Why the GOAT does NOT exist

NatF

Bionic Poster
The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.

So surfaces and old age don't factor into matchups? Shame Nadal couldn't use his winning head to head with Federer to win more slams from 2005-2007.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.

Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

Sorry, sureshs, you have already stated that you believe Federer is the GOAT. See below:

Today's semifinals feature the top 4 players. Unlike the last 2 "Slams". I contend that whoever wins here is the real #1 and the GOAT. I have a feeling it won't be the guy with the elegant strokes.

Everyone knows how that turned out.

Please resume making terrible posts. :lol:
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
The meaning of head to head is very simple. No need to bring extraneous factors in. In tennis, the person with the better H2H is defined to be the better player. That is all.

Lack of understanding of this is the basis of umpteen threads about "I am the better player but I lost to a pusher." No dude you are not the better player.



The head to head is actually not "simple". It takes takes some understanding of tennis to grasp it, which some people like yourself don't understand.

Playing a match on clay is not the same as hardcourt or indoor. You understand this much, right?

Therefore, the head to head will be different according to surfaces. They have played the vast majority of their matches on clay, Nadal's BEST SURFACE, Federer's WORST.

Nadal was not good enough to even reach Fed in many hardcourt or indoor tournaments where he would have been beaten.

If you don't grasp these things then you just don't understand tennis very well.

Think of it like this:

Right now you, surehs, have an EVEN head-to-head with Federer, the possible greatest player ever. Pretty awesome right? Not really, because its not that simple. You aren't good enough to qualify and make the first round of an ATP event where you would be destroyed by Federer 1st round, should you draw him. It's the exact same with Nadal, he failed to make later rounds in tournaments on Fed's best surface whereas Fed advanced to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.

Take some time to think about it, maybe you'll understand it at some point
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The head to head is actually not "simple". It takes takes some understanding of tennis to grasp it, which some people like yourself don't understand.

Playing a match on clay is not the same as hardcourt or indoor. You understand this much, right?

Therefore, the head to head will be different according to surfaces. They have played the vast majority of their matches on clay, Nadal's BEST SURFACE, Federer's WORST.

Nadal was not good enough to even reach Fed in many hardcourt or indoor tournaments where he would have been beaten.

If you don't grasp these things then you just don't understand tennis very well.

Think of it like this:

Right now you, surehs, have an EVEN head-to-head with Federer, the possible greatest player ever. Pretty awesome right? Not really, because its not that simple. You aren't good enough to qualify and make the first round of an ATP event where you would be destroyed by Federer 1st round, should you draw him. It's the exact same with Nadal, he failed to make later rounds in tournaments on Fed's best surface whereas Fed advanced to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.

Take some time to think about it, maybe you'll understand it at some point

Neither Fed nor Nadal orchestrated their meetings on specific surfaces. It just happened. There was no power up above manipulating their meetings.

Talking about my head-to-head with Federer shows that you still haven't understood the meaning of statistically significant sample set. It is precisely for that reason that I warned about it in my previous post. 0 is not a statistically significant number. Both Fed and Nadal have played a large number of tournaments and met a large number of times, for the results to be statistically significant.
 

The-Champ

Legend
Doesn't count for much. Federer has said how he idolized Sampras and Laver, so it is no wonder they return a compliment. Both also had a 1 handed backhand, so they see a continuity. JMac likes the all-court game and has a 1 handed BH too. It is more like these guys are siding with Federer against Nadal, who is their common enemy because they know he can bulldoze his way through their fancy elegant strokes any time. These guys have just not been able to face up to the Rafa-Fed head to head count.

Actually, Laver said recently that Nadal and Fed are about equal. Agassi said in one of his recent interviews that Nadal and Federer are probably the two greatest players ever.

- Former greats are very supportive of the current generation but we know that Rafa hasn't surpassed Pete yet.
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

Convenient that you have an acceptable excuse as to why the H2H isn't relevant when discussing Rosol, lol.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Tennis is a tournament sport played against the field. Federer has been the most successful against his field, therefore he is GOAT.

If tennis was a "champion vs. contender" sport (like boxing) his H2H with Nadal would be considered (but probably thrown away as being clay-skewed). However, H2H is simply not how the pro tour works.
 
Neither Fed nor Nadal orchestrated their meetings on specific surfaces. It just happened. There was no power up above manipulating their meetings.

