D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Fed is the 2nd best of his own time behind a guy that dominated him on 1 leg.
Federer has won more than Nadal, so he's therefore the best of this era. Nadal can carry on beating Federer when he's not expected to be winning the big titles. It's irrelevent.
How can you be the best of your era when your numbers pale in comparison to someone else?
Yes, and Davy own Nadal(6-1 on hc)
And how can one be better than all the rest when he has such a dismal record against his chief rival?
Stupid circular argument that won't end.
Why these exist on a daily basis is beyond me.
Nadal beating Federer hasn't translated into a better resume (as of yet).
^ the point is, h2h is close to being meaningless when ranking the all-time greats.
I'd make the argument that Sampras/Laver/Graf/Navratilova etc. would all be considered in the exact same position they are now, even if they happened to have losing h2h's against Agassi/Rosewall/Seles/Evert respectively
and this is where you would be wrong. You are wrongfully applying your own views on what is and isnt important to the majority to the majority of people. The very fact an increasingly large number of past champions and experts are expressing increasing doubts to Federer having any serious GOAT claims due to his H2H with Nadal is infinite proof H2H is a factor for people.
Certainly alot more than some of the meaningless stats Federer slams trumpet (quarterfinal streaks, who gives a flying fig about that, sorry).
Your Evert vs Navratilova is the worst and most telling example of all, as it is solely Navratilova's complete dominance of Evert during her prime years that all but elminates Evert from any serious GOAT discussion and put her firmly behind Navratilova in history,
There are more people who even talk about Serena as the possible GOAT than Evert at this point,
The guys putting Nadal above Fed are just trying to create talking points to sell the sport, or are those pundits who change their mind more often than Rihanna changes her hairstyle (i.e. McEnroe).
Er....what about Navratilova winning Wimbledon (the most prestigious slam) 9 times compared to Evert's 3? Or being ranked No 1 more for years than her? Or winning six slams in a row in 1983-84?
There are in fact several reasons for ranking Nav > Evert, and many of them have nothing to do with their H2H.
Serena cannot be ranked ahead of Evert by any means, so I would question the intelligence of those who do so.
It isnt about Nadal being the GOAT though (despite the thread title). It isnt even about Nadal being better than Federer. It is that Federer being so badly owned his chief rival and a fellow major all time great clearly is not the GOAT and can never be. No athlete can be called GOAT when they are so embarassingly owned by their biggest rival and a fellow legend. No other GOAT candidate in tennis is so badly owned by a major rival either, men or women. Not Sampras, not Borg, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Nadal, not Graf, not Navratilova, not Evert, not Serena. Only Federer.
It is like if Seles was never stabbed and had ended up with a 30-12 head to head vs Graf. Even if she still won 18 or 19 slams nobody would consider her the female GOAT today. I am not saying that would have happened, but hypothetically speaking if it did nobody would even be talking about her as the GOAT today like they do.
As for your first sentence being "even off clay" is not good enough when you are totally owned on clay on top of that. Federer would have to have a distinct edge somewhere to balance out Nadal's massive clay dominance to even bring the rivalry even, and he doesnt, and the best he can do is break somewhat even otherwise. You cant pretend clay doesnt exist. Like I said earlier in the thread even if you give them only a measley 5 matches on clay and 2 matches at Roland Garros (which would make Federer a much poorer clay court player than Nadal is on grass or hard courts by far if they met that very low number of times, and would make him a much poorer clay courter than Djokovic, and barely a better one than Sampras) Nadal still would lead the head to head 13-8 and 5-2 in slams.
^ the point is, h2h is close to being meaningless when ranking the all-time greats.
I'd make the argument that Sampras/Laver/Graf/Navratilova etc. would all be considered in the exact same position they are now, even if they happened to have losing h2h's against Agassi/Rosewall/Seles/Evert respectively - assuming these guys' more important stats (no of slams won, wks at No 1, etc.) were the same as they are in reality.
The h2h is merely something Fed haters use as an excuse to bash Fed.
numbers are subjective, man...^^^ what makes Nadal a GOAT candidate? His numbers aren't there yet.
If Federer had never played Nadal at Roland Garros, and people were aware by your logic had the clay abilities of a mug while Nadal had the clay abilities of the hands down clay GOAT, and yet Federer STILL had a losing slam H2H that would come across as even more embarassing than his current situation vs Nadal already is. His already weak GOAT claims vs someone like Laver with Sampras-like clay abilities also go down to almost nothing, and the H2H vs Nadal isnt even needed for that anymore. Also Sampras has played EVERYONE who mattered at Roland Garros, so Federer with Sampras like clay abilities would still have probably played Nadal atleast once there, and probably atleast a few times on clay, still giving him no better than a weak 2-4 slam H2H and 8-11 or worse overall H2H, even now given sh1tty clay abilities which also far pull down his overall stock as a player, and people now aware the H2H is skewed in Federer's favor as much or more as it might be to Nadal now considering he now can barely reach Nadal on clay vs how frequently Nadal reaches Federer on hard courts and the very short grass season. Sorry to say but all around your fail of an attempt to improve Federer's situation flopped as hard as a Federer backhand in a baseline exchange vs Nalbandian, Djokovic, or Nadal.
Lastly a ****** accusing ANYONE else of a dubious grasp of logic. ROTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! Thanks for that, I fell off my chair reading that part.
Coming from someone who thinks old man Sampras would have beaten Safin at AO 2004. Very amusing.
I was only talking about prime Sampras, not old man Sampras. I figured the discussion was towards the former. Considering 35 year old Agassi (undoubtably much weaker than prime Sampras, even on slow hard courts) and Roddick both nearly beat him, and his finals performance sucked, hardly far fetched.
