102 to 302. Novak Djokovic is more likely to surpass Federer's weeks #1, and will probably surpass Nadal's weeks #1.
     
    #63
  14. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    He'd have a good case but the GOAT debate will never really end.

    Everyone has his/hers own idea what constitutes for greatest ever, a lot of it comes down to a personal opinion (and impression, such as level of play), there is no "official" criteria for it.

    To be honest, I still think a guy like Sampras is a GOAT candidate despite that I feel Fed is a slightly better player overall, people are just too quick to dismiss him and (wronfgully IMO) conclude he doesn't belong in the conversation.

    Not to mention guys like Borg, Laver, Pancho, Rosewall etc.

    Of course if your idea of a GOAT or GOAT debate depends on what current meida talking heads say then yes Nadal will be GOAT, just like Fed was merely 4 years ago, just like Sampras was 10 years ago etc. see the pattern?
     
    #64
  15. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,741
    There is no such thing as greatest of all time, imho, even if Rafa has 20 GS trophies in his cabinet, winning more W, USO and AO Championships. There is no such thing. This is coming from an objective Nadal fan................:twisted:

    He can only be called ONE of the greatest players, as are Sampras, Borg, Laver, Gonzalez etc
     
    #65
  16. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,296
    Exactly. Well said--and it was all about the majors count until Nadal moved closer. How many posts hammered "16," then "17" majors? Now, the argument turned to trivia lists and other irrelevant data used to pump RF at every turn, and i'm sure that will continue, even if Nadal ties or passes 17 majors.
     
    #66
  17. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,981
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    LOL love the anti Federer crowd trying to make it sound like Fed does not really have a leg to stand on and the "Fed fans" make up stats or make things important to protect him.

    Pot meet kettle, eh?

    Nadal fans -
    Olympics is the most important thing in the world!!!!!!
    H2H means everything. Grand slams dont matter if you have a positive H2H over Roger!
    WTF mean nothing, its an exhibition!!!!!

    Laver fans:
    CYGS everything else sucks.
     
    #67
  18. JMR

    JMR Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Accusing an anonymous group of hypocrisy is useless. Show me where an individual once said, "In the case of Fed vs. Pete, the only thing that matters is the slam total," but is now saying, "In the case of Fed vs. Rafa, many things matter in addition to the slam total," and then I'll take notice. Document that many individuals engaged in a similar about-face, and then I'll take your charge of collective double standards seriously.

    There have always been fans who based their GOAT judgments on a single criterion (usually the slams), other fans who based their judgments on several criteria (typically slams + rankings + other big titles), and still others who based their judgments on as many criteria as they could possibly identify (often via complex formulae). My experience has been that the type of GOAT criteria you employ does not necessarily depend on which player you support.

    And note one other thing: Much of the impetus for the current "is Nadal really the GOAT??" discussion has come from McEnroe's recent musings, in which he relied on the Olympics and Davis Cup and head-to-head records as part of the relevant record. Well, once Mac opens the door to consideration of nonslam accomplishments, you should expect that Federer supporters will chime in with recitations of Fed's own nonslam accomplishments in responding to Mac.
     
    #68
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    No one said MS record doesn't count. Greatest player of all time doesn't mean you have to own all the records, but most of the records. Nadal is likely to own the MS record, but overall how many records he has in comparing to other great players?

    Of all the sports, goat player like Gretzky, Rice and Jordan were all about achievements and owns the most records. To single Federer is biased due to hate.
     
    #69
  20. Morj

    Morj Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    498
    I look at it this way, there are several categories when measuring greatness:

    Slams
    Weeks at no. 1
    Peak Levels of Dominance
    "Unique" achievements (Channel Slam, Career Slam)
    WTF Titles/Masters Titles
    Total Titles

    Now before Federer, Sampras wasn't exactly considered GOAT. He had the record Slams and weeks at no. 1 but he didn't excel in the other categories.

    So when Fed started his insane domination, and people felt that this was possibly the Greatest player ever, they pointed to the most easily identifiable record there was, which is Sampras' GS record. That does not mean GS record is the only thing that matters. Its more important than other categories, but it is still just one category.

