D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
I'd prefer Federer's career. What I don't know is if 22 Slams is really enough for the Bull to surpass him.
Which Career would you Prefer hypothetical
- Thread starter DIMI_D
- Start date
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
First, I am not your dudeThis one is pure gold. So this is pure speculation, but Djokodal mopping up the slams in 2003-2007 isn't....
Sure thing, dude. Expected no less from hypocrite Fed haters like you yourself
Second, I don’t think I said that Rafa would mop the floor with the 2003-2007 competition but please show me if I did.
Third (to your reply above), please show us the data where “ Rafa's been owned by his 2 biggest rivals after turning 28, but sure, age doesn't matter.”
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
There will be arguments for all 3 of them when all is said and done. Nadal needs the slam record the most given his (relatively) poor number of weeks at #1 and the fact he NEVER won the TMC while Djokovic and Federer won it a lot. 2 more slams would be a solid number since if he's only 1 ahead a lot of people wouldn't find it enough given he trails in other departments. Tiger Woods is 3 behind Jack Nicklaus and most people consider him the GOAT.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, hasn't won a set against Djokovic on HC since late 2013.
Hasn't beaten Fed off clay since early 2014.
And overall since the 2014 AO F, he is 5-18 against Federer and Djokovic overall.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Man, are you new to tennis???
1) federer skipped clay for how many seasons??? Also, federer racked up the wins against Nadal in 2017 when Rafa was very different from 2019-2021
2) age of 33 for Nadal is VERY different than 33 for federer. Or even 38 for federer. The guy (RF) can outrun and outlast most of the tour. Different genes and very different style of play and different built bodies.
I think it is obvious that we see some things differently and have very different opinion on this.
By the way, neither Rafa nor Federer is my favorite and I don’t dislike either one of the legends.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
K
Keep thinking I think 2 slam difference would be enough to make up for lack of WTF and the weeks at number 1 considering his injuries. Another non clay slam would really tip it for me with out a doubt as it will be 8 non clay slams vs feds 9 non hard slams.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes for sure it’s really what u value more, MJ said it’s good to admire the careers of all players as they are artists and this post is more about which u prefer not to diminish either’s achievements. Novak is still definitely in the conversation. All the big 3 took the sport to new levels it’s so admirable
Sunny014
Legend
Nadal has lesser slams on HCs .... Lesser on Grass .... 0 WTFs while Fed is the highest .....
So no, even with 25 slams he cannot be the GOAT unless he gets better on other turfs or comes close.
GOAT is not come record piling contest .....do you think people give a **** about records ? memories matter ..... ppl remember Federer to have been the ruler.... that will never change
If Federer wins even 1 slam after 40 and others fails to do so then Fed will again be the GOAT automatically because he has done what nobody could do, he is a ray of hope for ppl who r old that they to can compete with 18-22 yr olds
In the real world Federer will remain the GOAT even if Nadal reach 30 slams as long as 22 of them are on clay.... nobody cares
So no, even with 25 slams he cannot be the GOAT unless he gets better on other turfs or comes close.
GOAT is not come record piling contest .....do you think people give a **** about records ? memories matter ..... ppl remember Federer to have been the ruler.... that will never change
If Federer wins even 1 slam after 40 and others fails to do so then Fed will again be the GOAT automatically because he has done what nobody could do, he is a ray of hope for ppl who r old that they to can compete with 18-22 yr olds
In the real world Federer will remain the GOAT even if Nadal reach 30 slams as long as 22 of them are on clay.... nobody cares
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Thanks for sharing I personally disagree with your opinion of Nadal having to be 5 infront or even 30 and still it’s not enough. Although you may be right in terms of public perception because aesthetically feds game is more enjoyable to watch and elegant and dominated for a good stretch with no rivals to challenge him. For sure he’s longevity is amazing but so are all of the big 3 are admirable. I try to look at career and achievements and for sure being tied at the moment the edge slightly for Fed but that is subjective you can cherry pick what u want to justify an opinion and that’s ok. A fact though remains that the tour is skewed towards hard court we had a time brief as it was when US open played on clay we had a period pre open era when 3/4 slams are on grass. We have now a situation were majority of the big events are on HC, 33% on clay and like 5% or less on grass. It’s harsh to diminish nadals achievements on Clay where he has less opportunities. Despite this still has career slam and 7 slams off clay vs 9 for Fed off hard (2 chances a yr) and 3/4 slams suite fast court players. Djokovic has 6 slams off hard. So really saying he will never have a better career than the other 2 due to not being as good on hard as them is a weak argument.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
For sure he’s longevity is admirable he inspires a lot of people like all the big 3 do but we have to be objective in terms of looking at the achievements if there is a gap in slams I can’t realistically say I would take Feds career. In theory the slams all 4 are of equal weight
Sunny014
Legend
Federer is celebrated a lot all over the world, so yes, most ppl would love his career.
That having said i personally would pick Nadal's career for myself maybe, his dominance at the french open is out of the world.