Talking about my head-to-head with Federer shows that you still haven't understood the meaning of statistically significant sample set. It is precisely for that reason that I warned about it in my previous post. 0 is not a statistically significant number. Both Fed and Nadal have played a large number of tournaments and met a large number of times, for the results to be statistically significant.

The suresh has sure(sh)ly spoken. Davydenko>Nadal!
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
Oh and don't come back with the Rosol-Nadal H2H. Learn the meaning of statistically significant sample set before posting.

If we consider your silly theory, then Nads isn't even the GOAT on clay, since he doesn't have a winning record against a former French Open champion, and all their matches were on clay.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
If we consider your silly theory, then Nads isn't even the GOAT on clay, since he doesn't have a winning record against a former French Open champion, and all their matches were on clay.

Your argument is silly, because the other player is not a GOAT candidate.
 
I think in sports you have this thing where the sport has evolved enough to where competitively it has fully established a core, it has found its identity, and a measuring stick can be established. No way in hell I would say William Renshaw is as good as his 7 Wimbledon titles make him out to be (especially considering the rules of the championship match back in those days), or that whiskey drinking between sets Jack Crawford can be compared to a modern day athlete, or that the 200 “titles” Rod Laver won are relevant to the way the modern game is played and the amount of events pros enter today. Whatever it was for its time, great, props to it, but modern day tennis is a different animal. Athletically at least, it’s no contest. Add to that uniformity of the tour too.

With Federer in tennis, at least hopefully we all are cool with calling him the greatest in the Open Era. If you don’t agree with that, well I am sorry but you are just wrong and oblivious to facts. Now is Federer the best ever? I think so (especially since I think Open Era>>>Pre Open Era) and frankly he’s the best candidate for that, just as Michael Jordan is the greatest candidate for best basketball player (I see them as a similar figure actually, more on that I delve upon below). The sport has evolved, is more competitive, more established, grander. Fed came, he saw, he conquered and we all have proof and undisputable numbers (plus footage). There are no myths or history essays, no hypothetical scenarios here, no amateur vs pro dilemmas, plus his career isn’t even done and already he’s the most legitimate example of tennis success and GOAThood, or at least as close as you can get to it (wow moment: you have to add up Nadal, Djokovic and Murray’s slam counts to equal that of Federer).

A lot of haters are clinging on to H2H debates vs one particular player, but Nadal still couldn’t win the war vs Fed despite winning key individual battles (see titles, see #1 rankings, see records for Fed vs those achieved by Nadal), and that’s with the favorable match up and playing Fed on his favorite surface, while not making finals on Fed’s best surfaces during Fed’s prime.

There are some people here saying how Fed didn’t win all 4 majors in one year, which is nitpicking at one particular measure of greatness that Budge and Laver achieved rather than seeing the whole spectrum with Fed (find a record they didn’t achieve that Fed has and turn that argument around). Take Michael Jordan for example. He didn’t average a triple double over the course of a season (Robertson), didn’t score a 100 point game (Chamberlain), trails in NBA titles count (Russell) and MVPs (Jabaar) but is still the greatest ever right? But Fed didn’t win 4 majors in one year so Laver>>>Federer? Get real. The definition of a complete player, with magic on the court, spectacular plays, people’s champion, individual records that will stand the test of time, establishing the measuring stick for all to follow, while having the most majors and most of the important records that matter during the contemporary epoch of tennis. Fed’s the GOAT.
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Tennis is a tournament sport played against the field. Federer has been the most successful against his field, therefore he is GOAT.

If tennis was a "champion vs. contender" sport (like boxing) his H2H with Nadal would be considered (but probably thrown away as being clay-skewed). However, H2H is simply not how the pro tour works.

Well, how does it work? It is only in the YEC that a loser can go on to win. In every other tournament, each match is a knockout.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
With 11 Slams and Golden Career Slam, Nadal is a very legitimate candidate. The guy with more Slams than him, Sampras, could not complete a Career Slam. He should not even be in the running.
 
With 11 Slams and Golden Career Slam, Nadal is a very legitimate candidate. The guy with more Slams than him, Sampras, could not complete a Career Slam. He should not even be in the running.