    However, at this point, Fed is near the top of all categories.

    GS Record, Weeks at no. 1, Wimby record, USO record, Aussie record, WTF record, 2nd highest Masters Record, and near the top of most titles won as well.

    Other achievements include the having the strongest period of dominance in the open era from 04-07, and he has the Channel Slam, and the Career Slam.

    So back when Fed had 16 slams, that was just the easiest achievement to point to in order to claim he is GOAT. But now that he has such a vast variety of achievements and covered nearly all the bases, it would be unfair to overlook everything else and just point purely to the 17 slams as the only thing that matters.
     
    #70
  21. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,574
    Location:
    Fedal era
    Well said!
     
    #71
  22. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,296
    Once again, the hyping of Jordan centers on his ring count (NBA championships), which is the marker (used by the sports media) by which all others to follow are judged. It is used against Kobe (the neverending "he does not want to retire until he ties Jordan" says it all) and especially LeBron relentlessly...which is a self defeating position, since ring count leans without question to Russell, not Jordan.
     
    #72
  23. kpktennis

    kpktennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Rafa only needs to get to 15 for him to make a case at being GOAT. His superior head to head against Federer puts him ahead once Sampras etc. are out of the picture.
     
    #73
  24. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,714
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    So Federer's other records are not important at all? Like say his WTF titles and weeks at #1.
     
    #74
  25. jhhachamp

    jhhachamp Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,944
    Wrong...slam count has always been very important, but never the only thing that matters. For example, many people consider John McEnroe have been a greater player than Ivan Lendl despite having won less slams. These people thought this long before Federer and Nadal were racking up majors, so your idea that the criteria recently changed is just plain wrong.
     
    #75
  26. Praetorian

    Praetorian Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    All it means is that it reinforces that he's one of the greatest ever to play the game, same as Federer. No more, no less, as there will never be a consensus GOAT, unless of course if you take into account the percentage of people who said "no" on this silly poll.
     
    #76
  27. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,365
    nadal has the master titles and probably then might have more overall titles. he also leads the h2h big time.

    if nadal ties feds slam count he is without a doubt the GOAT...

    ...however that won't happen. there is no way nadal is going to win 5 slams. he maybe has one RG left in him but outside of clay he is not a force anymore. and even in RG nole is coming awfully close to him. So fed is probably staying the GOAT.
     
    #77
  28. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    I think Federer has said something to the effect that there is no indisputable greatest ever, unless someone comes along and wins 25 slams or something ludicrous like that.
     
    #78
  29. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    More MS is only one criteria, fed has a tone of criteria ahead of Nadal. H2H means nothing if Nadal achieved less.

    Jordan was 0-2 against Larry Bird in the playoff, but who do you think is the goat in basketball?
     
    #79
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    There's no undisputed goat except there's a few irrational people who believe most slam count or the Grand Slam is the undisputed goat. However, greatest player is based on general agreement.
     
    #80
  31. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    How does Nadal lose this poll ?
     
    #81
  32. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    302>102
    6>0

    That's why. But hey, your math says the opposite, I'm sure :lol:
     
    #82
  33. Morj

    Morj Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    498
    Ok that's a ridiculous argument right there. Tennis is an individual sport, people play each other one-on-one to determine who is better.

    Right now H2H is not as relevant because Federer's accomplishments put him on a whole different level from Nadal. But if Nadal starts to play catch-up and gets a few more non-clay slams as well as substantially increases his weeks at no. 1 and wins a WTF (all unlikely i know, but hypothetical) then he would be considered in Federer's league in terms of accomplishments. Nadal doesnt have to beat every single one of Fed' records, he just needs to get close. At that point H2H would be the deciding factor.

    Consider this, if two players have a higher slam count than all others before them, then they would be clearly above the rest of the "field" of all-time greats. So with these two players standing alone in their own tier, above the rest of the field, then the way to determine who is superior would be to see who beats who.
     
    #83
  34. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    So you're counting against Rafa the fact he's better on clay than Fed is anywhere?.