I voted Federer based on who the GOAT is, not necessarily I would mind the other guy's career .... the mental edge he has over everyone is worth having
Sunny014
Legend
I wouldn't mind Novak's career either.
Truth be told I was Novak I would have been more clever with words, more clever with my behavior, would have been better focused on breaking records.
Plus he is placed so perfectly 6 years after Feder with Rafa as his best rival who is a clay specialist, nothing better really, it is only now that next gen is challenging him and stil they are not good enough.
Truth be told I was Novak I would have been more clever with words, more clever with my behavior, would have been better focused on breaking records.
Plus he is placed so perfectly 6 years after Feder with Rafa as his best rival who is a clay specialist, nothing better really, it is only now that next gen is challenging him and stil they are not good enough.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes that’s cool, I’m more about career achievements and trying to be objective vs style of play and personality etc.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes agree with this a lot of Fed is he’s great with the cameras, excellent PR that boyish humour ppl love that. He will always have a bigger fan base
Sunny014
Legend
Federer achieved the most as well.
Has played the most generations too.
If anyone who is chasing his legacy in the true way then it is Novak.
Nadal is a bit 1 dimensional due to he not being that good outside clay, while you might say courts r mostly HCs the same argument applies to federer too, courts r mostly slow and not suiting his aggressive game.
So there is no excuse, one has to dominate the tour all round.
Federer did it in the 00s and then Novak took on the mantle from him .
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes last decade was Novak’s, but the slam race will still be decisive and that’s not over whoever ends first will have the biggest claim to the best out of the 3 in my eyes.
Sunny014
Legend
Slams are not everything.
Rafa needs to win outside clay too.
Just being best on a turf and winning every year has taken him to 20 and will take him ahead.
Why is he so much behind in weeks as 1 ?
Sunny014
Legend
Rafa has just 5 HCs slams compared to Sampras's 7 (a good figure for an era where players didn't play a lot into 30s) and fat behind 12 of NOvak and 11 of federer
Rafa has 0 WTF titles which shows that he is nothing on the faster low bounce courts ....
He cannot be greatest of all time by being behind his rivals everywhere outside clay.
Rafa has 0 WTF titles which shows that he is nothing on the faster low bounce courts ....
He cannot be greatest of all time by being behind his rivals everywhere outside clay.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
I think some injuries prevented him from more weeks at world number 1 2009 and 2012 come to mind but I think weeks world number 1 not as important as slams when it’s all said and done lack of weeks don’t really hurt Borg etc. I think he has won enough off clay but 1 more non clay slam will surely seal it for me and 2 slam lead over Fed 100% you would take Rafa’s career. If u are offered 22
Slams vs 20 slams I don’t think u can logically pick the lesser even with weeks at number 1 and WTFs etc, slams are the pinnacle
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Yes but consider his competition 5 HC vs 7 HC for Sampras is very impressive considering Pete was a a way better HC player with lesser competition Agassi and others were awesome but not a Fed or Djoka even Murray on HC is fantastic
Sunny014
Legend
Tennis is not a stats piling contest.
Life is not about stats, maybe for you it is stats because you are a Rafa fanatic and not a player, but for the players being in the spotlight and being the alpha is important.
Rafa has never been the alpha, he has always been like 2.
Roger has been celebrated the most and now Novak is getting his case to be 1 by breaking all records.
Rafa is not that great outside clay.
Sunny014
Legend
Homogenous courts enable Rafa to win slams outside HCs.
On HCs and Grass he is not worthy of being in the GOAT conversation.
His defining aura is clay.... that is what keeps him in the conversation .... or else he is not on par with the other 2
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
It’s all about the slams and stats baby
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Weeks at # 1 is very important, but less so when the overwhelming majority of them were earned between 2004 and 2007 with little outside of that
P
PETEhammer
Guest
This is a hard question, because on the one hand you have what is a very balanced, full looking career against a relatively surface heavy career that seems far less complete but has more of the essential requirement - slams. This is only a surface level comparison, because while the more complete career is seemingly preferable at a glance when one dives more deeply they consider factors such as competition, clutch, and h2h against rivals. Federer's competition was quite weak, I think even Fedfans know this deep down, and this isn't his fault - you can only play who is in front of you. That Federer dominated his laughable competition with such utter despotism is only an argument in his favor, indeed it would be troubling to consider him as a GOAT contender if he struggled against Roddick and Baghdatis and Gonzalez. Federer's problem is his staggering inability to defeat his equals on the biggest stage. Fedfans will push the prime argument against the notion of Djokovic being the superior player but unfortunately this works against them further to their detriment, for if Novak's wins over Roger from 2015 on don't count then neither do Roger's wins over Rafa during this period which brings us to the second problem: during both player's relative "primes" Rafa convincingly dominated Roger. 10-23 is not the record a GOAT candidate puts out against a peer. It is how a pigeon performs against a GOAT contender. That Federer was Nadal's pigeon during the period Fedfans consider valid is very troubling indeed. And if they choose to validate his post 2014 wins over Nadal, then they must also validate Djokovic's wins over Fed during the same period. However one tries to color the facts, they have the same shade: Federer was convincingly domesticated by his rivals which leads to the damning question: how can one be the greatest of all time if he is not the greatest of his time?