Time to put to waste this pathetic, overused and tired spin from Federer fans:
1. Davydenko does not on any planet "own" Nadal. 6-5 is not owning someone. 21-10 is.
2. While Federer fans whine that Nadal's h2h with Federer is clay heavy, Nadal in fact has a tied h2h with Federer on non clay surfaces, a winning slam h2h with Federer on non clay surfaces, along with an overwhelming h2h with Federer on clay, thus overall total ownage. Davydenko can only beat Nadal on 1 of 3 surfaces- hard courts, while Nadal can also beat Davydenko easily on hard courts any given day, and Davydenko has absolutely no chance on the other 2 surfaces. Fortunately for Davydenko he is such a total mug on grass they will never play there, and they even rarely play on clay.
3. Most importantly of all Davydenko has never beaten Nadal in a slam. He has never even gotten far enough to play Nadal in a slam. Nadal meanwhile owns Federer where it counts the most, slams, 8-2 despite equal number of meetings on and off clay. Given that Davydenko has reached 0 slam finals he might have a 2-8 record vs Nadal in slams if they met 10 times if he was super lucky (and I mean super lucky, 1-9 or 0-10 would be far more likely).
So sorry to burst the Federer fanboy bubble but in no way is Davydenko-Nadal ever comparable to Federer-Nadal, are a successful copout for Federer of his terrible record vs by far his biggest career rival and a fellow top 5 player all time. Someone should simply copy and paste the above and post it anytime a Federer fan uses the Davydenko vs Nadal copout.
I was only talking about prime Sampras, not old man Sampras. I figured the discussion was towards the former. Considering 35 year old Agassi (undoubtably much weaker than prime Sampras, even on slow hard courts) and Roddick both nearly beat him, and his finals performance sucked, hardly far fetched.
Let me add one more thing .....Davydenko and Nadal have never even played a five set match !!!!
You youngsters here may not know this but real tennis is 5 sets and the best of three is a bunch of b.s.......best of three is womens tennis.
It's like playing 4 innings of baseball
In order to understand this concept we have to go back and ask "where did the best of three sets for men begin ".....
Back in the day all tennis matches were the best of five ......but promoters got greedy . They wanted more tournaments .
Players were getting injured ....so they came up with the idea of best of three for men. This way more matches , more money , less injuries.
But make no mistake about it .....best of three is half a match .....it's like playing 4 innings of baseball .
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?
you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade.
If Federer had a winning h2h with Nadal then Nadal would be a nobody compared to his current standards. He'd have less slams, less time at #1, no masters record and unbroken clay court dominance. He'd probably be included as part of Federer's weak competition if only Federer managed to win those close matches in the past.
Since 2008 when Nadal lost his clay court status he is 14-4 !!!!!
He is UNDEFEATED in all sl matches since that time .
you guys attribute it to Fed getting older , mono bla bla bla bla bla.....
You give no credit to the undeniable fact that Nadal simply got better and learned to play on surfaces other than clay ....despite the fact that even Federer admits that Nadal has improved since that time .
It's practically utter domination .
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?
you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
Roddick, Safin (up to the final) and Agassi were all playing at a high level that tournament. Sampras would have struggled with any of them. Age and their names are unimportant, they were all in good form.
You mean Agassi at #3 and Roddick at #1? Considering Sampras in 2002 couldn't beat Safin at AO, I highly doubt he could beat Safin at AO 2004. Agassi was defending champion at AO and is superior on rebound ace than Sampras.
Ahh, but an year ago you quickly dismissed Lupica's claim that Federer was the GOAT on the belief that he was one of the "moneymen" who was interested in presenting modern tennis players in the best light possible.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6787911&postcount=7
And now you have an issue with people pointing out Lupica's obvious use of sensationalism? LOL.
Nadal is the man of the hour so Lupica kisses his ***. Last year it was Federer.
67 winning percentage is NOT owning, and most of the meeting was on Rafa's best and Roger's worst surface.
Roger is 19-2 against Davydenko(Nadal is 5-6), now that's owning.
67 winning percentage is NOT owning, and most of the meeting was on Rafa's best and Roger's worst surface.
.
Lupica has probably watched the big 4 against each other enough times to know Rafa is the obvious goat. Fed is 35-45 (44%)vs the big 4 - that is no goat material. He's a flop vs the very best. Rafa is an impressive 55-30 (65%) v the big 4.
There's is only room for four.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/o...st-history-respective-sport-article-1.1129218
And even if there's room to add a few more, Nadal still doesn't qualify. Sugar Ray Robinson, Gretzky or Pele probably take those spots.
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?
you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
Lupica said:"How can he be the best player of all time," Lupica asked of Federer, "when he isn't even the best of his time? I mean, can you really call Roger Federer the greatest when there is a guy playing alongside him, during his exact time period, that he can't beat?"
Lupica has probably watched the big 4 against each other enough times to know Rafa is the obvious goat. Fed is 35-45 (44%)vs the big 4 - that is no goat material. He's a flop vs the very best. Rafa is an impressive 55-30 (65%) v the big 4.
Lastly 2001 Australian Open was definitely not prime Sampras which is what the topic was about.
Well if he said Fed was goat the he would be Einstein of course.
His logic makes perfect sense.
Funny you should mention Einstein.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Are you really expecting anything from posting that Lupica quote over and over and over ad nauseam...?
Oh man, this thread in a nutshell.
I am not surprised you know so little about Vader's career. Do you know he was on a 20-odd-year winning streak (counting from the time of Luke's birth to his fluke win on slippery surface)?
I'm glad you brought Einstein up .
By Einsteins definition Federer is insane .
Fed keeps doing the same things against Nadal and he tries nothing new .
Pure insanity .
Funny you should mention Einstein.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."