The GOAT that is Roger

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Nick Irons, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Yes, I too cringe whenever I see a new thread claiming Roger is the best ever. but a recent article caught my attention and I wanted to get the opinion of the community

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

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

    Did anyone own Pete ? Borg ?
     
    #1
  2. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    Against which players does Sampras have a losing record?
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84331

    McEnroe won the last three matches that he played against Borg.
    1981 Milan, 1981 Wimbledon, 1981 US Open
     
    #2
  3. caulcano

    caulcano Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,637
    *shakeshead*
     
    #3
  4. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    shakeshead up or down ? (Marvel's at the contribution to the thread)
     
    #4
  5. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    No no no

    Not players at the end of his career; I'm referring to his prime and also not 2-1 or 1-0 Matchups; I am talking about OWNAGE as Nadal owns Roger 6 - 3, a clear domination
     
    #5
  6. rommil

    rommil Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    7,767
    Location:
    CT
    This is very subjective. Majority go by the numbers for example that Federer can only be better than Sampras if he breaks his record. Then the use of the word OWNED where you make it sound like player A gets blown away by player B each time they play. It's a head to head record and somebody most of the time has to have an edge.There is an implication of ignorance, of a trash talking rookie when somebody states that this player owns that player. I am sure whoever is in the winning edge of that match up busted their behinds getting there. Tennis is a game of match ups. I am pretty sure you can find players there who have a winning record against Sampras (Krajicek maybe or Federer(but that's only one match and Sampras was in the twilight of his career and blah blah blah). Hell if you ask Nadal if he OWNS Federer or any player for that matter he will be the one to say no. Does Nadal have a better record against Federer? yes. Is Nadal a better player than Federer? You go figure and see who is in contention of being the greatest ever.Now, Federer can quit playing tennis now and he is the GOAT in my personal opinion. Go ahead and disagree.
     
    #6
  7. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    I don't understand how Nadal owning him would take the GOAT status away from him. It would be one thing if Nadal was at Federer's level against the other players as well, but he is obviously not.

    Everyone has a weakness in their game. Alot of people say Sampras was the GOAT, but he sucked on clay. So clay to Sampras is what Nadal is to Federer. I still think Federer has a chance to overcome Nadal, but its most likely too late for Sampras to overcome clay. I think Federer is the GOAT, but he just needs more time to prove it with stats.
     
    #7
  8. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Found it (Thanks!)