Nadal : 102 weeks at #1
Sampras : 286 weeks at #1

How could a player who only ranked #1 for 102 weeks be the GOAT? He just wasn't dominant enough for long enough to be the GOAT.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Well, how does it work? It is only in the YEC that a loser can go on to win. In every other tournament, each match is a knockout.

It works like this: tennis has tournaments. The guy who wins a tournament is declared the best (of the week). The guy who wins the most important tournament is the best - of all time.

It does not matter if the guy lost 100% of his matches to another guy, but won the most tournaments. It does not matter if your weaknesses are concentrated in one single H2H, or spread evenly across the field. It does not matter if you get injured, since fitness is part of the game.

Winning tournaments is all that tennis is about. Not personal vendettas - tournaments. Grand slams first, WTF next, Masters, 500s and 250s.

Countries compete in Olympics and Davis Cup the same way: the country that wins more of those is GOAT. Not the country that happens to beat some other country H2H.
 
It works like this: tennis has tournaments. The guy who wins a tournament is declared the best (of the week). The guy who wins the most important tournament is the best - of all time.

It does not matter if the guy lost 100% of his matches to another guy, but won the most tournaments. It does not matter if your weaknesses are concentrated in one single H2H, or spread evenly across the field. It does not matter if you get injured, since fitness is part of the game.

Winning tournaments is all that tennis is about. Not personal vendettas - tournaments. Grand slams first, WTF next, Masters, 500s and 250s.

Countries compete in Olympics and Davis Cup the same way: the country that wins more of those is GOAT. Not the country that happens to beat some other country H2H.

Yeah, simple as that. I'd much rather lose everytime I faced Nadal in the finals of a Grand Slam than lose to Davydenko, Gonzalez, Rosol and Youzhny in earlier rounds.
 

Blocker

Professional
OP, so you know better than the legends of the game who have declared Fed as the GOAT ?

What makes GOAT as an absolute thing and not relative - H2H, Slam count, Career Slam ? Is that all ? If it is absolute , why cannot it be that the GOAT should never lose any match ?

All that comes out from your post is you are not able to accept Fed as a GOAT and you are trying out contrived theories to press the point.

tennisaddict, my op was quite balanced and it critiqued all the GOAT candidates, not just Federer. I said no one is the GOAT. I didn't single out Federer. I ruled every candidate out.

I am not a Federer hater, I think he has been awesome for tennis. But I can't accept that the greatest player of all time gets continuously beaten by a rival in his own era and continuously is referred to as the GOAT. How can anyone, forget that it's Roger, be called GOAT and yet has such a poor record against another player who just happens to be his major rival? If he had lost once or twice to Nadal, I could accept that, but he loses to Nadal in grand slams time and time and time again. What's their H2H? 8-2 or something like that? Come on, you think the GOAT should be 2-8 against anybody? You know how riduculous that seems to the neutral fan? A guy is 2-8 in the grans dlams and is considered the GOAT. That is absurd.

I understand that people say that aside, he has won the most slams and that he should be the GOAT because of that fact. But I will reiterate it until I'm blue in the face...slams were not always the currency by which we measure tennis greatness.

But this is not to say that slams should be discounted. They should be counted, but they should be counted in addition to other factors such as, gee I don't, restoring some balance against a guy who continuously kicks your ass maybe?

Imagine a boxer who is wins the most boxing titles and is considered the GOAT boxer, but in his time, had 3 fights with another boxer and got KO's each time? In your eyes is that boxer really the GOAT? Someone floored him in 3 fights. Well this is the same thing. Fed has the most slams yes but there is a player out there who, when put on the other side of the net, floors Federer.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
It works like this: tennis has tournaments. The guy who wins a tournament is declared the best (of the week). The guy who wins the most important tournament is the best - of all time.

It does not matter if the guy lost 100% of his matches to another guy, but won the most tournaments. It does not matter if your weaknesses are concentrated in one single H2H, or spread evenly across the field. It does not matter if you get injured, since fitness is part of the game.

Winning tournaments is all that tennis is about. Not personal vendettas - tournaments. Grand slams first, WTF next, Masters, 500s and 250s.

Countries compete in Olympics and Davis Cup the same way: the country that wins more of those is GOAT. Not the country that happens to beat some other country H2H.

Then Laver would not even be a GOAT candidate because Sampras and Federer have more Slams.

And on the other hand, since he had so many more doubles and mixed doubles titles, he would be a GOAT.

Not it does not work that way.

And most important tournament? What is that? And Nadal has won that too LOL.

Variety of tournaments is also important. Sampras could not win the FO, so that destroys his claim to GOAT. Federer could not win the Olympics gold in a good number of tries - it is much more pressure because it comes only once in 4 years while Slams are a dime a dozen. Nadal handled the pressure better.
 
Then Laver would not even be a GOAT candidate because Sampras and Federer have more Slams.

And on the other hand, since he had so many more doubles and mixed doubles titles, he would be a GOAT.

Not it does not work that way.

And most important tournament? What is that? And Nadal has won that too LOL.

Variety of tournaments is also important. Sampras could not win the FO, so that destroys his claim to GOAT. Federer could not win the Olympics gold in a good number of tries - it is much more pressure because it comes only once in 4 years while Slams are a dime a dozen. Nadal handled the pressure better.

The Olympics Federer took part in were played on Hardcourts and at Wimbledon. The guy has 9 Hardcourt Slams and 7 Wimbledons. I think it's safe to say that he has nothing to prove on those surfaces.
 

Blocker

Professional
The head to head is actually not "simple". It takes takes some understanding of tennis to grasp it, which some people like yourself don't understand.

Playing a match on clay is not the same as hardcourt or indoor. You understand this much, right?

Therefore, the head to head will be different according to surfaces. They have played the vast majority of their matches on clay, Nadal's BEST SURFACE, Federer's WORST.

Nadal was not good enough to even reach Fed in many hardcourt or indoor tournaments where he would have been beaten.
If you don't grasp these things then you just don't understand tennis very well.

Think of it like this:

Right now you, surehs, have an EVEN head-to-head with Federer, the possible greatest player ever. Pretty awesome right? Not really, because its not that simple. You aren't good enough to qualify and make the first round of an ATP event where you would be destroyed by Federer 1st round, should you draw him. It's the exact same with Nadal, he failed to make later rounds in tournaments on Fed's best surface whereas Fed advanced to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.

Take some time to think about it, maybe you'll understand it at some point

I'll put it to you that Federer should be greatful Nadal never progressed more in these events, because if he had, more likley than less likely, Nadal would have beaten Fed.

I was at this year's AO SF between Federer and Nadal. Great match. Fed was on fire, playing the better tennis, was in great form, Nadal was also injured. Fed won the first set. Yet in spite of all this, Nadal still beat him. For the first 3 sets, Fed threw everything at Nadal, including the kitchen sink. Yet by the early stages of the 4th set, he was dropping his head. He knew that he had just given everything he had against Nadal and then some, and was still a set down.

I keep reading this "oh if Nadal had progressed more in slams Fed would even up". Based on what has transpired to date, that's absolute rubbish. What would have happened in reality, based on what has transpired to date, is that Nadal would have increased his H2H, won more slams, and Fed would have won less slams. Not trying to be a troll or anything, just pointing out the way it is.

So bottom line, Fed should be thankful that he gets to hide behind the clay argument. Had Nadal progressed more often in other slams, it would have really opened Federer up.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The Olympics Federer took part in were played on Hardcourts and at Wimbledon. The guy has 9 Hardcourt Slams and 7 Wimbledons. I think it's safe to say that he has nothing to prove on those surfaces.

He cried when he lost to Blake in the Olympics. 9 and 7 are just numbers. What if it was 8 and 6? Meaningless argument. Fed could not perform under pressure, Nadal could.

If Nadal is not the GOAT, Fed cannot be it either. Their fates are twined together.
 
being the GOAT doesn't mean being perfect.

federers getting owned by nadal is a serious flaw in his career. tennis is a head to head sport and the rivalries matter. people want to see the big matchups like macenroe-lendl or agassi-sampras.

however federer federer is still the best the game has seen. he is not a perfect dominator but there simply has not been someone better.

probably one day there will be one and then he will be the GOAT but until then it is federer.
 
I'll put it to you that Federer should be greatful Nadal never progressed more in these events, because if he had, more likley than less likely, Nadal would have beaten Fed.

I was at this year's AO SF between Federer and Nadal. Great match. Fed was on fire, playing the better tennis, was in great form, Nadal was also injured. Fed won the first set. Yet in spite of all this, Nadal still beat him. For the first 3 sets, Fed threw everything at Nadal, including the kitchen sink. Yet by the early stages of the 4th set, he was dropping his head. He knew that he had just given everything he had against Nadal and then some, and was still a set down.

I keep reading this "oh if Nadal had progressed more in slams Fed would even up". Based on what has transpired to date, that's absolute rubbish. What would have happened in reality, based on what has transpired to date, is that Nadal would have increased his H2H, won more slams, and Fed would have won less slams. Not trying to be a troll or anything, just pointing out the way it is.

So bottom line, Fed should be thankful that he gets to hide behind the clay argument. Had Nadal progressed more often in other slams, it would have really opened Federer up.

I see it now. You're a biased ***********. Sampras was regularly owned by Krajicek of all people. If anything, Sampras should be thankful that he didn't have to face Krajicek any more than he did, or else he'd be sitting on 10 Grand Slams. I'd much rather lose regularly to an 11-time Grand Slam champion like Nadal than lose to 1-time Champion Krajicek.
 
He cried when he lost to Blake in the Olympics. 9 and 7 are just numbers. What if it was 8 and 6? Meaningless argument. Fed could not perform under pressure, Nadal could.

If Nadal is not the GOAT, Fed cannot be it either. Their fates are twined together.

What if he did? Because he cried, he's not the GOAT? LOL, he cried when he lost his first Basel final too. You know what's more glaring than Federer not having won the Olympics? Nadal not winning the Masters Cup. You get 4 times the opportunities at the Masters Cup as you get at the Olympics and yet, Nadal has never won it. How ridiculous is that, for "the GOAT"?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
What if he did? Because he cried, he's not the GOAT? LOL, he cried when he lost his first Basel final too. You know what's more glaring than Federer not having won the Olympics? Nadal not winning the Masters Cup. You get 4 times the opportunities at the Masters Cup as you get at the Olympics and yet, Nadal has never won it. How ridiculous is that, for "the GOAT"?

The YEC round robin where losers can win? Nadal is not a club player.

Olympics is a million times more prestigious tournament.
 
The YEC round robin where losers can win? Nadal is not a club player.

Olympics is a million times more prestigious tournament.

Yeah, at 750 points for the winner, it is a million-times more prestigious than a 1500-point event :lol: suresh, you make me laugh. And let's not forget about the "Real Slam" :twisted:
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
Can somebody sum the discussion up for newcomers, please? Why does not Federer exist, again?

Oh you know, the haters can't accept that the guy who has been ranked #1 the most and has also won the most majors is the GOAT, typical Wednesday afternoon nonsense, it'll start over again next week, but Fed will still be the GOAT.
 

sonicare

Hall of Fame
Then Laver would not even be a GOAT candidate because Sampras and Federer have more Slams.

And on the other hand, since he had so many more doubles and mixed doubles titles, he would be a GOAT.

Not it does not work that way.

And most important tournament? What is that? And Nadal has won that too LOL.

Variety of tournaments is also important. Sampras could not win the FO, so that destroys his claim to GOAT. Federer could not win the Olympics gold in a good number of tries - it is much more pressure because it comes only once in 4 years while Slams are a dime a dozen. Nadal handled the pressure better.

Actually..the most rare tournament which only came along one time was blue clay. And on that, Nadal couldn't even stand up straight. kept slipping. Guess who won the only ever blue clay tournament in the history of our sport. ROGER MOTHER****ING FEDERER.

So by your own logic, Federe handled pressure the best
 

sonicare

Hall of Fame
Oh, high five. I find religious people irrational, too.

:)

35ip0f.jpg
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
So let’s have a look at some of the GOAT candidates....

Federer
Has the most slams, has the career slam, but is owned by Nadal. Sorry Federer fans, I have taken on board everything you have said..
Obviously you've not taken on the single most important factor pertaining to head-to-heads: They don't matter squat

They never have and never will - except to partisan hacks clutching at straws.

Why? Because beating someone per se is not an achievement in tennis. There are no trophies and no awards for having beaten any particular player. What matter is titles won. That is it.

I can hear you saying: but if Federer was better how come he lost to Nadal more often than not? Simple: because Federer was getting to finals in 9 out of 10 tournaments in his prime, during which Nadal was only getting to 5 out of 10 finals. He was losing to guys Federer later beat.

