Does having poor h2h's against his rivals Hurt Fed's resume as GOAT?

GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?
 
W

World Beater

Hall of Fame
first of all...nadal and murray are not exactly federer's contemporaries...they are current rivals but they are a diff generation of players.

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

aphex

Banned
are you trying to promote sampras as goat again?? eeeh?

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

GameSampras

Banned
Fed is only what 27? Its not like hes 35 and far removed from this generation. And No Im not trying to promote Pete at all. Im just asking a valid question
 
380pistol

380pistol

Banned
It does and it doesn't. Generally it looks bad surface (gotta look deeper) wise when players like Nadal and Murray have been problematic to him, but tennis is like boxing..."styles make fights".

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

LanceStern

Professional
Nah I don't think so.

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

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

egn

Hall of Fame
Against Nadal maybe but against Murray no because ets remember for four of Federer's carrer it was Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Davydenko etc. etc. who he has outstanding records against..two guys, Nadal and Murray...not going to hurt him that much. Most of Murray is now as he is no longer in his dominating era he is not as much of a threat and Murray is in his prime now so he is more of a threat. Besides there are always those two to three guys who can beat a player. Besides Nadal it is only clay that he has a losing record...so that will definitely be taken into account.
 
Mungo73

Mungo73

Banned
aphex said:
are you trying to promote sampras as goat again?? eeeh?

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

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

Fed is not going to be the GOAT anyway
 
The-Champ

The-Champ

Legend
GameSampras said:
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?
Click to expand...



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

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




cool stats!

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


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

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Mungo73 said:
Wrong. Simon owns Fed 2-0!!! 3 top-ten players own Fed in h2h

Fed is not going to be the GOAT anyway
Click to expand...

Yeah and Fed destroyed Murray in the only match that really counted--a grand slam final. He's already GOAT in many people's books and two more slams and the tennis world at large will declare him the greatest.
 
T

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
Fed's resume is way too good. His poor H2h against some players doesnt even merit a foot note in history.

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

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

rubberduckies

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

flyer

Hall of Fame
i think it certainly does in my mind, but not in many other peoples, like it or not greatness in tennis is by in large measured in slam trophies....the factors of the victories are forgotten, such as quality of opponent, court speeds, w/e...
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Tennis_Monk said:
Fed's resume is way too good. His poor H2h against some players doesnt even merit a foot note in history.

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

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

miyagi

Professional
I think when Feds career is over and done, it will impossible to mention what he achieved without mentioning Nadal.

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

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

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

zagor

Bionic Poster
Maybe,it depends on a point of view.But realistically almost every GOAT contender has some holes in his resume(except Laver that is)when all is said and done.
 
J

JankovicFan

Semi-Pro
GameSampras said:
Fed is only what 27? Its not like hes 35 and far removed from this generation. And No Im not trying to promote Pete at all. Im just asking a valid question
Click to expand...

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

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

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

ThugNasty

Guest
Not at all because at the end of the day federer wins the big ones and has 13 GS. GOAT!
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

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

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

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

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


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

So is it necessarily fair to just go by the GS count in determing the GOAT? When Laver should be sitting on the GS record?
 
380pistol

380pistol

Banned
Mungo73 said:
aphex said:
are you trying to promote sampras as goat again?? eeeh?

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

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

Fed is not going to be the GOAT anyway
Click to expand...

Nadal obvioulsy. Murray. Hrbaty 2-1 over Roger and Simon, so that's 4 I'm aware of.
 
T

Tennis_Bum

Professional
The-Champ said:
NO i don't think so. Fed's record against Nadal or Murray doesn't affect anything.

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




cool stats!

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


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

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

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

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

urban

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

Tennis_Bum

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

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

P_Agony

Banned
GameSampras said:
In particular his h2h's against Nadal and Murray in terms of solidifying his status as the GOAT? What are your guys thoughts? Do you think the GOAT should have the h2h advantages against his main rivals of his era to be considered the undisputed GOAT?
Click to expand...

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

thejoe

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

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

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

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

phoenicks

Professional
not really, all great champions have some rivals who just win more than him in the H2h, it's simply unavoidable, it happens to all players, esp different generation players.
 
J

JankovicFan

Semi-Pro
P_Agony said:
Today his backhand is fading away, his forehand is inconsistent, he's slower than he was, and the only thing that's still working well is his serve,
Click to expand...

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

rubberduckies

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

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

P_Agony

Banned
thejoe said:
His serve was bad yesterday. One of the reasons it was such a lackluster performance.

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

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

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

thejoe

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

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

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

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

P_Agony

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

What a failure of a post.

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

tacou

G.O.A.T.
I personally think yes it does, but this is just another case of how GOAT is such a pointless discussion, but no one will ever learn.

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

miyagi

Professional
P_Agony said:
What a failure of a post.

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

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

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

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

P_Agony

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

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

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

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

ksbh

Banned
Federer has already surpassed Sampras in tennis achievements. How many FO finals did Sampras get to? Federer already has 3 FO finals on his resume and will likely get more.

He's a long way from GOAT though.

phoenicks said:
And another thing, don't talk about Fed being the GOAT when he still haven't surpass Sampras.
Click to expand...
 
ksbh

ksbh

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

veroniquem

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

P_Agony

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

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

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

P_Agony

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

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

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
ksbh said:
Federer has already surpassed Sampras in tennis achievements. How many FO finals did Sampras get to? Federer already has 3 FO finals on his resume and will likely get more.

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

Zaragoza

Banned
Something people tend to forget too is how close their head-to-head is on hardcourts (3-2) and grass (2-1) as opposed to clay (9-1). Federer doesn't dominate the head to head on other surfaces like Nadal does on clay, otherwise the head to head would be 9-9 and not 12-6 in favour of Nadal. Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. Period.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Seems Jim Courier is on the "Nadal may be GOAT" train as well
2 3 4
Replies
191
Views
21K
Ecoplex
E
terribleIVAN
Federer deserves the GOAT status, but not against Rafa.
2
Replies
79
Views
7K
TMF
T
L
Comparing Sampras' and Federer's head to heads against top rivals
2
Replies
54
Views
19K
dominikk1985
D
sheq
Federer 8-17 against Nadalovic at slams !!
2
Replies
71
Views
2K
Rusty Shackleford
Rusty Shackleford
Djokovic2011
What's the one hole/stain in Djokovic's resume?
11 12 13
Replies
626
Views
22K
thrust
T
Top