    Fed has dominated more two slams and Rafa one, and I agree that's a strong point on his favour, however Rafa dominating RG to the degree he has and him being better on the other slams than Fed on RG (peak level on hc anyway) are strong points on his favour. I don't see how looking at the whole picture here favours either of them clearly.

    Because you say so?. It's at least very debatable.
     
    #84
  35. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    Of course, it all comes down to this.

    He is already one of the greatest and so has a case for (the inexistent) goat right now, winning more slams would reinforce his case, but it wouldn't mean he's "without a doubt" THE goat nor anything.
     
    #85
  36. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Eh? Federer has dominated 3 Slams. Nadal? One. It's not comparable. Not to mention, 302>102, 6>0. Not even close.
     
    #86
  37. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    Whatever, two slam surfaces.

    And yeah, it's close.
     
    #87
  38. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Oh yeah, probably because Nadal has the 750-pointer.
     
    #88
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    So Davydenko is greater than Nadal on hard court because he's 6-1 against Nadal ?
     
    #89
  40. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    In case you missed it, the question is if Nadal SURPASSES Fed's slam count.

    If Nadal ends up with 18 majors to Federer's 17, then Rafa should be considered the greater of the two.

    Ask ANY player on tour would they rather have 200 weeks at #1 (the difference between Fed and Nadal) and 6 WTF titles or ONE major and the answer is always one major. They're that important and they're the biggest tournaments.

    Not to mention when you have two players like Fed and Nadal leading the goat discussion, naturally people are going to look at what happened when they faced each other in the biggest events and unfortunately for Fed, it favours Nadal so much that it's not even close with a whopping 6-2 lead in meetings at the majors.
     
    #90
  41. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    Exactly, imagine the slam count if there were 2 majors on clay and only one on HC. Nadal would be way in front of Federer already.

    Let's say AO (Fed's least dominant slam behind RG) was on clay.

    Nadal would most likely win AO05, AO07, AO08, AO09, AO10, AO12 and strong case his hammy wouldn't tear on clay and he could've won AO11.

    So Fed loses 2 AO titles bringing his major count to 15. Nadal gains 5-6 AO titles and his slam count is up to 17-18.
     
    #91
  42. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Even without the extra HC slam, Federer would still be ahead as well as more finals(at least 5) at all the slams compared to Nadal.

    Though it goes to show that comparing with slams is meaningless as they are dependent on the surfaces.
     
    #92
  43. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,296
    That's all people of that ilk operate from; it allows the rejection of records that do not support Federer. To even attempt such a thing means Federer is so weak, he needs history edited in order to pump him as some sort of GOAT.
     
    #93
  44. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    No, you can't eliminate a slam, if you change AO to clay Nadal would be ahead by miles by the time he retires.
     
    #94
  45. Tennis Fanatic 070

    Tennis Fanatic 070 Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,165
    Yes very good point, let's change AO into a clay event and then Nadal surpassed fed in slams,, hahahahaha that'a very funny, how desperate are you? My god this is the most ridiculous post ever, congrats hahahahahahaha funny stuff :):)
     
    #95
  46. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    Nice counter argument.

    I guess that's what people have to turn to when they know the truth...
     
    #96
  47. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Neither is saying AO is clay when that has been the least frequent slam surface in the open era.

    AO is hard, Federer is ahead.
    If AO is clay, Nadal is ahead.

    If all surfaces were distributed equally, then Federer would still be ahead.
     
    #97
  48. Morj

    Morj Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    498
    H2H does not matter unless comparing players of similar status. Davydenko's not even a slam winner, Nadal's a 12 time champ. The gap between them is so ridiculous that it would be silly to bring up H2H.

    On the other hand, the hypothetical that if Nadal were to reach 17 slams then that would put him close to Federer in terms of accomplishments. At that point you can't pretend that H2H wouldn't be the deciding factor.

    2 Players whose GS record surpasses all others in the open era would logically be in a league of their own. So at that point H2H would definetely matter.

    Bringing up a non-factor like Davydenko is just silly.
     
    #98
  49. gregor.b

    gregor.b Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,202
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    Yes, but only until Djokorray passes him.
     
    #99
  50. THE FIGHTER

    THE FIGHTER Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    RprobablyRnadalRfederer
     

Share This Page