So, if you want to do a real calculation of it: take all the times they beat each other and then add on all the times each of them beat someone who's ousted the other later in a tournament. The head to head would add another 30 wins to Federer, but only 3 or 4 to Nadal - simply because Nadal was not good enough to challenge often enough even if his peak ability was as good as Federer's.

Sampras
Has the second most slams.
Pretty much won his H2H rivalries.
No career slam (no FO). For this reason, Sampras is not the GOAT.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 14 no matter how you bake it.

Borg
I’ll make an exception re the career slam for Borg given that he did not give two hoots about the AO.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker of Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Borg. And that's also not even considering the career slam he didn't achieve)

Agassi
If there is one player who ticks all the boxes as far as winning everything worth winning is concerned, it is Agassi. Won all the slams, won the YEC/WTF and won an Olympic singles gold medal.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount of achievements at the highest level.

Connors
Never won the FO and was owned by Borg in their big matches. So Connors is not the GOAT.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.

Lendl
Never won Wimbledon and was owned by Becker in their biggest matches. Not the GOAT.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.

McEnroe
His slam count never made it to double digits and he never won the FO. He must still have nightmares about that 1984 final against Lendl.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 7. Far more than double the amount.

Nadal
Nadal is an interesting one. Has won the career slam but still trails Federer in total slams won, even though he owns their H2H. Another thing which rules...
Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker or Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Nadal)

Laver
I’m not going to comment about Laver. I never saw him play. Everyone knows him as the man that has won the GRAND SLAM OF TENNIS twice.
Laver is the only person who there is a legitimate argument for considering him the GOAT - despite winning far fewer majors that Federer - he won the holy grail, the calendar slam which, depending who you speak to - trumps sheer numbers.

Outside of achievements the only real arguments that can be made that Federer isn't the (open era) GOAT have to delve into how hard the eras/competition were... Those debates are long and usually pointless.
 
Last edited:

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Sampras doesnt have much standing in the GOAT argument anymore, therefore his disciples have to claim that there is no such thing as GOAT...which of course is convenient.
 

Blocker

Professional
Obviously you've not taken on the single most important factor pertaining to head-to-heads: They don't matter squat

They never have and never will - except to partisan hacks clutching at straws.

Why? Because beating someone per se is not an achievement in tennis. There are no trophies and no awards for having beaten any particular player. What matter is titles won. That is it.

I can hear you saying: but if Federer was better how come he lost to Nadal more often than not? Simple: because Federer was getting to finals in 9 out of 10 tournaments in his prime, during which Nadal was only getting to 5 out of 10 finals. He was losing to guys Federer later beat.

So, if you want to do a real calculation of it: take all the times they beat each other and then add on all the times each of them beat someone who's ousted the other later in a tournament. The head to head would add another 30 wins to Federer, but only 3 or 4 to Nadal - simply because Nadal was not good enough to challenge often enough even if his peak ability was as good as Federer's.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 14 no matter how you bake it.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker of Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Borg. And that's also not even considering the career slam he didn't achieve)


Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount of achievements at the highest level.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 7. Far more than double the amount.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker or Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Nadal)


Laver is the only person who there is a legitimate argument for considering him the GOAT - despite winning far fewer majors that Federer - he won the holy grail, the calendar slam which, depending who you speak to - trumps sheer numbers.

Outside of achievements the only real arguments that can be made that Federer isn't the (open era) GOAT have to delve into how hard the eras/competition were... Those debates are long and usually pointless.

Like I said, heard it all before. Comparing slams across different eras is like comparing shoe laces with spaceships.
 
Like I said, heard it all before. Comparing slams across different eras is like comparing shoe laces with spaceships.

Let's compare Federer and Sampras.

Federer has 17 Slams to Sampras's 14. (7/7 Wimbledons, 5/5 US Opens, 4/2 Australian Opens, 1/0 French Opens)

Federer has 6 TMC to Sampras's 5

Federer has 302 weeks at #1 to Sampras's 286

Federer has 24 Grand Slam finals to Sampras's 18


And you bring up Federer's head-to-head against Nadal? Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek of all people! :)


If anything is a fact, it's that Federer > Sampras. He even beat Sampras on Sampras's best surface (2001 Wimbledon, on fast Grass).

Face it, man. Federer destroyed Sampras's claims to being the GOAT. Just accept it :D
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Federer is the GOAT, no matter which argument you try to use.
 
Actually in slams, Sampras and K are 1-1. You see Sampras got him in the end, at the USO, 2000 I think. And he did it after being a set down. Now while being a set down against a guy who beats him regularly would have caused Fed to fret and go into his shell, Sampras dug deep and got his revenge. Now we all know what happens to Fed when he's a set down against Nadal don't we. He hangs his head, he gets teary eyed, he goes into his shell. Heck he's even been know to lose to a major rival when he's match point up.

Yeah, and 1-1 against Krajicek is something to be proud about? He is still 4-6 behind, which is rather shameful for a player of Sampras's stature, doncha think? Also, Federer, the "teary eyed" Federer who can't dominate his rival, is 1-0 against Sampras in Slams. On the fast Grass of Wimbledon, no less :lol: Besides, Federer has come from 2 sets down to beat Nadal before. You just don't know he did :)

Anyway, what are we arguing about here?

17 : 14
7:7
5:5
4:2
1:0

Federer would totally wipe the floor with Sampras on Clay and on Rebound Ace/Plexicushion. He even proved he could beat Sampras on fast Wimbledon grass, let alone the slow Grass of today. Federer would probably beat Sampras on all 3 surfaces, you know. What're you smoking with, "Sampras would be the last man standing"? :lol:
 

Blocker

Professional
It's all about Sampras, and you know it. You don't have an argument to make for Sampras's GOAT-ness so now you're just arguing that there is no GOAT. And you have the audacity to suppose Sampras would be the "last man standing" if there were to be a knock-out tournament between all the GOAT candidates and still suggest this is not about Sampras :lol: Hilarious! If I'm Federer's dad, you must be Sampras's wife :)

Go back and read what I said again. I said Sampras would be the last man standing as long as Federer was on the other side of the draw and Nadal took him out. This is implying that if Sampras and Fed were on the same side of the draw, Fed would probably knock Sampras out. IMO Sampras would win on grass, Fed on clay and the hardcourt would be very close, but probably Federer just.

Sheesh, how is that being all about Sampras?
 
Go back and read what I said again. I said Sampras would be the last man standing as long as Federer was on the other side of the draw and Nadal took him out. This is implying that if Sampras and Fed were on the same side of the draw, Fed would probably knock Sampras out. IMO Sampras would win on grass, Fed on clay and the hardcourt would be very close, but probably Federer just.

Sheesh, how is that being all about Sampras?

Federer leads Nadal in the Grasscourt head-to-head and the Hardcourt head-to-head, in case you didn't know. Picking Federer would've made far more sense. Not that I would expect you to make the sensible choice :)

And you just now conceded that Federer would beat Sampras in your scenario. What makes you think Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal when he leads the head-to-head on two surfaces? Remember, you said all players were in their peak. Peak, or even prime, Federer, never lost to Nadal on Grass or Hards at Grand Slams. It was only post-2007 that he started losing to Nadal outside of Clay at Slams. Even if Federer would've lost to Nadal (which is certainly very possible), what makes you think Nadal could've made it far enough to meet Federer? That's the story of his life, right? That he's never made it far enough to meet prime-Federer on Hardcourt-Slams?
 

Blocker

Professional
Federer leads Nadal in the Grasscourt head-to-head and the Hardcourt head-to-head, in case you didn't know. Picking Federer would've made far more sense. Not that I would expect you to make the sensible choice :)

And you just now conceded that Federer would beat Sampras in your scenario. What makes you think Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal when he leads the head-to-head on two surfaces? Remember, you said all players were in their peak. Peak, or even prime, Federer, never lost to Nadal on Grass or Hards at Grand Slams. It was only post-2007 that he started losing to Nadal outside of Clay at Slams. Even if Federer would've lost to Nadal (which is certainly very possible), what makes you think Nadal could've made it far enough to meet Federer? That's the story of his life, right? That he's never made it far enough to meet prime-Federer on Hardcourt-Slams?

I can only go by their hardcourt matches in the slams. I've seen two of them, live in fact, and in every saspect, Nadal had Federer covered. Just as you are trying to convey that Fed has Sampras' record covered, Nadal had Fed, on a tennis court seperated by a net, covered...twice.
 
Top