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

    So, no. NO PLAYER HAS EVER OWNED PETE

    Chuck Adams USA 1 0 1.000
    Andre Agassi USA 20 14 0.588
    Ronald Agenor HAI 1 0 1.000
    Karim Alami MAR 1 1 0.500
    Paul Annacone USA 0 1 0.000
    Alex Antonitsch AUT 1 0 1.000
    Jan Apell SWE 2 0 1.000
    Hicham Arazi MAR 1 0 1.000
    Jordi Arrese ESP 1 0 1.000
    Wayne Arthurs AUS 2 1 0.667
    George Bastl SUI 0 1 0.000
    Jeremy Bates GBR 2 1 0.667
    Patrick Baur GER 1 0 1.000
    Boris Becker GER 12 7 0.632
    Jay Berger USA 0 1 0.000
    Rikard Bergh SWE 1 0 1.000
    Christian Bergstrom SWE 2 1 0.667
    Jonas Bjorkman SWE 9 1 0.900
    Byron Black ZIM 6 0 1.000
    Wayne Black ZIM 2 0 1.000
    Galo Blanco ESP 1 1 0.500
    Gilad Bloom ISR 2 0 1.000
    Arnaud Boetsch FRA 3 0 1.000
    Neil Borwick AUS 1 0 1.000
    Julien Boutter FRA 1 0 1.000
    Karsten Braasch GER 1 0 1.000
    Sergi Bruguera ESP 2 2 0.500
    Bob Bryan USA 1 0 1.000
    Steve Bryan USA 1 0 1.000
    Jordi Burillo ESP 1 0 1.000
    Doug Burke JAM 1 0 1.000
    Alex Calatrava ESP 1 1 0.500
    Agustin Calleri ARG 1 0 1.000
    Omar Camporese ITA 1 0 1.000
    Guillermo Canas ARG 1 0 1.000
    Paolo Cane ITA 1 0 1.000
    Tomas Carbonell ESP 3 0 1.000
    Kenneth Carlsen DEN 1 0 1.000
    Johan Carlsson SWE 1 0 1.000
    Paul Chamberlin USA 1 0 1.000
    Thierry Champion FRA 1 1 0.500
    Michael Chang USA 12 8 0.600
    Juan Ignacio Chela ARG 2 0 1.000
    Andrei Cherkasov RUS 4 2 0.667
    Andrei Chesnokov RUS 1 0 1.000
    Francisco Clavet ESP 4 0 1.000
    Grant Connell CAN 1 0 1.000
    Jimmy Connors USA 2 0 1.000
    Alex Corretja ESP 4 1 0.800
    Albert Costa ESP 5 0 1.000
    Carlos Costa ESP 1 1 0.500
    Jim Courier USA 16 4 0.800
    Barry Cowan GBR 1 0 1.000
    Kevin Curren USA 1 1 0.500
    Martin Damm CZE 3 0 1.000
    Scott Davis USA 1 0 1.000
    Horacio De La Pena ARG 1 0 1.000
    Olivier Delaitre FRA 1 0 1.000
    Ramon Delgado PAR 2 1 0.667
    Taylor Dent USA 1 0 1.000
    Arnaud Di Pasquale FRA 0 1 0.000
    David Dilucia USA 2 0 1.000
    Peter Doohan AUS 1 0 1.000
    Slava Dosedel CZE 2 0 1.000
    Grant Doyle AUS 1 0 1.000
    Scott Draper AUS 2 0 1.000
    Hendrik Dreekmann GER 2 0 1.000
    Joshua Eagle AUS 2 0 1.000
    Stefan Edberg SWE 8 5 0.615
    Jacco Eltingh NED 1 2 0.333
    David Engel SWE 1 0 1.000
    Thomas Enqvist SWE 8 2 0.800
    Nicolas Escude FRA 1 0 1.000
    Kelly Evernden NZL 1 1 0.500
    Roger Federer SUI 0 1 0.000
    Wayne Ferreira RSA 7 6 0.538
    Marcelo Filippini URU 5 0 1.000
    Mardy Fish USA 1 0 1.000
    John Fitzgerald AUS 1 0 1.000
    Doug Flach USA 1 0 1.000
    Jean-Philippe Fleurian FRA 1 0 1.000
    Guy Forget FRA 5 3 0.625
    Andrew Foster GBR 1 0 1.000
    Javier Frana ARG 1 0 1.000
    Richard Fromberg AUS 4 1 0.800
    Renzo Furlan ITA 1 0 1.000
    Vladimir Gabrichidze GEO 1 0 1.000
    Jan-Michael Gambill USA 4 1 0.800
    Chris Garner USA 1 0 1.000
    Andrea Gaudenzi ITA 2 1 0.667
    Sammy Giammalva Jr. USA 0 1 0.000
    Brad Gilbert USA 5 4 0.556
    Rodolphe Gilbert FRA 1 1 0.500
    Justin Gimelstob USA 4 0 1.000
    Marc-Kevin Goellner GER 2 0 1.000
    Dan Goldie USA 1 0 1.000
    Paul Goldstein USA 1 0 1.000
    Jerome Golmard FRA 1 0 1.000
    Andres Gomez ECU 2 0 1.000
    Fernando Gonzalez CHI 0 1 0.000
    Sebastien Grosjean FRA 2 0 1.000
    Oliver Gross GER 0 1 0.000
    Magnus Gustafsson SWE 5 0 1.000
    Paul Haarhuis NED 1 3 0.250
    Tommy Haas GER 5 2 0.714
    Mauricio Hadad COL 2 0 1.000
    Tim Henman GBR 6 1 0.857
    Lleyton Hewitt AUS 4 5 0.444
    Jakob Hlasek SUI 6 1 0.857
    Tommy Ho USA 1 0 1.000
    Thomas Hogstedt SWE 1 0 1.000
    Henrik Holm SWE 1 0 1.000
    Dominik Hrbaty SVK 2 0 1.000
    Maxime Huard FRA 1 0 1.000
    Andrew Ilie AUS 0 1 0.000
    Goran Ivanisevic CRO 12 6 0.667
    Martin Jaite ARG 1 0 1.000
    Anders Jarryd SWE 2 0 1.000
    Eric Jelen GER 1 0 1.000
    Thomas Johansson SWE 2 0 1.000
    Donald Johnson USA 1 0 1.000
    Lars Jonsson SWE 1 0 1.000
    Michael Joyce USA 2 0 1.000
    Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS 9 1 0.900
    Mark Kaplan RSA 1 0 1.000
    Bernd Karbacher GER 2 1 0.667
    Cedric Kauffmann FRA 1 0 1.000
    Mark Keil USA 0 1 0.000
    Nicolas Kiefer GER 3 1 0.750
    Phillip King USA 1 0 1.000
    Kent Kinnear USA 1 0 1.000
    Mark Koevermans NED 0 1 0.000
    Petr Korda CZE 12 3 0.800
    Stefan Koubek AUT 1 0 1.000
    Richard Krajicek NED 4 5 0.444
    Mark Kratzmann AUS 1 0 1.000
    Aaron Krickstein USA 5 1 0.833
    Ramesh Krishnan IND 2 0 1.000
    Jan Kroslak SVK 3 0 1.000
    Karol Kucera SVK 6 1 0.857
    Gustavo Kuerten BRA 2 1 0.667
    Nicklas Kulti SWE 2 0 1.000
    Nicolas Lapentti ECU 3 0 1.000
    Sebastien Lareau CAN 3 0 1.000
    Todd Larkham AUS 1 0 1.000
    Magnus Larsson SWE 6 3 0.667
    Rick Leach USA 1 0 1.000
    Henri Leconte FRA 2 1 0.667
    Hyung-Taik Lee KOR 2 0 1.000
    Martin Lee GBR 1 0 1.000
    Ivan Lendl USA 5 3 0.625
    Harel Levy ISR 0 1 0.000
    Michael Llodra FRA 2 0 1.000
    German Lopez ESP 1 0 1.000
    Jorge Lozano MEX 1 0 1.000
    Peter Lundgren SWE 1 1 0.500
    Xavier Malisse BEL 2 0 1.000
    Alberto Mancini ARG 1 0 1.000
    Amos Mansdorf ISR 4 0 1.000
    Felix Mantilla ESP 3 2 0.600
    Danilo Marcelino BRA 1 0 1.000
    Juan Antonio Marin CRC 1 0 1.000
    Gabriel Markus ARG 1 1 0.500
    Nuno Marques POR 1 0 1.000
    Alberto Martin ESP 0 1 0.000
    Todd Martin USA 18 4 0.818
    Wally Masur AUS 5 0 1.000
    Paul-Henri Mathieu FRA 0 1 0.000
    Shuzo Matsuoka JPN 4 1 0.800
    Luiz Mattar BRA 2 0 1.000
    Tim Mayotte USA 4 1 0.800
    John McEnroe USA 3 0 1.000
    Patrick McEnroe USA 3 0 1.000
    Miloslav Mecir SVK 0 1 0.000
    Andrei Medvedev UKR 6 2 0.750
    Fernando Meligeni BRA 1 1 0.500
    Max Mirnyi BLR 1 2 0.333
    Francisco Montana USA 2 0 1.000
    Agustin Moreno MEX 1 0 1.000
    Jamie Morgan AUS 2 0 1.000
    Carlos Moya ESP 3 1 0.750
    Thomas Muster AUT 9 2 0.818
    Markus Naewie GER 1 0 1.000
    Diego Nargiso ITA 2 0 1.000
    Todd Nelson USA 2 0 1.000
    Daniel Nestor CAN 1 0 1.000
    Jarkko Nieminen FIN 2 0 1.000
    Tom Nijssen NED 2 0 1.000
    Yannick Noah FRA 0 1 0.000
    Magnus Norman SWE 3 1 0.750
    Karel Novacek CZE 0 1 0.000
    Jiri Novak CZE 1 0 1.000
    Alex O'Brien USA 1 0 1.000
    Andrei Olhovskiy RUS 2 0 1.000
    Marcos Ondruska RSA 2 0 1.000
    Leander Paes IND 0 1 0.000
    Jared Palmer USA 4 0 1.000
    Veli Paloheimo FIN 1 0 1.000
    Arvind Parmar GBR 1 0 1.000
    David Pate USA 2 2 0.500
    Brad Pearce USA 2 0 1.000
    Guillermo Perez-Roldan ARG 1 0 1.000
    Diego Perez URU 1 0 1.000
    Mikael Pernfors SWE 0 2 0.000
    Dinu Pescariu ROM 1 0 1.000
    Stefano Pescosolido ITA 2 0 1.000
    Alexander Peya AUT 1 0 1.000
    Mark Philippoussis AUS 6 2 0.750
    Cedric Pioline FRA 7 0 1.000
    Kristian Pless DEN 1 0 1.000
    Wolfgang Popp GER 1 0 1.000
    Albert Portas ESP 1 0 1.000
    Gianluca Pozzi ITA 4 0 1.000
    Laurent Prades FRA 1 0 1.000
    David Prinosil GER 3 0 1.000
    Goran Prpic CRO 1 0 1.000
    Mariano Puerta ARG 1 0 1.000
    Jim Pugh USA 1 0 1.000
    Alex Radulescu GER 3 0 1.000
    Patrick Rafter AUS 11 3 0.786
    Guillaume Raoux FRA 3 1 0.750
    Richey Reneberg USA 6 2 0.750
    Marcelo Rios CHI 2 0 1.000
    Joey Rive USA 1 0 1.000
    Olivier Rochus BEL 2 0 1.000
    Andy Roddick USA 1 2 0.333
    Martin Rodriguez ARG 1 0 1.000
    Marc Rosset SUI 3 1 0.750
    Derrick Rostagno USA 1 2 0.333
    Lionel Roux FRA 2 0 1.000
    Greg Rusedski GBR 9 1 0.900
    Andre Sa BRA 1 0 1.000
    Christian Saceanu GER 0 1 0.000
    Marat Safin RUS 3 3 0.500
    Emilio Sanchez ESP 2 1 0.667
    Javier Sanchez ESP 2 0 1.000
    Davide Sanguinetti ITA 3 0 1.000
    Stephane Sansoni FRA 1 0 1.000
    Fabrice Santoro FRA 4 3 0.571
    Danny Sapsford GBR 1 0 1.000
    Sargis Sargsian ARM 3 0 1.000
    Bill Scanlon USA 1 0 1.000
    Sjeng Schalken NED 5 0 1.000
    Gilbert Schaller AUT 0 1 0.000
    Michiel Schapers NED 1 0 1.000
    Rainer Schuettler GER 2 0 1.000
    James Sekulov AUS 1 0 1.000
    Bryan Shelton USA 2 0 1.000
    Leif Shiras USA 0 1 0.000
    Jan Siemerink NED 5 0 1.000
    Stephane Simian FRA 5 0 1.000
    Horst Skoff AUT 3 0 1.000
    Roger Smith BAH 1 0 1.000
    Vincent Spadea USA 4 1 0.800
    Milan Srejber CZE 3 0 1.000
    Grant Stafford RSA 1 1 0.500
    Jonathan Stark USA 4 0 1.000
    Carl-Uwe Steeb GER 3 1 0.750
    Brett Steven NZL 1 1 0.500
    Michael Stich GER 3 3 0.500
    Andrei Stoliarov RUS 1 0 1.000
    Sandon Stolle AUS 1 0 1.000
    Jason Stoltenberg AUS 4 1 0.800
    Jonas Svensson SWE 3 1 0.750
    Andrew Sznajder CAN 2 0 1.000
    Jimy Szymanski VEN 1 0 1.000
    Jeff Tarango USA 4 0 1.000
    Eliot Teltscher USA 1 0 1.000
    Mikael Tillstrom SWE 6 0 1.000
    Bohdan Ulihrach CZE 4 1 0.800
    Kevin Ullyett ZIM 1 0 1.000
    Daniel Vacek CZE 5 0 1.000
    Jan Vacek CZE 1 0 1.000
    Johan Van Herck BEL 1 0 1.000
    John Van Lottum NED 1 0 1.000
    Christo Van Rensburg RSA 1 2 0.333
    Jiri Vanek CZE 1 0 1.000
    Andreas Vinciguerra SWE 1 0 1.000
    Adrian Voinea ROM 2 0 1.000
    Alexander Volkov RUS 7 2 0.778
    Vladimir Voltchkov BLR 1 0 1.000
    MaliVai Washington USA 7 0 1.000
    David Wheaton USA 8 0 1.000
    Mats Wilander SWE 1 1 0.500
    Tim Wilkison USA 1 0 1.000
    Todd Witsken USA 3 0 1.000
    Todd Woodbridge AUS 7 1 0.875
    Mark Woodforde AUS 10 1 0.909
    Chris Woodruff USA 4 1 0.800
    Martin Wostenholme CAN 1 0 1.000
    Simon Youl AUS 2 0 1.000
    Mikhail Youzhny RUS 1 0 1.000
    Jaime Yzaga PER 4 3 0.571
    Mariano Zabaleta ARG 1 0 1.000
    Markus Zoecke GER 2 0 1.000
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2007
    #8
  9. Wimby

    Wimby New User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Yes, if you can consider a player who couldn't get past the 2nd round of a major SIX times in his prime a GOAT.

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

    If you are referring to the article that was posted here some time ago, it should be noted that it was written tongue-in-cheek.
     
    #9
  10. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear

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

    Edit - and a 5-4 edge would not be dominance; a winning record, yes ... but not the spanking Rafa has been doing
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2007
    #10
  11. rommil

    rommil Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    7,767
    Location:
    CT
    Now if you really need to see what spanking really looks like, watch the US Open 2000 men's finals.
     
    #11
  12. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    Really depends whether Federer can have a winning record against Rafa on non-clay surfaces. In fact, it could be argued that clay court competition has probably never been higher, making Rafa's dominance of the surface even more remarkable.

    Federer and Nadal mutually bring out the worst in each other's game too. Even on clay, it's not so much dominance but a shankfest.
     
    #12
  13. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    So does that mean Nadal is the GOAT? If Nadal is not the GOAT, then him beating Federer is the SAME as Sampras playing on clay.

    Everyone here knows Nadal is NOT the GOAT.
     
    #13
  14. noeledmonds

    noeledmonds Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    Good stats Nick!

    I looked up Borg. Borg does not have a losing H2H against any player he has player he played 3 times or more. This is incredible. Borg's worst H2H are 0-2 to several players. Interestingly Borg has not won any matches against players he has losing H2H against.
     
    #14
  15. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    14,074
    Fed has beaten Nadal the last 2 times.I think he has him figured out.Not to mention some of the other players.I hope they meet again just so that my suspicion is right.Can we take into account that Nadal has beaten Fed in clay matches.
     
    #15
  16. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Even without the 14 slams Fed is already the Goat.
     
    #16
  17. noeledmonds

    noeledmonds Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    Interestingly Agassi only has losing H2H by 3 matches or more against 4 players. These are Ronald Agenor (0-3), Fededer (3-8 ), Lendl (2-6), Sampras (14-20). This is remarkable considering Agassi's inconsistancy and longitivity.
     
    #17
  18. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    If I remember correctly, somebody put out a post a few days ago showing Sampras' accomplishments at the same age as Federer were almost identical.

    I think Fed has proven to be the most dominant against the rest of the players in a particular era, but I still think the longevity of his dominance is just as important for determining GOAT.
     
    #18
  19. OrangeOne

    OrangeOne Legend

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,295
    I cringe when I see another GOAT thread OR another Rafa / Fed thread, and here we get two for the price of one! :(

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

    Game over, who cares, and if you really truly cringe, and didn't just want to re-start the Fed-Nadal BS, there's an easy solution.... don't click the "new thread" button! :|
     
    #19
  20. rommil

    rommil Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    7,767
    Location:
    CT
    Amen to that Drak. Btw, I didn't realize you were 10 years old lol.
     
    #20
  21. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    I think I may have put a post out like that. This is what made me have interest in the topic; time and longevity will help us better see. -- I still somewhat subscribe to the parity from the # 2 on down positions in todays players. Roger is the ONLY great player in this current ERA.

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

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

    Of course not. That would be silly to think this

    Let us try and remain somewhat serious
     
    #21
  22. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Staying on course; at the end of the day, Nadal will most definately be the asterik on Federer's career Bio.
     
    #22
  23. justineheninhoogenbandfan

    justineheninhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    898
    Nadal only leads Federer 6-3 head to head because 4 of their matches have been on clay. If you eliminate the 4 clay court matches, and the 1 grass court match, they are 2-2 on neutral surfaces. It is pretty obvious though Federer will not be losing to Nadal on anything but clay in the future, and even on clay he will win atleast half of their future matches. The head to head is not going to stay in Nadal's favor for long unless Nadal does not do well enough to play Federer on anything but clay.

    If Federer sucked as bad as Pete on the clay he would probably have a winning head to head with Nadal now.
     
    #23
  24. justineheninhoogenbandfan

    justineheninhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    898
    There is no reason to "assume" Nadal will continue any edge over Federer head to head. Federer is only getting better while Nadal at a young age is already showing signs of early burnout/stagnation. In the future Nadal will be hard pressed to ever beat Federer in a non clay court match, and Federer has a good chance of winning some of their future clay court meetings.

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

    Anyway though, as I said, the only way Nadal mantains a head to head edge over Federer is if he isnt able to even get far enough to lose to Federer in non-clay events in the future(as losing is likely all he will do in a future non
    -clay match with Roger)and if they keep playing often on clay to give Nadal a chance to pad his deceiving head to head.
     
    #24
  25. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    Yeah, but people make assumptions that Nadal is already a fading player when he hasn't yet lost a clay court match in years. So far, it hasn't really been close between Fed and Rafa on clay. Even if his 1H BH is more stable against the high bounce, would that really be enough to beat Nadal at the FO?
     
    #25
  26. rommil

    rommil Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    7,767
    Location:
    CT
    Agreed. Compared to Federer, Nadal is an asterisk.
     
    #26
  27. OrangeOne

    OrangeOne Legend

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,295
    Or he'll be an insignificant memory from 2006. Fed intends playing for at least 5 more years, a bunch of clay losses in 2006 may look minor from there. Maybe because he's won a slam. Maybe because he faded away. Maybe Murray rises and owns Fed later on. Maybe Fed dominates for a few more years, and his 16 GSs to Nadals 2/3/4 makes that asterisk not even a spot!

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

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

    The flipside of this irony? If Nadal had have been good enough to make a few Hardcourt finals in the last 8 months (in fact, any major final in the last 8 months where Fed was in the draw), the 6-3 probably would be closer / closed a bit now anyways...
     
    #27
  28. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Nothing but speculation on your part in regards to victory on said surfaces. What is done is done. But based on both of our viewpoints, there is no reason to assume Nadal will not continue his edge.

    I do not believe Federer will get better; I believe he is at his peak.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2007
    #28
  29. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    You need to "realize" different---I'm actually 8 years old.

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

    have a nice day!
     
    #29
  30. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    14,074
    I dont know about that, Nadal will need to do a 180 on his game, changing everything.I will say it now without any hesitation.He wont win another slam besides the FO.
     
    #30
  31. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Kind of hard when you start a thread suggesting just because Fed does not have a winning record against Nadal, this somehow would taint his legacy.

    Fed has already surpassed Sampras' French Open success, or lack thereof.
     
    #31
  32. OrangeOne

    OrangeOne Legend

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,295
    Based on recent form, there's no reason to assume he will continue this edge either.

    This time last year, he was about ready to start the clay season coming off a very good hardcourt season, in a few weeks he's likely to start the claycourt season....without a tourney win since he played on clay. Big, big difference.
     
    #32
  33. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    I think that all 3 of them (and Pete) have a stake in the argument. But calling Roger absolute at this point is premature as he still has some issues to work out; the French being one of them and being able to tame the very player who outright owns his ass.

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

    -

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

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

    Rafa sits in the corner shaking his head and mumbling

    "I owned you biatch."
     
    #33
  34. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Predicatably, the rabid Fedbase have come out.

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

    Some of us question while others cannot.
     
    #34
  35. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,945
    Where has Hrbaty been. He's federer's other bogey man at 2-0. Rafter also has Fed 3-0.
     
    #35
  36. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I wouldn't call a 3-6 record "owning his ass". 1-5, or 0-6 obviously. In fact, the last two matches they have played Fed has "owned" Nadal.

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

    The only way your argument would have a strong foundation is if Nadal would have more total slams say 7 or 8. He doesn't.
     
    #36
  37. snapple

    snapple Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    319
    Nick, it's not an issue of not being able to question but simply the fact that most of us REJECT your premise. Besides, as has already been pointed out, Nadal has a better H2H cause most of those matches have been on clay, which by the way, when you claim these contests are not even close, you are way off base. If I recall, Fed had a match point in Rome last year, and even at the FO, rafa won in a 4th set tiebreaker...not exactly "ownership" like results.
     
    #37
  38. OrangeOne

    OrangeOne Legend

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,295
    Perhaps you just don't like it when Nadal is questioned, seems to me you created the thread to question Federer....

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

    Again: I can appreciate things in both players, I just think we're talking about two different leagues here.
     
    #38
  39. Lambsscroll

    Lambsscroll Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,471
    Location:
    United States
    Pete was owned by the French Open and Borg was owned by the The Australian Open and US Open.
     
    #39
  40. Wimby

    Wimby New User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Of course that was exactly what you wanted, you troll - with all the disrespectful and provoking comments about owning arses.

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

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

    And you conveniently ignored that Sampras was 2-6 vs Krajicek until 1999 on his BEST surfaces. He also had a losing record, 2-3 to Bruguera. He was 0-2 on clay in 1993. If he was good enough to meet Bruguera 2 more times on clay in 93, he would have been 0-4. Sampras also lost 4 straight times to a nobody like Ferreira in his prime.
     
    #40
  41. BeckerFan

    BeckerFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Federer has the 'misfortune' of being far better than Sampras on clay. As a result, he has to face the best clay-court player of the decade, on his opponent's preferred surface, multiple times in a single season. I think the mere fact that Federer REACHES so many finals on clay (even to lose to Nadal) shows that he is a better all-around player than Sampras ever was.

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

    So I don't think this is such a blemish on Federer's G.O.A.T. resume. If he can take some matches off Nadal on clay, even win the French one of these years, it will be a big boost for him. In my mind though, the bigger test for Federer is longevity. It remains to be seen if he can keep up his stratospheric level of play and doesn't burn out in his mid-20s, like Borg did before him.
     
    #41
  42. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    This is an insightful post. I too think that Fed is a contender (Top 3) and i only label fans in terms of the rabid fan base. I alos think Rafa is still young; this year will be interesting as he needs to step up

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

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

    Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces.

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

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

    But Rafa, face it haters, owns Federer, and that is the question of the day.
     
    #42
  43. BeckerFan

    BeckerFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    So it is better to lose to nobodies in the early rounds on clay than to consistently make finals and lose to one of the great clay-court players of all time? The former scenario would prevent one from having a particularly bad win-loss record against a single opponent, but I cannot see how it makes one a 'greater' player.
     
    #43
  44. Brettolius

    Brettolius Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    815
    Location:
    Beyond Thunderdome
    Nick Irons= Pusher Terminator
     
    #44
  45. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    You got that right.
     
    #45
  46. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I suppose you think James Blake, 3-0 record against Nadal takes away from Nadal's clay court supremacy/legacy? Will Nadal have an asterisk next to his consecutive clay court wins record because he has a losing record against Blake? Or his 2 French Open Tiltes? I don't think so.

    Nadal hardly owns Fed. He has the edge on clay, no doubt about that, but he doesn't own him. When he starts beating him at the other 3 slams--then you have a much stronger foundation for your argument.
     
    #46
  47. Nick Irons

    Nick Irons Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Cape Fear
    Not at all; stop supposing.

    W and L's are all that matters at the end of the day.
     
    #47
  48. BeckerFan

    BeckerFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Agreed, drakulie.

    I am most interested to find out whether Nadal's performance at Wimbledon last year was a fluke. Nadal seems to be more at home in Europe, and he may have a preference for natural surfaces ... I wouldn't be at all surprised if grass turns out to be a better surface for Nadal than hard courts over his career. I think it suits his movement better. Though it's perhaps too tempting to see Nadal as Borg reincarnated, after what he did the first half of last year. We'll just have to wait and see.
     
    #48
  49. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Uhmm, you are the one "supposing" with the entire issue you rasied in this thread. Go back and read your first post.

    OK. As I pointed out>>> Blake has a 3-0 record against Nadal. Using your logic, the fact he is "owned" by Blake immediately disqualifies him from being the best clay courter.
     
    #49
  50. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Becker, I also agree with what you state regarding grass. I don't see any reason why Nadal would not be able to do very well on that surface. Unlike other clay court specialsits he has embraced the idea that not only does he want to improve on that surface, he also wants to win Wimbledon.

    I was not surprised he did so well last year at Wimbldeon, regardless of people arguing he had a "weak" draw. However, the injuries seem to be piling on. I hope he is able to up his level and become healthy again.
     
    #50

Share This Page