Ultimately I think it past time we abandon the concept of a player with a perfect resume and instead accept there is no such thing and it comes down to which imperfections add up the greatest overall body of work. Do you take 20 slams and dozens of records over pigeons, or 20 slams won by beating your rivals on your best surface, or 18 majors with the aid of modern medicines? In an age of false choices, I think we know the true answer.
MurryGOAT
Ultimately I think it past time we abandon the concept of a player with a perfect resume and instead accept there is no such thing and it comes down to which imperfections add up the greatest overall body of work. Do you take 20 slams and dozens of records over pigeons, or 20 slams won by beating your rivals on your best surface, or 18 majors with the aid of modern medicines? In an age of false choices, I think we know the true answer.
MurryGOAT
Last edited by a moderator:
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Awesome post well said!
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Realistically we do have a tour schedule that favours hard that’s for sure and fast surfaces. A player that dominates on these surfaces will automatically get a bigger boost. I agree about competition factor and for sure Fed had a vacuum for a while no fault of his own where he would roll over the competition, competition has enhanced the sport and made it hell more interesting. The big 3 for sure have enriched the sport. With Feds 2 biggest records - weeks and number 1 and slams about to fall it will be very hard to argue objectively he is the greater of the 3. I was a Pete fan before Fed came around and I couldn’t argue that Fed was ahead of Pete when he equalled the record in 09 RG let alone passed it at WIM 09. Although Nadal will have holes they all do it’s what carries more value. When it’s all said and done it looks like the GOAT race between the 3 will come down to Nadal vs Djoka.
canta_Brian
Hall of Fame
Wow, the insights!
User called Petesomething likes, wait for it, Pete Sampras most. User called Noleanything likes, again builds suspense, Djokovic.
What is the point?
User called Petesomething likes, wait for it, Pete Sampras most. User called Noleanything likes, again builds suspense, Djokovic.
What is the point?
ForehandRF
Legend
But that consideration, Djokovic is 6-10 vs Nadal in slams, so he should be out of the GOAT debate.Nadal GOAT.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Clay skew. 8 matches at Roland Garros, 2 matches at the Australian Open.
ForehandRF
Legend
Clay skew ? You are quick to contextualize here, but you simply use the h2h against Fed with no other context.Federer and Nadal also played more times at RG than at any other slam and what's even more important is that they never played at the USO.So, you can't use the H2H against Federer and make excuses for Djokovic at the same time.It's Fedovic's fault because they got dominated at the French, therefore this metric works against Novak too.So, if H2H is paramount, then Nadal GOAT.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
There's some clay skew in the Nadal-Federer h2h too, yes.
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Nadal and Djokovic have not achieved more than Federer and even if they do Federer is not out of any debate unless they distance themselves from Federer.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Your counter-argument?
And based off your woeful summary of my post I have to conclude you didn't read it.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Fed is always a GOAT contender, but being propped up as the obvious best ever and symbol of tennis perfection is what will end when his records do.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
@ForehandRF
Slam finals, Slam semis and YEC finals on hardcourt/grass against other Big3:
Federer 9-14
Djokovic 18-7
As you can see, Federer was not great on his best surfaces either, while Djokovic was.
Slam finals, Slam semis and YEC finals on hardcourt/grass against other Big3:
Federer 9-14
Djokovic 18-7
As you can see, Federer was not great on his best surfaces either, while Djokovic was.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
The difference is Nole has beaten Rafa at every slam they played at, and Fed was dominated by Nadal not just on clay but in Australia as well. He even lost the best match of the 21st century to him on grass. Apples are not oranges.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
ForehandRF
Legend
Of course it looks this way if you group the H2H, and that due to Fed's losses against Novak since 2014.If you don't group the H2H, then Fed has a negative record against Rafa at the AO and Novak has at the USO which again works against both if this metric is so decisive in the debate.So, you either accept that career achievements come first and the HTH is the tiebreaker if 2 players have a similar resume, or you give more importance to the H2H than anything else and both Fedovic are out of the GOAT debate.
ForehandRF
Legend
Subjective.I can say that the best match was the AO 2017 and we are not going anywhere.Rafa won a match out of 4 at Wimbledon and that can't be in Fed's detriment at all, because you win some, you lose some.Maybe Rafa would have also snatch a win against Novak had they play at least 4 times at the AO.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Ah yes, the old 'Big 3 or bust' chestnut. Boring. Next.
ForehandRF
Legend
The H2H is blindly used against Fed when in fact can work against Djokovic too and in their desire to put Federer down, Lew and others forget about it and they do a disservice to their own player.
ForehandRF
Legend
The general problem on this board is that so many want to make their player look better by putting down the other/s and that is an unhealthy way to see things.
Last edited:
